1 Leave of Absence 2019.06.17

SENATE Monday, June 17, 2019 The Senate met at 10.00 a.m. PRAYERS

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair] LEAVE OF ABSENCE Madam President: Hon. Senators, I have granted leave of absence to Sen. The Hon. Jennifer Baptiste-Primus and to Sen. Garvin Simonette, both of whom are out of the country. ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS Madam President: Hon. Senators, I am awaiting the instruments of appointment, and therefore I will defer the swearing in of the temporary Senators to later in the proceedings. VISITOR His Excellency Arthur H. W. Williams (High Commissioner to Jamaica) Madam President: Hon. Senators, may I also acknowledge the presence of the High Commissioner to Jamaica, His Excellency Arthur H. W. Williams who is seated in the Presiding Officers Gallery. Hon. Senators, as all of you may recall, on May 28, 2019, the fifth Prime Minister of Jamaica, the most hon. Edward Seaga, ON PC, passed away. His Excellency, the Jamaican High Commissioner has made available to the Office of Parliament a condolence book which will give Members of Parliament the opportunity to express their condolences. This book is now open in the Sir Ellis Clarke corridor, Mezzanine Floor, Office of the Parliament and will remain available on Tuesday, June 19th and Friday, June 21st for all Members to pay their

UNREVISED 2 Visitor (cont’d) 2019.06.17 respects. So may we all just welcome His Excellency to the Chamber. [Desk thumping] MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (TAX AMNESTY, PENSIONS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, NATIONAL INSURANCE, CENTRAL BANK, COMPANIES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS) BILL, 2019 Bill to provide a tax amnesty in relation to certain revenue laws and to amend the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act, Chap. 2:03; the President’s Emoluments Act, Chap. 2:50; the Prime Minister’s Pensions Act, Chap. 2:51; the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act, Chap. 6:02; the Freedom of Information Act, Chap. 22:02; the National Insurance Act, Chap. 32:01; the Central Bank Act, Chap. 79:02; the Companies Act, Chap. 81:01 and the Non- Profit Organisations Act, 2019 (Act No. 7 of 2019), brought from the House of Representatives [The Minister of Finance]; read the first time. Motion made: That the next stage be taken later in the proceedings. [Hon. F. Khan] Question put and agreed to. PAPERS LAID 1. Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Works and Transport to the Sixth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Land and Physical Infrastructure on an Inquiry into the Establishment of Systems for the Maintenance of Drainage and Roadways. [The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat)] 2. Delegation Report on the Equality and Justice Forum for Commonwealth Parliamentarians, Cape Town, South Africa, February 18-20, 2019. [Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye]

UNREVISED 3 Papers Laid (cont’d) 2019.06.17

3. Annual Patent and Consolidated Audited Financial Statements of Point Lisas Industrial Port Development Corporation Limited (PLIPDECO) for the financial year ended December 31, 2018. [The Minister in the Ministry of Finance (Sen. The Hon. Allyson West)] 4. Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Finance to the Ninth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Social Services and Public Administration on an inquiry into the state of contract employment in the public service. [Sen. The Hon. A. West] 5. Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Public Utilities to the Fifth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Finance and Legal Affairs on a Critical Assessment of the Waste Management Policies and Initiatives of the State (with specific focus on Solid Waste). [The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries (Sen. The Hon. Franklin Khan)] 6. Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Education to the Eighth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Social Services and Public Administration on its First Follow-up Inquiry into the current level of violence among students in schools with particular focus on physical and cyber bullying. [Sen. The Hon. F. Khan] 7. Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Public Administration to the Ninth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Social Services and Public Administration on an inquiry into the state of contract employment in the public service. [Sen. The Hon. F. Khan] 8. Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Labour and Small Enterprise Development to the Ninth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Social Services and Public Administration on an inquiry into the state of contract employment in the public service. [Sen. The Hon. F. Khan]

UNREVISED 4 Urgent Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17

URGENT QUESTIONS Immigration Detention Centre (Payment of Staff Salaries) Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] To the Minister of National Security: In light of the failure of Government to make salary payments to staff at the Immigration Detention Centre, can the Minister indicate what is being done to address this issue? Madam President: Minister of National Security. [Desk thumping] The Minister of National Security, Minister of Communications and Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister (Hon. Stuart Young): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, the Director of Finance and Accounts looked into this matter yesterday and all arrangements are being made to have these salaries paid today. Instructions have been given to do all that can be done to ensure, or to prevent this from reoccurring. It appears as though, unfortunately, the paperwork for those who are on contract and short-term employees was not done with sufficient time. So instructions have been given to make sure and have this done with at least one week’s space in between so that payments in the future can be made on time. I take the opportunity to apologize to those workers at the Immigration Detention Centre who were affected. Sen. Mark: Can the hon. Minister indicate to this honourable Senate how many workers were involved, both permanent and contract? Madam President: Minister? Hon. S. Young: Madam President, the permanent workers would not have been affected. Unfortunately, throughout the public service, what happens is contract workers and, more particularly, short-term employees are paid after the permanent staff and public servants are paid; so this is what occurred on this occasion, and I

UNREVISED 5 Urgent Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17 do not have the numbers as to how many would have been on short-term contracts. What I have also asked the Permanent Secretary to do is to look at—they were doing an exercise—an HR exercise—to hire persons into contract positions. Once that is completed, the short-term persons should no longer exist, I hope, and this would not reoccur in the future. Sen. Mark: Can the Minister indicate whether the basis for this particular development has to do with a cash-flow problem affecting the Government of Trinidad and Tobago that has resulted in this development? Can you share with this honourable House if it is a cash-flow problem? Madam President: Sen. Mark, I would not allow that question. Next question, Sen. Mark. Venezuelan Visa Regime (Provision of Additional Resources) Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] To the Minister of National Security: In light of the introduction of a visa regime for visitors from Venezuela, can the Minister inform the Senate whether additional resources will be provided to the Embassy in Venezuela to process applications? Madam President: Minister of National Security? [Desk thumping] The Minister of National Security, Minister of Communications and Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister (Hon. Stuart Young): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I have been in discussions with the Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs as to how this would be carried out from our embassy in Caracas, which is currently staffed. It is not necessarily additional resources. As the Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs has said previously, there were certain staff who were there and rotating in and out. So what we are looking at is ensuring that we would have sufficient resources there, and the

UNREVISED 6 Urgent Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17 approval of these visas will come from headquarters. So what it would be, of applications done in Caracas, and then headquarters would say yea or nay to the applications that are made in Caracas. Madam President: Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Can the hon. Minister indicate to this Senate whether a cost is going to be attached to these visas that would be issued in Port of Spain via persons who are willing to come to Trinidad from Venezuela? Madam President: Minister? Hon. S. Young: Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, as is normal with all visa applications, for example when one applies to the United States Embassy, to the Canadian Embassy, the British High Commission, there are always administrative costs attached to the application for visas. It will be no different in this circumstance. Madam President: Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Can the Minister indicate whether the Government has taken a decision thus far as to the cost, the actual value that would be attached to a visitor from Venezuela as it relates to accessing visas to Trinidad and Tobago? Can you identify a specific number that they will have to pay in terms of figures? Madam President: Minister? Hon. S. Young: Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, all of the information pertaining to the visas, the visa application process, the cost associated, all of the logistical elements that will attach itself to this visa application, will be provided in the not-too-distant future. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries (Sen. The Hon. Franklin Khan): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, the

UNREVISED 7 Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Government is pleased to indicate that it will be answering all three questions on notice on the Order Paper and on the written answers we will be answering Question 270. We ask for a deferral of 269 for two weeks. The other questions are not due as yet. Sen. Mark: That is on written? Madam President: That is the written, yes. Sen. Mark: Okay, thank you. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION North Central Regional Health Authority (Details of Moneys Owed) 270. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of Health: As regards suppliers and service providers who are owed moneys by the North Central Regional Health Authority, in excess of ninety (90) days, can the Minister of Health provide the following: (i.) the names of said suppliers and service providers; (ii.) the dates on which the debts were contracted; and (iii.) the dates by which payment would be made? Vide end of sitting for written answer. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Investigation of Registrar General’s Department (Measures to Safeguard Documents) 180. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Attorney General: In light of reports that the Fraud Squad has now expanded the Registrar General’s Department investigation to include land deeds and marriage certificates, can the Attorney General indicate what further measures have been taken to safeguard these public documents?

UNREVISED 8 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17

The Minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs (Hon. Fitzgerald Hinds): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, the report that the Fraud Squad of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service has expanded the investigation of certain specific matters at the Registrar General’s office to include marriage certificates, land titles, is completely erroneous. Further, the policies and procedures of the Registrar General’s Department, Land Registry and Civil Registry to ensure that all deeds and marriage certificates, which are issued are safeguarded, remain the same. Further still, Madam President, the Government will soon ensure that electronic payments for all services at the Registrar General’s office become available to all members of the public, and very shortly, persons will be able to apply online, providing their IDs, paying online, and these services will be mailed out. This is going to apply across the board as the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs continues to increase the security arrangements around every aspect of the Registrar General’s Department. I thank you, Madam President. Madam President: Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Can the Minister indicate whether there have been any instances of fraud involving land deeds and marriage certificates since the discovery of fraud involving birth certificates? Madam President: No, Sen. Mark, I would not allow that question. Next question, Sen. Mark? Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (Removal and Replacement of) 181. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Attorney General:

UNREVISED 9 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Can the Attorney General indicate whether the Government intends to remove the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB) from under the Office of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs and place same under the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service? Sen. Mark: I would like, under Standing Order 27(17), to withdraw Question 181. Question, by leave, withdrawn. 2016 Local Government Elections Report (Laying of Report in Parliament) 182. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of Rural Development and Local Government: In light of the statement made by the Chairman of the Elections and Boundaries Commission that the 2016 Local Government Elections Report was submitted to the Minister on June 12, 2017, can the Minister indicate when will said report be laid in the Parliament? The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries (Sen. The Hon. Franklin Khan): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, the Ninth Report of the Elections and Boundaries Commission under the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap. 23:04 and the Elections and Boundaries Commission (Local Government and Tobago House of Assembly) Act, Chap. 25:50, for the purpose of local government election, was laid in the House of Representatives on April 05, 2019, and has been available on the parliamentary website since then. Sen. Mark: Madam President? Madam President: Yes, Senator. Sen. Mark: Madam President, can the hon. Minister indicate to this House why this report, which was given to the Government by the Elections and

UNREVISED 10 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Boundaries Commission since the 12th of June, 2017, was only laid on the table of Parliament on April the 5th, 2019? Can the Minister explain the delay in this development? Madam President: Sen. Mark, that question does not arise from your question and the answer posed. Any further questions? Sen. Mark: Madam President, can the Minister indicate whether there was any attempt by the Government to deny the Parliament access to a very important report that dealt with local government elections and municipal corporation elections by not making that report immediately available to the Parliament? [Desk thumping] Madam President: Sen. Mark, I will not allow that question. Sen. Mark: Madam President, can the Minister indicate to the Parliament, through you, whether such delays as we have witnessed, would be addressed in some amendment to ROPA, that is the Representation of the People Act, to ensure, Madam President, when a report is submitted by the EBC, it is promptly laid in the Parliament? [Desk thumping] Can the Minister indicate whether the Government is intent on amending ROPA in order to address this obvious and manifest deficiency? Madam President: Sen. Mark, that question does not arise. ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS Madam President: Hon. Senators, with your leave, may I return to Item 2 on the Order Paper? I am in receipt of the instruments. SENATORS’ APPOINTMENT Madam President: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

UNREVISED 11 Senators’ Appointment (cont’d) 2019.06.17

By Her Excellency PAULA-MAE WEEKES, O.R.T.T., President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. /s/ Paula-Mae Weekes President. TO: MR. WAYNE A. M. INNISS WHEREAS Senator the Honourable Jennifer Baptiste-Primus is incapable of performing her duties as a Senator by reason of her absence from Trinidad and Tobago: NOW, THEREFORE, I, PAULA-MAE WEEKES, President as aforesaid, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 44(1)(a) and section 44(4)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you, WAYNE A. M. INNISS, to be a member of the Senate temporarily, with effect from 17th June, 2019 and continuing during the absence from Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator the Honourable Jennifer Baptiste-Primus. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago at the Office of the President, St. Ann’s, this 17th day of June, 2019.” “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By Her Excellency PAULA-MAE WEEKES, O.R.T.T., President of the Republic of Trinidad

UNREVISED 12 Senators’ Appointment (cont’d) 2019.06.17

and Tobago and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. /s/ Paula-Mae Weekes President. TO: MR. HARVEY BORRIS WHEREAS Senator Garvin Simonette is incapable of performing his duties as a Senator by reason of his absence from Trinidad and Tobago: NOW, THEREFORE, I, PAULA-MAE WEEKES, President as aforesaid, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 44(1)(a) and section 44(4)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you, HARVEY BORRIS, to be a member of the Senate temporarily, with effect from 17th June, 2019 and continuing during the absence from Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator Garvin Simonette. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago at the Office of the President, St. Ann’s, this 17th day of June, 2019.” OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Senators Wayne Inniss and Harvey Borris took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (TAX AMNESTY, PENSIONS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, NATIONAL INSURANCE, CENTRAL BANK, COMPANIES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS) BILL, 2019 The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): Thank you, Madam President. I beg to move:

UNREVISED 13 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

That a Bill to provide for a tax amnesty in relation to certain revenue laws and to amend the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act, Chap. 2:03; the President’s Emoluments Act, Chap. 2:50; the Prime Minister’s Pensions Act, Chap. 2:51; the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act, Chap. 6:02; the Freedom of Information Act, Chap. 22:02; the National Insurance Act, Chap. 32:01; the Central Bank Act, Chap. 79:02; the Companies Act, Chap. 81:01 and the Non-Profit Organisations Act, 2019 (Act No. 7 of 2019), be now read a second time. Madam President, hon. Senators would have received a copy of the Bill as amended in the House of Representatives. And as we come upon an amendment made, I will explain the purpose and intent of that amendment that was made in the other place. The first part of the Bill deals with a tax amnesty, and when you go to the Bill you will see that the tax amnesty was intended to commence on Saturday, the 15th of June, 2019, and it is proposed it will last until the 15th of September, 2019, “or such other date as the Minister with responsibility for finance may, by Order, prescribe”. The reason for the part 2(b) of this clause is that we wish to get the additional revenue from the amnesty in this fiscal year, but if on the 15th of September, or close to the 15th of September, we receive requests from the usual last-minute persons that they would like another few days, the purpose of this is to allow the Minister of Finance to extend a week or 10 days, as the case may be. But we do wish, at this point in time, to get the revenue into this fiscal year. So it is not intended to be open-ended and stretch into next year, and so on. That is the reason for that. Hopefully, we would not have to exercise that authority.

UNREVISED 14 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

With respect to the way we have done this, it is a little different to what has been done before. In previous amnesties, including the one that I tabled in the Parliament in 2016, I think that was in the Finance Act of 2016, Act No. 2, I believe, what we had done was done it in longhand, for want of a better term, and we had spelt out every single type of tax, and so on. What the Chief Parliamentary Counsel has come up with this time—and I think it is quite elegant—is that we have listed all of the revenue laws in the Schedule. That was one of the items that was amended in the other place, and the intention is that every form of taxation where penalties and interest are due and payable because of late payment or non- payment, as the case may be, we are waiving those penalties and interest on those particular taxes. So we have tried to capture all of them that are relevant, and I think we have. If I jump to the Schedule, what I would see is that the revenue laws that would be impacted upon by this amendment would be the Registration of Clubs Act, the Income Tax Act, the Corporation Tax Act, the Unemployment Levy Act, the Petroleum Taxes Act, the Health Surcharge Act, the Value Added Tax Act, the Stamp Duty Act, section 54 of the Property Tax Act. And let me just pause here. That is a section which maintained and continued liabilities due under the old Land and Building Taxes Act which was repealed in 2009. If you go to section 54 of the Property Tax Act what you will see is that all land and building taxes that were due and payable upon the repeal of the Land and Building Taxes Act, nearly 10 years ago, are still due and payable. And you have some persons who did not pay their land and building taxes, for whatever reason, and now wish to transfer title, and the mortgaging institutions insist that before title

UNREVISED 15 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) is transferred, before conveyance takes place, that all taxes, levies, charges, and so on, on property, be fully paid up. And this would apply to things like WASA— WASA rates, and so on. So that you find there are quite a number of persons who may not have paid their land and building taxes in 2009. It could be two reasons: One, they thought that they no longer had to pay them because the Act was repealed, or for another reason, they just did not do it at the particular time. So 10 years later these outstanding land and building taxes would have attracted a considerable liability in terms of penalties and interest. So section 54 of the Property Tax Act is included here and any interest and penalties that would apply to outstanding land and building taxes would now be waived. Parts IX, XI, XIII, XIV, and XV of the Miscellaneous Taxes Act relate to special taxes, such as the Green Fund levy, the hotel tax, the insurance premium tax, and so on, and then we also bring in the Tourism Development Act. And if I go back to front now, we have defined for the purpose of this Bill that a tax includes a levy, so wherever the word “tax” exists, it also means levy, which would mean it would apply to Business Levy and apply to the Green Fund Levy, so that we think we have captured everything. I do not think there is— [Interruption] Yeah, sure. 10.30 a.m. Sen. S. Hosein: Minister, now I saw that the date for the amnesty will kick in on the 15th of June, 2019, which has gone. Will the Bill be amended so that these few days that have passed, whether or not it would be given back to the persons who would like to claim a benefit under the tax amnesty?

UNREVISED 16 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Hon. C. Imbert: The date is retrospective, Madam President. It is well known, that if you are providing a benefit, which this is, you do not require a special majority—[Interruption] I know, I am going to explain. You asked a question. Madam President, I do not know what the problem is. He asked a question; he does not want me to answer it. So that when you provide a benefit, it can be retrospective, so the actual amnesty began on Saturday the 15th of June. What the Board of Inland Revenue has done. and this was the part I was going to tell you if you had not tried to stop me, the Inland Revenue, recognizing that we may not have completed this process by the 15th of June, because the original intention was that this Bill be debated last Monday and therefore it would have been all settled through the Senate, and we would have had whatever amendments that may have come from the Senate sorted out on Friday the 14th, so it would have meant that the 15th would have been completely in line with what was in the legislation. So the Inland Revenue Division came to me last week and said they have decided—because they are getting a lot of requests from persons who wish to pay their outstanding taxes—this always happens in an amnesty period—and they made a decision—this is the board, on its own without asking me to intervene— that they will exercise their administrative powers and that from today, they will begin to accept outstanding taxes from persons who may not have paid and we expect that by Friday, this Bill will be assented to by the President, but the amnesty is in effect administratively since Saturday the 15th of June. Okay? All right. Now moving along, we had a little debate, you will see that we have amended clause 2(2). You will see we have added in the words “prior to or”. The Bill, as originally drafted, would only have waived penalties and interests for persons who

UNREVISED 17 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) paid their tax during the amnesty period. Now, we had a little debate about that because there was a point of view on one side that if a person is outside the amnesty, in other words, they paid their tax last year but they paid it late and penalties and interest are accruing on that tax, should they get the advantage of the amnesty or not. But when we went back and looked at it from an historical perspective, this is what we did in 2016 and this is what we did in 2015, so it then came down to what was the right thing to do. So you have a person who has not paid their taxes getting the benefit of waiver of penalties and interest and a person who did pay their taxes not getting the benefit of, so we thought the right thing to do was to include a waiver of penalties and interest for people who had partially complied and paid their taxes. So that is why we added in the words “prior to or during”. So it means anything that was due and payable as of the 15th of June in terms of penalties and interest is now waived. With respect to 2(b), we needed also to do some clarification on exactly what we are talking about because we do not want any ambiguity, so if you look at 2(b), 2(c) in particular. Let us look at 2(c), you will see: “All other penalties due and payable on or in respect of any tax or outstanding tax or interest…” So we do not want any other clever person to interpret this law to say well, outstanding tax and tax are different. Yes, Sen. Taharqa. Sen. Obika: Hon. Minister, just seeking clarification, through you, Madam President, regarding the persons where the tax is paid prior to, is it that the benefit, well the rebate, will be given on a carried-forward basis? So for example, if they pay their taxes, let us say in May and they would have incurred a penalty in May,

UNREVISED 18 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) will that penalty rebate be given to them when they pay their taxes going forward? Hon. C. Imbert: No, it is if you did not pay your interest and penalties, but we did not think we could go that far that if you had paid your tax, paid your interest and penalty, “nah, we not going that far”. That will be stretching it, [Laughter] that will be really pushing it. Okay. So, any questions Members may have and we have the Minister in the Ministry of Finance will also be speaking, so any questions you all have on which taxes will be applicable, what penalties and interest, we can deal with this during the debate. Okay. So I think it is quite clear that we have covered everything. And if you go to (3), you will see, and this is 2(3): “For the avoidance of doubt, the waiver under this section shall not— (a) affect any liability to tax due and payable by a person…” So we are not going to waive tax. We are simply waiving penalties and interest. In other words, we want to make it crystal clear that you do not get a waiver on tax that you owe, what you get a waiver on is penalties and interest. Okay? And again, to answer your question, Sen. Obika, if you look at 2(3)(b), it will not apply to any interest and penalties paid prior to the 15th of June, 2019. Okay? And we ARE also waiving penalties with respect to persons who have not submitted returns because penalties are imposed on all sorts of things: on tax that is owed and on returns that have not being filed. So there is a penalty for not filing a return and now that penalty will be waived during this amnesty period, 15th June to 15th September. So I think it is all quite straightforward, it is all self-explanatory but we are here to answer any queries that any Members may have. “Leh we” move on now to the next item and clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 are similar so

UNREVISED 19 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) let me deal with them in their totality. At the present time, Madam President, there are a number of retired judges, a number of retired legislators, who are receiving an extremely small pension. I am aware of a former UNC Minister who went out in the 2001 period, whose pension at this time cannot cover the medical bills of himself and his wife and that particular UNC Minister has approached the former administration and approached us for redress. There was an attempt by the former Government, in 2014 I believe, it is either 2014 or 2015 but I think it was 2014, to address the situation but the Government at the time withdrew their attempt to improve the pensions for persons such as that, that retired UNC Minister, because of a perception that it could cause a loss of the 2015 election. The irony is “they still lost the election” so we could have been spared a lot of headache if that—amendments could have been made but we could have been spared a lot of headache if that had been passed at that time. [Crosstalk] But we are here now, and as I said, I am aware of a former UNC Minister whose pension is less than 10,000 a month, whose medical bills are more than 10,000 a month, that of his spouse and he is reduced to penury and in fact, he approached the Government, this administration, to allow him access to a HDC house because he has to sell his house to pay his medical bills for himself and his spouse and this is someone who served in this Parliament for 20 years. We also have a former PNM Minister who went out in 1995 after serving two terms and therefore, did not qualify for any large pension and let me explain all of this. The amounts that people get for pension vary. It is not fixed. It is depending on the number of years that you have served. So that if you served for five years and you made this amendment for Sen. Mark, in the last time we had amended this,

UNREVISED 20 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Sen. Mark had approached us to make the amendment, we were in Government then and we did, and we made an adjustment so that if you serve for five years, you get one-sixth of your salary, prior to that there was an anomaly and certain persons—what could happen with these things, Madam President, you could miss it by “ah day eh know”, you could miss it by three days. The five years, the eight years, the 10 years, the 11 years, the 15 years, you could miss it by a day. So that we made an adjustment on a previous occasion to assist a particular individual. But there is a particular PNM Minister who just served two terms and that person is bedridden. Their pension would be somewhere in the vicinity of $4, 500 or $5, 000 a month and the person cannot take care of themselves and it is somebody who served this country faithfully and well as a Cabinet Minister for two terms and this person will benefit from the amendments that we are about to make. I am also aware of a former Chief Justice who gets a pension of just around $10,000 a month and again, medical bills and other commitments make it very, very difficult for that particular individual to enjoy his life in retirement. This is someone who served again faithfully and well as a Chief Justice. I have recounted a story in the other place and I will recount it here, that when I was elected first as the Member of Parliament for Diego Martin North East, I encountered a retired judge living in my constituency and there are many of them living in my constituency. I encountered a retired judge whose pension at that time was somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 a month. He could not afford to maintain his house, he was living in poverty and he died in poverty. That was in the year 1992 and there are many, many other stories. You have several persons who were in the 1981 Cabinet who are not well, who have suffered debilitating strokes and

UNREVISED 21 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) other severe illnesses, Madam President, whose pension is a pittance. In fact, what we do every time we adjust the minimum pension, the old age pension and the public servants’ pension, we also adjust the legislators’ pension to the senior citizen’s pension of $4,500. So you have several retired persons from the 1981 Parliament who are getting at most $4,500 a month as a pension in 2019. And there are many other retired judges, there are many of them who retired years ago whose pensions just simply cannot maintain just their medical bills alone, so that we think it is time to deal with this matter on principle. And let me give you some examples of this PNM administration. This PNM administration has addressed a number of matters on principle regardless of the personalities involved. For example, we have agreed to the appointment of a Commissioner of Police who was a former UNC Minister because we thought that person was the best person for the job. We have appointed a former UNC Minister to be Chairman of the National Carnival Commission because we felt that person was the best person for the job. I, as Minister of Finance, left a former Attorney General of the NAR as the Chairman of the First Citizens Bank that reports to me as Minister of Finance, a person I contested election against in 1991, Madam President, a former NAR Attorney General. I met him as Chairman of FCB, I maintained his chairmanship as Chairman of FCB because I thought he was the best person for the job and we recently renewed his chairmanship as Chairman of FCB. This is a former NAR Attorney General who contested an election against me in 1991. Those are three examples I am giving, Madam President, to demonstrate how we do business over here. And we are of the view that it is a travesty that persons should oppose things

UNREVISED 22 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) of this nature simply to score some sort of political benefit. As I indicated on the last occasion, the last Government withdrew the Pensions (Amdt.) Bill and still lost the general election of 2015 and we are steadfast in our resolve that there are far too many people who have served this country faithfully and well, judges and legislators, who are living in poverty and should therefore benefit from these enhancements. Now, there is a lot of misinformation in the system, Madam President, a lot of misinformation from persons who wish to cloud the reality and create mass confusion. What we have sought to do is to look at what exists in various pension laws in Trinidad and Tobago and harmonize the arrangements as best as is possible, because as I indicated, the pension arrangements are different for everyone. For example, a senior police officer who serves, you know, a long time in the police service and it is possible for someone to come into the Police Service at the age of 17 or 18 and serve until 60 years old if they rise to the level of Commissioner of Police and that person would have been in the system for 43 years. And in the police service pension arrangements, it is possible for a senior police officer to acquire a pension of 92 per cent of their emoluments and that is in the current Police Service Pension Regulations as we speak. Other categories of police officers can get up to 85 per cent of their salary and I will read it into the record so that people will understand what the facts are. And this is the Police Service Act, Chap. 15:01, Sixth Schedule, Pensions and Gratuities rules. This is rule number 7, and rule number 7 states: “The amount of any pension payable to…”—a police—“officer…shall not

UNREVISED 23 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) exceed 85 per cent of his final pay for the year in which he retires…” And then it goes on. For particular individuals, they can get up to 92 and a half per cent actually of their final pay. So across the board, there is no uniformity in the way we deal with pensions and the way how pensions are applied to various categories of officers. I just thought that I would say that, that the vast majority of police officers can get up to 85 per cent of their final pay when legislators get two- thirds, judges, in fact, can get up to 85 per cent if they serve long enough and public servants get two-thirds. So there is no uniformity in the way we treat with pensions and gratuities with respect to various officers. Each case is different. So what we sought to do was to look at the Pensions Act and that is Chap. 23:52: “An Act to regulate pensions, gratuities and other allowances to be granted in respect of the public service of Officers in Trinidad and Tobago.” And this would be for persons like Permanent Secretaries and other senior public servants who would be in receipt of a housing allowance. And the definition of “pensionable emoluments”: “…in respect of service under the Government of Trinidad and Tobago includes salary, personal allowance, inducement allowance, house allowance or the estimated value of free quarters and any fees paid out of the Treasury by way of salary except that the amount to be allowed for house rent or for estimated value of free quarters shall not exceed one-sixth…” And this would be one-sixth of the salary. “nor the amount to be allowed for fees one-fourth, of the actual salary of the office;”

UNREVISED 24 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

So the definition of “pensionable emoluments” for public servants, senior public servants, and this is Act No. 16 of 1934 so it has been in effect now for 85 years that the house allowance is added to the salary and other allowances that some public servants would have received. For example, the PS Ministry of Energy is treated as a special case and gets a special allowance for the fact that they are the PS Ministry of Energy. So that is an example of a personal allowance that someone might get. And so we thought we could use this definition to harmonize the pensionable emoluments of everyone. So when you go to the Bill, you will see that what we have done is that we have redefined salary for the purposes of pension and we have defined it for all four categories: the President, the Prime Minister, the legislators and judges to be personal allowance and housing allowance. And an argument has been made that public servants can only get one-sixth of their salary as housing allowance. I looked last night at what a Permanent Secretary gets as a housing allowance, it is $7,750 and I looked at the PS Finance, for example, their salary is $34,400. So when you take one-sixth of that, you get close to $6,000. So that the difference between what they will get for pension purposes and what they actually get as a housing allowance is just over $1,000, it is not much but there is a much more important point. The public servants do not contribute to their pension, legislators do. So that we legislators, we contribute 6 per cent of our salary to pension and if you take the period for a legislator to qualify for a full pension, 21 years in aggregate, and you take the value of that 6 per cent over the 21-year period for a Permanent Secretary, if they were asked to contribute the same thing that a legislator contributes, I have worked it out at

UNREVISED 25 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) various return rates and using a very miniscule return rate of 3 per cent per annum, I get that a Permanent Secretary, if they had been asked to contribute 6 per cent of their salary and I have looked at the changes in the Permanent Secretary’s salary over the last 21 years. As it evolved over the years, it went from $20 to $27 to $34 and I have done the calculations. And if a Permanent Secretary was required to contribute to their pension now in order to enjoy the full house allowance for purposes of their pension, they would have to contribute $600,000. And of course, we are not going to ask anybody to do that. And therefore if you are looking at parity, you have legislators who contribute 6 per cent of their salary and therefore we felt that it was not unreasonable that a legislator’s full housing allowance be added to the salary for the purposes of pension because the public servant, although he is limited to one-sixth of his salary in terms of the addition of the housing allowance, does not contribute to his pension, and if you use other interest rates such as 5 per cent, it goes up to $800,000. If you use 6 per cent per annum as getting the present value of money, it goes up to $1 million is what a Permanent Secretary would have to contribute in order to get to the level of what a legislator has to do. Now, a lot of noise has been made in the public domain that these provisions will not benefit retired Prime Ministers and retired—by the way, Madam President, how much more time do I have? Madam President: You finish at eight minutes past 11. Hon. C. Imbert: Okay, so I have 16 minutes. Okay, I will try and hustle. A lot of confusion has been made about some allegation that these amendments

UNREVISED 26 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

will not benefit retired judges and retired Prime Ministers who took an option of a reduced pension and a lump sum. Now, when we did a similar amendment to the President’s Emoluments Act in 2009, which was fully supported by the Opposition then and actually proposed by the then Leader of the Opposition in the case of the spouse of a President, we put in a clause that if you have elected for a reduced pension, when the pension is reset or revised, whichever way you want to look at it, when the pension is upgraded to be based on the salary of the incumbent, we put in a provision, when we did that in 2009, that you would not be able to now reverse your option. Having claimed a reduced pension of three- quarters and got a lump sum, when the pension is reset and revised upwards, you would not now be able to revert and say, “Look, ah want ah 100 per cent of the revised pension” because you have already decided to take 75 per cent plus gratuity. So an amendment was made at the time that you cannot exercise your option twice. Because in the President’s Emoluments Act and in the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act and in the Prime Minister’s Pensions Act, there is an option that is not available to legislators that you can get a reduced pension of three-quarters of the full amount plus a gratuity. So we put in a clause to avoid somebody, one of these categories of persons, the President at the time, of when they get the revision, that they would not be able to say, “All right, I want go back to the 100 per cent”. It worked well. It was Ellis Clarke we were dealing with at the time and then the Member of Parliament for Siparia brought in the fact of President Hassanali’s spouse, Zalayhar Hassanali so we adjusted it for the spouse as well and it worked well. I am not aware that there was any one of those persons who were likely to

UNREVISED 27 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) benefit from the revision in the pension that tried to claim the 100 per cent. They claimed 75 per cent of the upgraded amount so there was no problem. It was interpreted that way and applied that way for the last 10 years but now “is ah big scene”. So what we are deciding to do and this came up in the other place on Friday so we have decided to make it crystal clear and I have been working with the CPC over the weekend, and I received from him a revised amendment this morning which I think, again, is quite elegant and what it is, I will read it. The clause will read like this and I am dealing specifically with the one with Prime Minister: A retired Prime Minister will be eligible on every fifth anniversary of the date he ceases to be Prime Minister for a revised Prime Minister’s pension equivalent to the salary payable to the incumbent on that day or three-fourth of the salary paid to the incumbent on date where he has exercised his option under section 4(2). And what that means and this will be made for the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act as well and the President’s pension Act who are the only persons who have that option, legislators do not have it, legislators just get one thing. They are not entitled to ask for a reduced pension and a gratuity. What that will mean is that every time the pension is revised for the President, the Prime Minister and judges, those who claim the three-quarter benefit plus their gratuity will now get three-quarter of the revised pension that would be the salary and allowance of the incumbent. That was the intention in 2009. It worked perfectly well between then and 2019. “All of ah sudden, is ah problem now” and therefore we have decided for the avoidance of doubt, that if somebody exercised their option to get 75 per cent then they will get 75 per cent now of the upgraded

UNREVISED 28 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) pension. I just want to make that crystal clear and that amendment will be circulated to Members shortly. But I want to put in a fact. You know when we were hearing all this complaint about this, I was wondering who on earth were they talking about because they gave the impression, they were talking about retired Prime Minister Panday. Turns out it is retired Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is the one that they want to make sure gets 75 per cent of the revised pension. [Crosstalk] Sen. S. Hosein: No, no, that is not true. That not true. You cannot be saying that man. Hon. C. Imbert: It turns out. I checked with the Treasury this morning, Madam President. Sen. S. Hosein: That is imputing improper motives. Hon. C. Imbert: I checked with the Treasury and I discovered that the former Prime Minister exercised the option of a reduced pension and therefore, when the former Prime Minister was making all that noise, she was talking about herself. That is my interpretation. [Crosstalk] Sen. S. Hosein: No, no, do not come with that. It was for judges. Hon. C. Imbert: Yeah, all right. Sen. Obika: I rise on Standing Order 46(1) respectfully. Madam President: Continue, Minister of Finance, please. Hon. C. Imbert: Madam President, I am talking about what has been reported in the newspapers on Saturday, Sunday, where you had the Member of Parliament for Oropouche East demanding to know whether a retired Prime Minister who had

UNREVISED 29 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) exercised the option would be getting the benefit of 75 per cent of the revised pension. I want to make it crystal clear. There was nothing about judges, it was retired Prime Ministers and we had one of them sitting right in front of us who had exercised the option. I just want to make that clear. Sen. Obika: I stand on Standing Order 46(6) respectfully, Madam President, please. Madam President: Minister, continue please. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you, Madam President. All right, I see I have about 10 minutes. Do I have 10 minutes left, Madam President? Madam President: You have 10 minutes. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much. “Leh we” move on to the other things. The Freedom of Information amendment, we adjusted that in the other place to keep the original time at 30 days and the time for the Attorney General to turn a “no” into a “yes” and the MP for Laventille West will clarify that. I will not go there except to say that the entire intention of that is when a statutory authority or public enterprise says “No, you cannot get the information”, the AG can intervene and turn a “no” into a “yes”. So it is all intended to provide more freedom of information, not less but I would not go into that in any great detail. The other amendment which somehow created confusion was an amendment to the National Insurance Act where we are now giving the Cabinet the power to exempt persons from the requirement to register with the National Insurance Board for a particular period of time, particular categories of persons for a particular period of time. It is by Order so the actual order has not been published yet. And this is intended to deal with transient workers who may be in Trinidad for a short

UNREVISED 30 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) period of time and would make minimum contributions to national insurance and however, receive maximum benefits, Madam President. Let me just give a few of them. If a person is in the national insurance system and has made one payment, one. So they go and sign up with national insurance or their employer signs them up and they make one weekly payment or $100 or $50 or whatever it is, they are entitled to an injury benefit if they fall ill on the job or get injured on the job which prevents them from working for four days—[Interruption] Madam President, the two Senators in front of me are disturbing me. 11.00 a.m. Madam President: Members, if we can just allow the Minister to make his presentation. Continue, Minister. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is an important point. If a person signs up for the National Insurance System for one week, they are then entitled to an injury benefit for 52 weeks. So the person gets injured on the job, cannot work four days, they will then get injury benefits for a year. Similarly, somebody who is pregnant, who signs up with the National Insurance System and pays 10 weekly payments within a three-month period, is entitled to maternity benefits and a maternity grant, Madam President. Similarly, somebody who has made one payment to the National Insurance System of a very small sum of money, a $100 or less, is entitled to a medical expense benefit of $28,000, after making one payment of $100 or less, Madam President. So, the contributions coming into the National Insurance Scheme would be a

UNREVISED 31 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) fraction of the outflow from the National Insurance Scheme, in terms of benefits that persons can claim if they are in the system for a very short period of time, in some cases one week, in other cases 10 weeks, and 10 weeks is nothing. So that, we thought that it is something that we need to look at very, very carefully and give the Cabinet the power that if a person is transiting through Trinidad and Tobago and is just working in the system for a short period of time, that we wanted to have the ability to exempt that person from the National Insurance System, because the demand on the system could be so severe, Madam President. And all of these things are on the National Insurance Board website, the fact that you can qualify for injury benefit after making one payment. The survivors ofa person can also receive a funeral grant after the person has worked just for 10 weeks, maternity benefits after 10 weeks, and so on. So that we thought that we already have the National Insurance Fund under pressure that we would allow ourselves the ability to look at it holistically and carefully and decide what we need to do with respect to transient workers. Now, let me come to another amendment that has, for reasons best known to those who are making the noise about it, become controversial, and that is the amendments to the Central Bank Act. I was asked a question by Sen. Taharqa, I hope I pronounced your— Sen. Obika: Yes, you are correct. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you, thank you. Sen. Taharqa Obika. Two months ago, in April of this year, Madam President, I was asked a question in this place as to what is the salary and allowances of the current Governor of the Central Bank. Madam President: Minister, you have five more minutes.

UNREVISED 32 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much. I asked the Central Bank to tell me, because I wanted to answer the question, and the Central Bank put up the shield of section 56 and said that the affairs of the bank are confidential and they cannot disclose them. So I was unable to answer the question. And when you look at the answer, we simply recited what the Central Bank told us. But this is an anomaly. If you go all over the world, Madam President, you go to the Bank of England, which is the equivalent of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, they have a Freedom of Information Department where, when persons ask for this kind of information, it is provided by law. When you go to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is the equivalent of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, not only are they required to disclose this by law, but they are required to disclose in a report all of the salary bands of all of their employees, Madam President, and I am reading from it right now. Executive remuneration, they give you the number of persons in the top band, which is AUD $540,000 to AUD $569,000 a year. And the salary is AUD $447,751. And then it goes down to all the other categories of staff. That is what is done in Australia, Madam President. In Canada they are also required to provide this information under their Access to Information Act. The central Bank of Canada in not exempt. In the United States, the only areas where the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the equivalent, can withhold information is matters of national defence, trade secrets or medical files. So that, in Jamaica it is even more extreme, Madam President. In Jamaica the Minister of Finance sets the salary and terms and conditions of the Governor of the Central Bank and the Governor is also required to disclose to the Minister of Finance, it is in the law, in the Bank of Jamaica Act, any or all information that the Minister requires to be disclosed to

UNREVISED 33 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) him, or to any other person authorized by the Minister to receive the information. So Jamaica is the complete opposite of what we have where the Central Bank is refusing to disclose information on its organizational structure, its staffing and the salaries of its officers. And I find it abhorrent that we are in an era where persons are demanding information from the Government, from statutory authorities, from state enterprises. In the entire world all Central Banks all over the world disclose the kind of information we are requesting, but in Trinidad and Tobago, somehow it is a sin and a crime to ask for that. It is completely counter-intuitive and contradictory. People cannot be demanding freedom of information for everybody except that, when the entire world provides this information through its Central Banks as a matter of course, as a matter of law, Madam President. So that, I do not understand the argument and what I have seen, convoluted statements that this will make the Central Bank a department of the Ministry of Finance. That is nonsense. All the amendment does is to ask for information. It does not empower the Minister to set the salaries of the persons in the bank, as is the case in Jamaica. As is the case in many other parts of the world, the Government has the right to set the salaries and terms and conditions of Governors and other staff in Central Bank, not so in Trinidad and Tobago. And this amendment is not doing that. All this amendment is saying is that if the Minister requests information, the Central Bank has to provide it. It does nothing for the independence of the bank. It does not make the bank a department of the Ministry of Finance, and I am really disappointed at the persons, the commentators I have heard saying this, Madam

UNREVISED 34 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

President. So let me move on and finish off now. What we have done is, in the last two clauses of the Bill, we have extended, or we have allowed the Minister of Finance in this particular case to extend the period for imposition of the requirements of the Non-Profit Organisations Act for up to one year to give them more breathing space, because this has been a controversial matter that these non-profit organizations may not be able to comply. So the Minister now has a power to extend the period for compliance for one year and then in the Companies Act, right now there is an amnesty on the filing of annual returns, and again we have put in a similar provision that that amnesty for the filing of annual returns can be extended. All of this is for the benefit of the persons and taxpayers of this country, Madam President. I beg to move. [Desk thumping] Question proposed. Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to make my contribution on this omnibus piece of legislation, which encompasses several amendments to about, just around nine pieces of legislation. Madam President, there is a growing practice that we see emerging in this Parliament where the Government brings omnibus pieces of legislation in which several laws are amended and we as legislators are expected to do justice to this framework containing these several pieces of legislation. Whilst it is quite legal, we believe it is highly undemocratic and it denies the legislator the ability to properly and comprehensively perform his duties to the people of our country.

UNREVISED 35 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Madam President, given these imposed and virtually undemocratic incursions by the Government, I would now have to confine myself, not because I would have liked to do it, but I am forced to do it, to focus my contribution to a few areas that are before us: the area of pension, the area of the Central Bank amendment, the NIB amendment and the FOIA. And even when it comes to the FOIA, because of the time constraint, I may not be able to get into that area. My other colleagues, of course, will elaborate as they speak, and deal with other areas. Madam President, there is no doubt that both, in terms of the FOIA, if I may say very early and the Central Bank Act, we are seeing an insertion by the politician into legislative matters that are traditionally confined to the Ministry and the officers. And in the case of the Central Bank, confined to the Board of Governors of the Central Bank. So, I have to agree with today's editorial in today's Express, entitled: “The Gov’t’s grab for power?” I will say more about that as I proceed. Madam President, I would like to look at the matter of pensions, and in looking at the various clauses of the Bill, and as you know, we have, I think clause 3, if I am not mistaken, clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6. So, I would like to confine my initial contribution to those areas that are before us. And in doing so, I would like to look at equity and fairness. I would like to look at discrimination. I will look at the constitutionality of these measures. In spite of the hasty amendment on the floor by the Minister a short while ago, it does rectify the inequity involving judges, retired judges that is, as well as former Prime Ministers. And I think it is very offensive for the Minister of Finance to come in this Parliament and accuse a

UNREVISED 36 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Member of the other House of engaging in what he would want to describe as promoting her own personal agenda. I find that very repulsive. [Desk thumping] I find it very reprehensible and very unkind. And then to come and add insult to injury, he makes reference to me, of all people, discussing with him some nonsense he mentioned. And that is absolutely untrue. It is untrue. But I did not intervene at that time because I knew I would speak. So I think it is unfair, Madam President. So, Madam President, I will put on the record that the impact of these measures on the population, and as I am on that, I have done some research, Madam President, and I have not seen anywhere in the Commonwealth, 100 per cent of housing allowance or allowances being imputed, right, Madam President, into high top office holders’ final pensions, whether it is Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, none. We are depending on the relic of a colonial piece of legislation called the Pensions Act, when the colonial had their civil servants being transported from there, England to here, and to give them incentives, they formulated in 1934 this particular personal emolument definition to satisfy their colonial workers and officers. But we are taking up this thing lock, stock and barrel and trying to apply same to Trinidad and Tobago in a modern period, Madam President. Madam President, we would like to indicate from the very outset that the provisions that are contained—and let me declare my hands. I am Senator and I have been a Senator over for 20 years. Luckily for me, luckily for me, I was a Minister. Luckily for me, I was a Speaker. And only because of that, Madam President, I qualify to get some pension.

UNREVISED 37 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Hon. Imbert: I made the changes. Sen. W. Mark: You forget about you making changes. “You eh make no changes.” That is the law. That is the law, Madam President. I “doh” depend on the goodwill of any Minister, including the Minister of Finance. [Desk thumping] And I am not subservient to any Minister or any Prime Minister, in terms of the Government of the current administration. Sen. Gopee-Scoon: You must obey the President, though. Sen. W. Mark: Yeah, I am obeying the President. I am not obeying you. Madam President, so when we look— Madam President: Just one second, Sen. Mark. Members, the proceedings here would go so much—will proceed smoothly if we allow Members to make their contributions without comment from anybody else. Continue, Sen. Mark. Sen. W. Mark: Yes so, Madam President, I make this early intervention to let you know that I will be speaking on the plight of former Senators who have served this Senate. So I wanted to declare my hands and my interest as a Senator. Madam President, in spite of what the Minister has attempted to do, the reality is that retired judges, retired former Prime Ministers, with whatever amendments that the hon. Minister has read out, which we have not seen as yet, materially speaking, Madam President, we are back to square one. So, what we have, Madam President, is a situation in which the principles, we are talking about principles, right, and the principles governing pensions, Madam President, for President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, judges, Ministers, parliamentarians, if we are going there, Madam President, we must go on the basis of equity and we must go on the basis of fairness. And it cannot be we are introducing legislation for a

UNREVISED 38 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) chosen few, Madam President. This is tantamount to greed, obscene greed, Madam President. We are all committed, Madam President, to ensuring that when somebody retires, they ought to be given a fair pension, not an obscene pension, Madam President, a fair pension, so that they can deal with their needs on a regular basis. And, Madam President, what we are seeing today, and I would like to indicate from the very outset, when we amend the term “salary”, and we include in that new definition, Madam President, housing allowances, as well as personal allowances, Madam President, housing allowances as you know, and this honourable Senate would know, would be given to Ministers of Government, both Cabinet and non-Cabinet, to perform their duties as Ministers of Government. But when you leave office, Madam President, how can you justify incorporating housing allowances in the computation of your final pension. It does not make sense. I looked at the Commonwealth for examples for this innovation that the hon. Minister has parachuted into this definition, and maybe the hon. Minister would advise as we proceed, where he was able to extract this from, Madam President. Madam President, the President of our Republic, we are amending the President pensions Act. I would like the hon. Minister to indicate to us in his winding up: How are you going to determine, Madam President, a person who is in that office and has, for instance, full housing facilitates, is not in receipt of a housing allowance? How are we going to determine, Madam President, whether it is for the President of the Republic, whether it is for the Prime Minister, or whether it is for the Chief Justice? All three officeholders do not at this time as we speak

UNREVISED 39 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) receive a housing allowance. They are provided, Madam President, as you know, under the law, under the Salaries Review Commission law or reports, with full accommodation and facilities, in terms of housing. So the question here that we need to clarify is: How can you provide an allowance to someone who is not in receipt? And if you go, Madam President, to the SRC report there is no provision called housing allowance for $30,000 or $35,000 or $20,000 for the Prime Minister or for the Chief Justice or for the President of the Republic. So, we are putting into our legislation a provision that currently does not exist, in terms of reports that come before us. And then to compound, Madam President, what I consider to be the madness, you have personal allowances. Madam President, what is this? What is personal allowances? Are we legislating for the future? Does the Government know something that we do not know? Madam President, you will know that there is a consultancy that has been employed for the last five years, looking—they were employed by the SRC to look at all office holders falling under the purview of the SRC. They are supposed to be reporting for some time now. Maybe the Minister could tell us: Where is that report? And when is that report expected to come here? But outside of that report that is supposed to come, maybe the Minister has sight of that report. I am not saying he has. But maybe he can tell us if he has sight of that report and that is why the concept of personal allowance has come in. So, under salary, we have housing allowances and personal allowances. And we are saying, Madam President, what is the basis for that? Madam President, what is even more alarming, as you are aware, you have

UNREVISED 40 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) for instance many citizens of this country, whether they are retired public officers, retired police officers, retired teachers, they too are under pressure. Their purchasing power has been eroded. Their small pension cannot keep pace with the rising cost of living. They are ill. They need medical attention. Who is coming to their rescue? But we are passing legislation or we are proposing that we pass legislation to deal, Madam President, without even a costing. Madam President, it is important for the Minister of Finance to tell this Parliament and the country what will be the cost to the national public purse, to the taxpayers of this country [Desk thumping] when this measure is effected? We are debating and discussing the matter in the dark. We do not have any information on the costing of this. What I do know is if what we have here comes to pass, I know one officeholder, the highest officeholder in the land, if you add that salary to what the former Presidents got for housing allowances, which was over $28,000, and you multiply that by 12, Madam President, you are talking about $1.4 million at the end of each year for one person to enjoy, and that does not include personal allowances, eh. I am just talking about housing allowances. So when the Government comes with their real definition of “housing allowances”, “personal allowances”, and that is imputed, where are we going, Madam President? One person might be getting $1.8 million/$2 million a year, as the case may be. But what about our retirees, Madam President? Madam President, I will tell you there are 20,000 daily-rated workers in this country who gave up their retirement age from 65 to 60, on the condition that the Government will put in place a pension plan. Today, 20 years later, they do not have a pension plan. You know what they depend on, Madam President, old age

UNREVISED 41 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) pension when they reach 65 years after working for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago performing duties and service. Why does the Minister of Finance not pay attention to the plight of the daily-rated workers and get a proper pension plan for them? [Desk thumping] He is not dealing with that, Madam President. Madam President, what is even worse, we have the SRC. Whether we like it or not, they are enshrined in the Constitution. Should the Government not be referring matters like these to the SRC for its consideration? Sen. Khan: There is the Pensions Act. Sen. W. Mark: Yeah, we know we have the Pensions Act. I know this. But, Madam President, what we did in 2014, and we withdrew because of the public concerns expressed at the material time, it resulted in the Government taking a decision to assist the SRC to do a study, including pensions. There is a report, Madam President, that the Minister can share with us. Where is that report right now, dealing with pensions and other terms and conditions of service for Members that fall under the purview of the SRC? There is a report. And Madam President, that report, the consultancy thus far has cost us close to $10 million. So there is an outstanding report and whilst we are waiting on this report, Madam President, what do we have? We have the Government feathering their own nest, feathering their own nest. 11.30 a.m. Madam President, so we want to serve notice on the Government. We have a series of amendments that we will be proposing, and we will demonstrate the fallacy and the attempt by the Minister of Finance to get us involved in all kinds of bacchanal by indicating to the hon. Minister of Finance that the proposals that we

UNREVISED 42 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) have in this legislation to grant all these hefty increases to the President, the Prime Minister, judges, Ministers—Cabinet and non-Ministers—we are proposing in our amendments the deletion of every clause that deal with those people. [Desk thumping] We are saying the economic conditions in our country at this time do not permit that kind of obscene increases in pensions for any class or category at this time, Madam President. So we want to make that very, very clear. Madam President, as I said, this is going to have a severe impact and we do not have the costing. In the United Kingdom we would have gotten that costing from the Home Secretary or whoever was piloting this particular measure, the Minister of Finance or the Exchequer, Chancellor of the Exchequer. But our Chancellor of the Exchequer here, our local version is not concerned about costing. Not telling the country what it will cost us, we have to decide, Madam President, and do our own math in order to determine that. Madam President, I ask you is it—we are talking about judges, retired judges suffering. We are talking about former parliamentarians suffering. We are talking about former Prime Ministers who have retired. We are saying that there must be equity and fairness in whatever we are doing. But you know, Madam President, the Minister who in his own way, his own style, I have known him for years because I am as old as him in being a Member of Parliament. So I know him. So he “cannot try nothing” with me. Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. W. Mark: All right, Madam, I withdraw. So I know, Madam President, that it is—why it is the Minister has come with a measure in Trinidad

UNREVISED 43 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) and Tobago today and under the Retiring Allowances Act of our country, I have it here; 1969 it came into existence. None of the Senators on the Independent Bench, none on the Opposition Bench, or non-Ministers on the back benches of the Government, none are defined as a legislator, none. So we do not pass laws. We do not make laws. We do not get involved in lawmaking. So the Minister in the year 2019 fixed, bring legislation to improve the conditions of who? The President, the Prime Minister, judges, Ministers of Government, Cabinet Ministers, non-Cabinet Minister but all Senators, Independent Senators, Opposition Senators and those Senators on that bench there who do not hold portfolio responsibility, the Government has taken no decision to amend the legislation, to make Senators legislators. So that they too should be entitled, Madam President, to pension. What about the Vice-President? Madam President, I am not bringing you into this Bill. All I can tell you is that the President of the Senate is the only Senator in the Schedule that is attached to this. Everybody else is excluded from the Vice-President, down to all Independent Senators, all Opposition Senators and every Member who does not hold a portfolio. Madam President, how can a Government bring legislation to this Parliament that is so discriminatory? It is discriminatory. Madam President, I want to bring to your attention a situation where former Senators, when I came into this Senate I met her. She lasted one year after, she left. Louise Horne. She served in the First Republican Senate, this Parliament, the Second and the Third. Fifteen years. You know where she is today? In an old age home in Arima, Madam President. Madam President: Sen. Mark, please. I would ask Members, you can raise

UNREVISED 44 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) a matter, but not call the names out of the respect for persons, okay? Sen. W. Mark: Well, well. Madam President: Yeah? All right. Sen. W. Mark: I understand the point. But I think it is important to indicate to the honourable Senate those people. I am not going to dramatize it, but I understand the point you are making. I talking about Professor Ramesh Deosaran. Sen. Gopee-Scoon: And you gone back? Sen. W. Mark: Yes they are not Members of this House. I have a right to call them. Madam President: Sen. Mark, you can call the names. I am just advising you out of courtesy to persons who are not in the House. The Minister called one name, if I am not mistaken, which was in the public domain already. I am asking you to just respect persons and just—you can talk about the situation without calling the names. Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, all I am saying that are several retired or persons who served in the Senate, several of them who to my mind ought to qualify, ought to be entitled and I was just giving an idea of some of them who have served this honourable Senate for several years. And if I do not call their names, how will people know who I am talking about? Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Why do they have to know the names? Sen. W. Mark: Yeah, not you. I am talking about the public. “I doh care about you”, you are going out. I am talking about the public, Madam President, and the public interest demands that if the Government brings legislation here to see about a chosen few, I am saying, we have former Senators who have served in

UNREVISED 45 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) this country, they have retired like judges and they are suffering. What is the Government doing about those Senators who have retired from our system and, Madam President, I will follow your guidance. Eleven of them I have here. I will circulate it to the media and to Members of the Senate, so that they will know and I will have a press conference and announce it. Right, Madam President. [Interruption] Forget you man, I am not talking about you. Madam President: Sen. Mark, use your time wisely. Sen. W. Mark: Yes, wisely. Well, do not allow this gentleman to interrupt me, please. He is a stranger to this House. Madam President: Sen. Mark, please. Really, you have limited time. Focus your contribution in my direction and it will go well. Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, I would like to indicate that—so on the question of pensions, we are saying that it is obscene, it is greed on the part of the Government to bring this kind of legislation here. [Desk thumping] We are saying, Madam President, we are moving amendments. Delete all those provisions because we believe they are totally absurd and they are unnecessary at this time. Madam President, I know that my time is limited, but if I may hustle. Let me indicate to you that the Central Bank Act that the Government is seeking to amend, again is an incursion and an invasion by a Minister of Finance who seems to have a personal vendetta against the former Governor of the Central Bank. [Desk thumping] I will call this amendment the Jwala Rambharat amendment. Hon. Member: Rambarran. Sen. W. Mark: Rambarran. Hon. Imbert: Point of order.

UNREVISED 46 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Hon. Member: Which point of order? Hon. Imbert: 46(6). Madam President: Sen. Mark, please desist and please continue with your contribution. Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, I can only refer to the Express of Sunday 16th of June, 2019, “Jwala wants millions, Imbert wants information.” That is in the public domain, Madam President. [Desk thumping] So what he coming out here and denying. Hon. Imbert: Point of order, Madam President, 48(6). I said in my presentation. This amendment was prompted by a question posed to me by Sen. Obika about the salary of the present Governor not the previous one. Madam President: Sen. Mark, please continue and take my guidance. Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, it is unconstitutional for a government to come and take away a power of secrecy and confidentiality from an independent institution with a simple majority. [Desk thumping] This will be tested in the court of Trinidad and Tobago. You cannot invade, the independence, the operational independence. And I want to tell you, Madam President, there is something called the data protection legislation of this country, data protection, personal privacy in terms of data and information. You cannot just demand information. The Minister of Finance is out of place. He has—he wants information on what? Madam President, let him go to the court and argue his matter, not to interfere with the Central Bank— Madam President: Sen. Mark, your language, you are becoming a little agitated, I would ask you—[interruption]—no, yes and it is the Minister of

UNREVISED 47 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Finance and not he, and he, and he. Okay? Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, if you were in my shoes— Hon. Imbert: Madam President, 46(4), (1) and (6). Madam President: Minister, I just dealt with that. Sen. Mark, please continue. Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, if you were standing where I am standing today, you would be extremely angry with what this Government is doing here. The masses are angry, Madam President— Madam President: Sen. Mark, please, you have limited time, and I am just asking you, as you get agitated, your voice is going up and that might get me a little agitated, and I do not want to be agitated. Sen. Mark, please continue. Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, coming back to indexation, let us go to indexation. There must be indexation for everyone across the board; it must just not only be for Government Ministers or President of the Republic, or Chief Justice, the public officers need cost of living indexation. The retired public officers require that, the teachers need it, the police officers need it, and the daily- paid workers need it. Why are we confining that to the chosen few who are engaged in obscene greed? We cannot support that. Madam President, as I said, the Government is on a course that is totally anti-people, anti-working class, and it is doing everything to ensure some kind of development that you and I would not like. Madam President, the Government of this country wants to invade, as I said, the Central Bank to force the Governor of the Central Bank to provide personal data of workers, and not only current workers, but former workers. Madam President, that cannot be fair, that cannot be

UNREVISED 48 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) right, and I warn the Minister of Finance to withdraw this proposal or you will meet us in court. [Desk thumping] Madam President, the other point I want to make here is NIB. NIB, Madam President, is shrinking. The last actuarial report revealed that if we do not increase contribution or do something to revolutionize that system, in the next couple years that institution will be in trouble. And here it is the Government is bringing an amendment to break the law. How can the Government break the law that we are supposed to be upholding? Madam President, would you believe that the National Insurance Act, and I am talking about section 29 that the Government is seeking to amend, that Act or that section of the Act gives, it says and I read: “Every employer and subject to subsection (2), every employed person and every unpaid apprentice, shall be registered for the purposes of the system of National Insurance.” Madam President, I want to tell you a worker, is a worker, is a worker, and it does not matter if you are from Venezuela, or if you are from Cuba, or if you are from China. A worker, is a worker, is a worker, and what the Government is seeking to do is to amend the NIB to make certain categories of workers uninsurable and you know what is even more serious, the Minister by prescribed order can do so. Madam President: Sen. Mark, you have five more minutes. Sen. W. Mark: The Minister by prescribed order can do so. Madam President, we are moving an amendment to that particular provision. We would like that to be subject to an affirmative resolution of the both Houses of Parliament

UNREVISED 49 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) because we would start off with Venezuelan workers, then we would go on to some other category of workers, and the Minister whimsically, arbitrarily and capriciously can do whatever he wants. We are not prepared to allow this to happen. So we serve notice on the Minister of Finance. Madam President, do you know that right now you NIB is down to about, just about 450,000 to 460,000 contributors in this country? The population of the NIB is shrinking and we should be increasing contributions, but instead this Government is passing legislation to reduce contributions that cannot be right. And unwittingly the Government may be contributing to the undermining and possibly the demise of the NIB. That is what the Government might be doing by this particular amendment. So, Madam President, we are not in support of this amendment to the NIB. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago is in complete violation of what is called the ILO Conventions. We have a convention that we have signed, we have ratified. It is called Convention C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. There is another convention that we have enforced that we have signed it is called Convention C100, Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951. Madam President, we are a signatory to the International Labour Organization. I serve notice on this Government even they pursue with this amendment to make workers uninsurable for insurance purposes, national insurance purposes we shall be writing to the International Labour Organization to show how this Government is in violation of the International Labour Organization standard, conventions and recommendations. We will be doing that. So we put them on

UNREVISED 50 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d) notice. We will not permit you to establish zones of exploitation for your particular clique and gang in the employment sector. Madam President, who will benefit from this? It is the employer class. They are the ones who are supposed to pay twice the amount of National Insurance to my one. So if I am paying $11 they are supposed to pay $22. So what the Government is doing, they are saying to the employers “doh pay nothing, your profits get fatter”. And the employee, Madam President, is open to all kinds of dangers on the job. You can become injured, you can become sick, you can become pregnant, and who is there to protect workers? Madam President, the Government has failed miserably in its policy on refugees or migrant workers and they have come here to tinker with this particular measure that we are dealing with called the NIB and they want to amend it and we are not in favor. Madam President, the FOIA, we do not want any tsar of censorship in our country and the mere attempt that the Government is seeking to insert the Attorney General, a politician, to determine what information you can get and what information I can get that is an attack on democracy. It is an attack on freedom of expression, it is an attack of freedom of thought and that will not be tolerated in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. And we serve notice on the Government that freedom of information is a right, it is a touchstone of human rights that was consecrated by the United Nations when they first met in 1946 and the Government is seeking to undermine freedom of information. Madam President, do I have two more minutes? Madam President: One.

UNREVISED 51 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, I want to say that the United National Congress cannot support this legislation in its current form. [Desk thumping] And we serve notice on the Government they have to withdraw, fundamentally amend many of these provisions or otherwise find us before the courts facing the music. Thank you very much, Madam President. Sen. Charrise Seepersad: Thank you, Madam President, for the opportunity to contribute to the Bill, the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019, as amended in the House of Representatives. I am going to deal with certain aspects of the bill as presented. The first is the review of pensions for the President, Prime Minister and judges. Madam President, is it the right thing to raise pensions for only certain office holders who are at the high end of the salary scale? What is the overall cost to the country of these proposed pension adjustments? At this time of economic belt tightening what message is being sent to the population with the implementation of these selective pension increases?

The Salaries Review Commission has the responsibility under the Constitution to review and amend the terms and conditions of these officeholders. Was the Commission consulted? What about the pensions of other public officers? I received a copy of a letter sent to a Senator in which the retired public servant was pleading for the reinstatement of the Cost of Living Allowance for all retired public servants, because of the serious financial stresses they are facing. Their pensions are unable to currently provide them with a livable income. If the

UNREVISED 52 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Seepersad (cont’d)

Government is intent on proceeding with these changes then I urge the Government to review the compensation of all public officers. The report of the Salaries Review Commission 2013, that is the general review of salaries and other terms and conditions of service officers within the purview of the Salaries Review Commission should be reviewed and updated and brought to the Parliament and debated in the House of Representatives. Freedom of Information Act: Madam President, the Freedom of Information Act speaks to the democratic governance principles of openness, accountability, transparency and public participation. Adherence to these principles means that the Government is open to public scrutiny and is therefore more accountable. Madam President, there seems to be operational issues being encountered with the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act which has been enforced for the last 20 years. Therefore, it seems logical to me that steps be taken to identify the problems and make the changes to the administrative procedures so that citizens can receive the information or the reason for refusal within the timeframe specified in the Act, i.e., 30 days. You should not be implementing measures to extend the time it takes citizens to access information allowed under this Act because of implementation and administrative issues. [Desk thumping] The Government should listen to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and delete clause 7. National Insurance: I would like to suggest that the Minister of Finance consider an amnesty for the payment of National Insurance contributions. The National Insurance Fund is seriously underfunded vis-á-vis projected pension payments. There are numerous organizations in arrears with their National

UNREVISED 53 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Seepersad (cont’d)

Insurance contributions for various reasons or have failed to register their businesses with the specified time. The penalties to become compliant are prohibited. Madam President, an amnesty can lead to an increase in the contributor base which will have a positive impact on the fund deficit. Central Bank Act amendment: Madam President, the current Central Bank Act mandates that every director, officer and employee of the bank are not to disclose information regarding the affairs of the bank. Why does the Minister need information on the number and salaries of bank employees, organizational structure and such other matters relating to the employment of staff as the Minister sees fit? Is it that the Minister intends to manage the bank as a division of the Government? How does this change, impact the independence of the Central Bank? Madam President, with the exception of the tax amnesty it is evident that I am unhappy with these miscellaneous provisions. I am unable to fathom the benefits to the citizens and the country. Although the Government is at pains to justify the proposed amendments I am not convinced of their merit. Thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] The Minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs (Hon. Fitzgerald Hinds): Thank you very much. [Desk thumping] Madam President, I am thankful for the opportunity to make a contribution to these very important measures that are here for the consideration of this House. The Independent Senator just raised several questions, but fortunately we have the man who piloted the Bill, the Minister of Finance, who will speak to some of those issues. Suffice it to say for the time being on the question of the right

UNREVISED 54 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) time? I have been around in public service for sufficiently long to have seen several attempts and events like this, in this House and I have come to the conclusion that there will never be a right time. What I gather that is driving this, is the question of equity and fairness and based on some of the comments of Sen. Mark you will gather as well, Madam President, that it has to do with social justice because he called to broaden the range of persons who should be met with this improvement here today. And therefore I take note as well the Independent Senator spoke about deleting the entirety of clause 7, a matter that I shall return to very shortly. Madam President, I would like to say in respect of the contribution by Sen. Mark, let me admit, I have some difficulty speaking in this honourable and dignified House sometimes, because when you listen to the contribution of Sen. Mark, you get the natural tendency to respond in strident tones, but, of course, we have not only the UNC represented by Sen. Mark here, we have the very distinguished, very independent minded, non-combative, non-partisan Members of this House. So as I speak I have to remember them so when you find that I have tempered my tone it is with those folks in mind. But had it been for the other place where I have to deal with the UNC, it may not have been that way. Madam President, Sen. Mark spoke about the retirees, about 20,000 of them according to him, quite hypocritical in my view, because when large amounts of public funds were removed from them over great national protestations, Sen. Mark said nothing during the years 2010 to 2015. He sat quietly and he said nothing today. He pretends to be speaking on their behalf. Further, Madam President, for the five years that his Government, the UNC, was in office there was an

UNREVISED 55 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d)

Independent Senator who had raised the matter of making the service of all Senators pensionable, but the Government that he was a part of never even took that seriously, they never bothered with it, why is he trying to put that on this Government today? Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Surreptitiously. Hon. F. Hinds: And to some extent, the Minister of Finance when he spoke here earlier pointed out that when he did a review of some of the arguments put in the other place by the Member for Siparia. He found that it had some element of self-serving in it. Arguing her own case. Sen. Mark has served long and expansively in this House, in the Senate, and therefore one suspects that he could be justifiably accused of the same. One suspects that, but the essential point is that his Government while in office did not take the urgings of a certain Independent Senator sufficiently seriously. And finally on that point, Madam President, I can tell you in anticipation, Sen. Mark mouthed loudly about pension for all Senators, he will not draft an amendment in that regard to broaden the pool and that will indicate how serious or how “un-serious” he is, just populism. 12.00 noon Madam President, Sen. Mark also spoke about the Salaries Review Commission’s work and their hiring of a consultant to look at some of the arrangements for parliamentarians. Madam President, they are dealing with salaries and allowances, we are not here dealing with that. There is a retiring allowances Act dealing with pensions. That is the responsibility of the Government, that is the responsibility of the Parliament and we are dealing exclusively with that. We are not dealing with salaries here today. Let me put that

UNREVISED 56 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) on the record and make that very clear. So his submission about the SRC and we should wait for the report, really is otiose. It is of no value to us in this discussion, and it takes a principled and courageous Government to do it, in all of the circumstances. Madam President, when the Minister of Finance spoke, he often spoke about some former UNC person and a former Chief Justice, who is now made to live on $10,000 a month after years of distinguished service. I, too, had some interface with some former parliamentarians and, in one case, it was far worse than that. In one case, a certain parliamentarian served five terms, virtually his entire working life, five terms, and he is living life now on $6,000 a month. And in this material world, Madam President, not having an income, not being able to repair your roof, particularly when you were in public life and exposed to the vagaries of public life as we all are, it affects your dignity, your human dignity. And I have no doubt, as everywhere else in the world, if a survey was conducted of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, they may very well tell you we are not supposed to receive one cent increase, because we are all a waste of time, but I am sure some of the Independent Senators who would have looked on as professionals, as intellectuals, who would have looked on at this Parliament before having the honour and the opportunity to serve at the behest of Her Excellency, they may not have totally understood what this Legislature—what all the committees, what all running away from your legal or your medical and your other practices, your consultancies, to come to a joint select committee nine o’ clock on a morning and come back to Senate in the afternoon, your clients knocking on your door—the contribution they make, and that is only as a Legislature. In addition to

UNREVISED 57 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) that, your Ministerial function. In addition to that, your representative function in your constituency. I am sure every Independent Senator who would have passed through this House would have had a better idea of what is involved in this, and how your reputation is constantly on the line. Some do not care about theirs—Sen. Mark obviously, well—but some people do in terms of how you present yourself. I remember once I attacked severely, a professional, an attorney-at-law, back in the 1990s from the Opposition, and that attorney-at-law came to me tearfully during the break to tell me that I should cease and desist. And I agreed, and I have never done it again in that particular case, because she said, when you launch these attacks on her, it was affecting her professional career on the outside. She told me that, and I had a sense that there was some truth in it, and I looked her in the eye and I said, I should never do it again, and I did not. I regret I did not, but I kept my word. Sometimes she made me regret it, based on the things she said. So, Madam President, there is also a view when I spoke to some of these retired parliamentarians who have contributed nothing in the eyes of some, whose work and whose worth is of no real value, there is a view, especially for those who upheld sternly and steadfastly the principle of morality in public affairs and conducted their affairs along those lines. Fortunately, in the majority, if only because the PNM served as government in this country for more than 78 per cent of the life of this independent nation, if only for that reason, they are in the majority. They tell you sometimes they feel as though by holding fast to the principle of morality in public affairs you get special punishment in this country for that, reminiscent of what V.S. Naipaul said in this society—and I am

UNREVISED 58 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) paraphrasing if I could—dignity is accorded to no one; only power is respected. When you are in office all is well, but when you leave, hang on if you can. And, of course, in my capacity as a former police—well, as a Member of Parliament, I had a police corporal one day come to me in anguish, and he told me, “Minister Hinds, you do not know, you know”. “When I look around and see some of the people who I know are misconducting themselves, not living in faith with their citizenship and their oath, and you see them with their fancy this and their big this and their big that, sometimes it makes you feel to go against the grain and behave like that too.” And I had to counsel and to tell him as I tell young people across this nation, “Do not do that, you hold on”. “Light will always overcome darkness and when you live the way you are living, you will not have to worry about when the police knock your door.” Because there are a lot of people in this country today who are opposed to these improvements, who every time they go to bed now they do not know when that knock on the door will come, but come it will. It is simply about that, apart from which, this Government has made it very, very, clear that we are in a fight against corruption, and the best evidence of that is that after almost four years in office, not one citizen of this Republic could justifiably point a hand at any Member of my Cabinet colleagues and accuse us of interfering with the public good, public till. Not one! Hon. Senators: “Ha, ha, ha.” Hon. F. Hinds: “Ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha?” Not one. And if you can, go outside of the Parliament and say it. I am not coming out, I am staying in here, but you could go outside and say it, since you are so sure and going “ha, ha, ha”, and

UNREVISED 59 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) not one of us have that worry to think about. Thank you. Madam President, Sen. Mark also told us—[Interruption]—yes, he fulminated and he made strident suggestions that he looked all over the world and could not find one country where the housing allowance was included in the calculation of pension benefits. Like the man with the acre of diamonds. The story was told about the man who, when he gave up all—he took all his father’s estate, his wealth, his heritage and he went looking for this acre of diamonds— became poor, became broke, lost all his friends—and one day when he returned forlorn, moping in the backyard by the stream, he saw a little glisten, and he looked and it was a diamond, and then he realized. As he moved it, he saw another and another. You know, he had gone looking for something that was right in his back yard. [Laughter] I will tell you this. I will tell you this. Right here in “jam down” right here “in ah Jamaica”, I have the Jamaican Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act in front of me, not to display it too much. And, Madam President, I want to quote from it for the benefit of that hapless Senator who went looking for diamonds, “could not find none”. Probably he did not look— [Interruption] I am sorry. Hapless? Madam President: Minister, yes, just continue, but— Hon. F. Hinds: Thank you. In section 2 of that Act, there is the concept of salary, and it is defined in that definition section as we call it as lawyers and parliamentarians. And it says: “…for the purposes of this definition ‘basic salary’ means the emoluments, including house allowance, provided in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the Island…”—and the definition continues.

UNREVISED 60 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d)

For 24 years since 1995. This is Act 38 of 1995. For 24 years Jamaica has been doing this in response to the service of its members of Parliament. In a country that one might argue did not benefit from nature’s natural resources as Trinidad and Tobago over those years. And further to that, in section 6, with a side note which says: “Circumstances in which retiring allowances shall be paid…” Hear what is going on, hear how beautiful it is in “jam down Jamaica”. Section 6(1): “Subject to the provisions of this Act, a retiring allowance shall be paid to any person who— (a) either— (i) has served as a legislator for two full parliamentary terms;”—two. I just gave you an example of a man who served for five terms—two terms, and look how they are responding to their citizenry and their members of Parliament. I should read no more. Madam President, I do not want to spend more time on that, I want to move on to the element of the freedom of information. [Crosstalk] Sen. Mark: How about the personal allowances, this part? Hon. F. Hinds: Madam Speaker—Madam President, I am so sorry. Clause 7 says: “The Freedom of Information Act is amended—” —and I can spend time reading all of it. I need not do that, although I am tempted for the benefit of the viewers and listeners, in light of the disinformation that is thrown constantly by the UNC at them. So I would not read it because

UNREVISED 61 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d)

Members all have a copy of this before us, but I would say, in essence, it does two things. In fact, originally in the other place, two things were proposed, to extend the 30 days that the departments, the public authority has, in order to decide whether or not it will grant the information and to notify the requestor, the applicant. We have, in light of all circumstances, particularly because we believe although the statistics in some way help, but the statistics also show that, in some cases, the 30-day deadline is not kept. But all things considered, as well the public expressions on it, the Government decided we will impose stronger demands and a stronger regime on the Ministries and public authorities and direct those who lead them to try to meet the deadline. In other words, there was a view that by extending the time which lawyers know about every day in the court, because very often the court mandates that you file a submission by such and such a date and make an application to avoid sanction—relief from sanction in accordance with the Civil Proceedings Rules— and very often the court for its own reasons might adjourn a matter, put it for a later date or the lawyer makes an application for an extension of time, that happens, and all the Government was trying to do is to create that extra time to avoid court and the costs that are commensurate with those. Nothing ignoble about it. The policy of the legislation, the purpose of the legislation, the working of the legislation remains unchanged at its core. Nobody was trying to stop it. We were not coming here to say, repeal the Act. We were just saying a simple extension. However, that is history. In light of everything, we have put that

UNREVISED 62 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) behind. Just remember that the Privy Council in 1993 set Pratt and Morgan five years for us from conviction to hanging, to carrying out the death sentence—five years since 1993—and we have not been able to keep pace. Most of those persons convicted of murder are still commuted. Canada, on the other hand, had a case called R v Johnson where the Supreme Court of Canada found that they having taken 48 months to convict a drug dealer, he made an application under their constitution saying— Sen. S. Hosein: Madam President, Standing Order 46(1), please. This is a debate about the FOIA. I do not know the death penalty, how relevant that is to this debate, Madam President. Madam President: Minister, continue please. Hon. F. Hinds: Very, very quickly. He applied saying that his right to a swift trial was impeded, infringed and the court, the Supreme Court of Canada, akin to our Privy Council, for the time being, it ruled that 48 months was really a breach of the man’s constitutional rights and set a time limit of 18 months. Canada is grappling now to cope with that 18 months—spent a lot of money, more courts, more judges, more everything, trying to keep pace and having difficulty, because they too suffer from what they described—I am reading what the academics in that country say—as a culture of delay, lawyers, everybody—they are fighting with that. Anyway, we came with a very noble intention, and in light of everything, we pull back that. So, essentially, what we have in front of us today is one thing, and that is to allow in circumstances where a person applies to a public authority for information, and the public authority refuses, then the amendment is saying that

UNREVISED 63 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) that public authority should, at the same time that it notifies the applicant that we are refusing, they should notify the Attorney General so that as the Government’s legal advisor, another view could be had on the facts and on the law to determine whether it should be reviewed and the Attorney General will give advice to the public authority and notify the applicant of the advice that he has given. So two things could happen, either the refusal is reaffirmed by the Attorney General or advice to the contrary is offered and it might be taken into consideration. Madam President, I heard it said in the other place, and I am just going to address it in the generality, that to save that you could have the authority during the 30 days it is making this determination, consult with the AG simultaneously. That would be a derogation from the power already existing under this law, because it is the public authority under the freedom of information law which must make that determination on its own. If you join the Attorney General in that, then it will no longer be the public authority making the decision. The AG comes in after, and this is why I am submitting, we are not taking away from the power that is now available under the law neither from the public authority nor from the applicant. We are adding a tier to it, a second look, in cases exclusively of a refusal. That strengthens the position, because if the decision was no and the Attorney General with written reasons in 30 days, as we now have it, if he agrees that it should be a “no”, then the decision-maker stands on solid ground. All of this happening, Madam President, and in this amendment in clause 7, we are affirming the right of the citizen or applicant to go to the court on judicial review if the satisfaction exists. So we are not taking away the right to go to court which is the final arbiter anyway.

UNREVISED 64 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d)

Madam President, I want to say that there are two issues that would arise in these circumstances: on the one hand, where you have the public authority taking more than 30 days—and this is why we intervened to protect the taxpayers and their money, because we discovered that they had developed an industry. I know of a particular lawyer, he had become popular amongst us as lawyers, who used to file or get his clients and, especially, since we liberalized the standing, the locus standi that was required. Traditionally, you had to be personally affected by the decision in order to seek judicial review. That has changed in the world. And with our Judicial Review Act and with case law, a person’s standing, the high level of standing that was required to make an application that went. Now any citizen, public spirited, could make an application, whether the matter concerns him or not. And, therefore, you have a number of people for various reasons sitting down and listing hundreds of requests and sending them to Government Departments and possibly working along with certain lawyers. In fact, yes, working with certain lawyers— Sen. S. Hosein: And what is wrong with that? Hon. F. Hinds:—and filing the questions and hoping that the public authority does not make the 30 days, and they have it already cut and paste. Sen. S. Hosein: You do not do civil law. Hon. F. Hinds: They have it cut and paste. I did a lot of that. I did every aspect of law in this country: litigation, criminal law, appeals to the criminal court. [Crosstalk] I am being disturbed by the young Sen. Hosein. I will save him for another time. [Crosstalk] I do not want to be distracted by the UNC foibles. So they wait and they have the thing already, all pumped up, just to put in

UNREVISED 65 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) name and date and place. In fact, they have all that already, just to sign. So on the 31st day, they go to court, and by the 31st, 35th day, for example, the authority might now have pulled the information. Typically, you might have a situation where the prison officer involved who has to answer the thing, by the time it goes down to Carrera where he is working—he is on two weeks’ vacation, they have to try and find him in Tabaquite, you know, LP No. 9, Tabaquite, Main Road and they cannot find him. All these administrative things, no malice, and the Minister and the Government is nowhere present in this. The way you listen to them speak, you will feel it is the Minister who sits down saying “no”, and this amendment is to allow where they refuse. So you have the two situations as I tell you. After 30 days, they go to court for failing to comply with your statutory duties, so to speak, because you did not comply with the 30 days, the delay effectively, under the freedom of information law, and the other course of action is where there is an actual refusal, you can challenge the refusal in the court. So an industry developed out of this. And when I talk about industry, I am not alone in this. There was a Solicitor General who wrote a previous Prime Minister not too long ago, complaining about a wicked triumvirate, an industry that had developed between an official in the Office of the Attorney General, private lawyers and prisoners to rip-off this country’s money. So when I speak about an industry, an unholy alliance to work out something, this is not farfetched in Trinidad and Tobago, Madam President. It is real. And we only intervene to try to protect the taxpayers, because when they had to withdraw the matter, they are already in court. That is what they tell you, and now the information is available, you want them to withdraw the action, they

UNREVISED 66 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) negotiate and we got claims for as much as TT $1.7 million. I heard another Member of Parliament in another place say that has never been paid, it has not even been assessed. We were not talking about assessed. We were not talking about paid. We were talking about claim, saying this is what we want to withdraw the matter. That is what we were talking about. So we did not come with any ignoble purpose and this, essentially, is what this says. So, I mean, I cannot understand if one accepts my argument, that if there is a refusal, the Attorney General should then review the documents to see whether the refusal was justified. If it was a yes, the Attorney General does not see it at all. To my mind, logically speaking, Madam President, Members of this House, that strengthens and improves the process. It does not take away from it and there is no ignobility or mal-intent in all of this. It was all designed to assist the people of Trinidad and Tobago as a sensible and serious Government which the responsibility of a serious Government must. So, Madam President, there are couple of other issues around this matter that I feel is necessary to treat with. There are a couple of other issues. The Civil Proceedings Rules of 1998, Part 56.7, fell to be interpreted by a court in a matter of Motilal Ramhit, I think it is. I do not have the case in front of me, but the principle of what I would say stands good. And in so interpreting those rules in a matter coming under the freedom of information law for judicial review, which is what we are dealing with here today, the court established that when the application for judicial review is filed, the Attorney General should be notified. That is significant. With that case law, in this common law jurisdiction and history, you find the

UNREVISED 67 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) law not only in the statute books, but also in case law and that is the law as defined in the case of which I just spoke. So what the Attorney General is saying is two things—what we as a Government are offering to this House is two-fold. One— and this answers the question that the Attorney General should not be involved because he is the Attorney General, a member of the Executive and, of course, he is a politician, but the court said in that case that the Attorney General should be brought involved. So what we are doing here is, essentially, codifying—putting into the legal code, putting into statute—that which we gleaned from the case law. That is all that is happening. Nothing more remarkable than that. But we are also saying, if you follow the court’s judgment in that matter, by the time the Attorney General gets involved is when the action has already been filed in the courthouse. We are saying that it should be filed or the Attorney General should be notified before. So, at the time the public authority takes the decision that it will not give the information, Madam President, that is the time the Attorney General should be notified to review it to see if we could avoid court action and the claim and the cost and the time and all that flows from it. That is all. And for the life of me, I cannot see what is so harmful about that, innocuous as you could get it. So, in terms of a public authority in CV2018—03189, in the case of Mahase Dass v the Zoological Society, again, as a student of administrative law at postgraduate level, I recall distinctly, and that was before Trinidad and Tobago passed a Judicial Review Act, on the question of locus standi and all of this, and what was a public body, because there is always some argument about whether the body is a public authority or not and the court has long ago decided that where

UNREVISED 68 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) public funds are involved or the organization is carrying out essentially a public function, those make it public and, therefore, amenable to judicial review. Yes. So in this case, the Zoological Society, the matter came up for the court’s consideration and the court decided exactly that, and that is a matter from 2018 in Trinidad and Tobago. That is like last week. I was just telling you about Anisminic and cases from long time before, where the courts of England had to deal with this question when 30 years ago judicial review was a new tool, 30 and 35 years ago. That time it was new, and the court decided in this case that the body was a public authority because it uses—it got a public subvention, public funds. 12.30 p.m. So an institution, by way of an example like Vision on Mission, I consider they, for example, treat with returning deportees, persons who would have served time in the United States and they send. And Vision on Mission, as a non- governmental organization, organized itself and began working with these people and it does that. Today it gets a state subvention, a substantial state subvention— Madam President: Minister, you have five more minutes. Hon. F. Hinds: And therefore it is carrying out a public function, a function that, perhaps one can argue, the Government ought to have been carrying out, but sometimes NGOs do it better than the bureaucracy of the State, but, most certainly, on public subvention it is arguable a public body. Madam President, with time hard against us, essentially, those are the issues that we offer to this House with those very noble reasons, and we have identified the very popular now, by now very popular case, the so-called Malcolm Jones case where, Madam President, it is

UNREVISED 69 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) clear that, had the Attorney General noticed—in fact, I dare say, the Government because we, as I said, when the decision was taken we were not there, we feel and we expressed later that the statement should be made public. The court said so, the Privy Council, when the matter came up, but all of that millions—and I have the figures here—all of that millions of dollars later. So we believe that—Madam President, could you just help me with my time? Madam President: You finish at 12.34.15.06. Hon. F. Hinds: I thank you very kindly, and it is now 12.31. So we believe, Madam President, that what we offer to this Chamber is really to strengthen the existing situation and to protect us from abuse, because there is no doubt, pretentious as some people might want to be, there is abuse. There are some people who make an industry out of it. I have a list of questions. I, myself, to test the system, on the 10th of June, I filed a question to this Parliament under the Freedom of Information Act and I asked for them to tell me some of the questions that they had to respond to in a defined period, and I got the answers on the 13th. This Parliament, efficient as you could get it, in two, three days, I got answers, and I have them. When you see some of the questions that they concoct to ask for all kinds of motivation it is amazing, amazing, but we will make every effort as Ministers with the responsibility for Ministries and state enterprises, to impose upon them a regime that they must—in fact, in the Minister of the Attorney General, I checked it out, they have a very smooth system there, as soon as the request comes in, someone is dealing with it immediately. A letter is sent, a request for an extension, and that is the way it ought to be

UNREVISED 70 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) done. So we believe, notwithstanding the typical bureaucracy, and you also have problems with the culture of secrecy, because while we are an open and transparent Government, the most open and transparent Government this country has probably ever seen— Sen. Mark: Who is that? Hon. Senator: “Yuh ha jokes.” Hon. F. Hinds: Yeah. Sen. Mark: It is “ah” joke? Hon. F. Hinds: “Uh-huh.” [Crosstalk] Madam President, sometimes down inside of the public service, down inside of the ranks, down inside of the state agencies, in the public authorities as defined under this law, sometimes there are people who do not want to give the information. For example, the two statements in the Malcolm Jones matter, which plenty reference was made, not even the Senior Counsel acting for Petrotrin saw it. Somebody decided not to release them to Mr. Jones. Had the Attorney General been aware of that—this Attorney General, maybe it might have made a difference; the previous Attorney General, “ah cyah puh meh neck on no block”, never would. Hon. Senator: “Yuh ’fraid him?” Hon. F. Hinds: I am not afraid to die, but I am not ready yet. Madam President, would those few words said, I commend these measures to Members of the House; they are very, very simple. I think the issue of readjusting the pension is just and fair, all things considered. I see no ground for disregarding or deleting clause 7, it was borne out of a noble purpose and we believe it strengthens the process in seeking judicial review, and it was intended to

UNREVISED 71 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Hon. F. Hinds (cont’d) keep the abusers up and out. Madam President, all the other measures, some of which I did not touch because other people on this side will treat with them, as indeed the Minister of Finance dealt expansively with the question of the pension and the tax amnesty. I would like to thank you for my opportunity to have contributed to this debate and look forward to hearing words of wisdom from those who can muster it on the other side. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Sen. Hosein. [Desk thumping] Saddam Hosein: Thank you very much, Madam President. And, Madam President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand in the defence of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, [Desk thumping] to stand in the defence of democracy and to stand in the defence of transparency and accountability in governance. [Desk thumping] Madam President, what is before this honourable Senate is a very obscene piece of legislation. It is called the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019, a Bill which seeks to restrict information on the way the Government operates to members of the public and members of the media. Madam President, it is also a Bill so that when 2020 comes and this Government is ushered out of office they have a comfortable pension to live with. That is the objective of this particular legislation. This piece of legislation, Madam President, does not benefit the poor man. It does not benefit the mothers, the single mothers. It does not benefit the working class of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] It benefits the PNM, friends and families. Madam President, this particular piece of legislation, this particular piece of legislation is an omnibus piece of legislation; 11 clauses and one Schedule

UNREVISED 72 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) touching over 20 pieces of legislation, 20 pieces, and the Government, what they did is that they amended the FOIA Act—well, are attempting to amend the FOIA Act, increasing pensions for the Prime Minister, the President, for Ministers of Government, and it also has a tax amnesty. So while they give the people of Trinidad and Tobago with one hand, Madam President, they are taking away with the next hand, and that is what this Bill is doing. You are giving a tax amnesty but, at the end out the day, your pockets become fatter when you retire. This particular piece of legislation, I will focus a lot on the Freedom of Information Act, and a lot has been said about this since this Bill was laid in the other place, and you had a wide section of the society, NGOs, independent voices, even the person—the former Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Senior Counsel, the person who was responsible for the passage of this particular legislation voicing concerns about the Government’s attempt to amend the legislation to restrict information to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. And you would remember, the Minister touched on it, that this Government had to take “ah tack back”. They had to “tack back”, Madam President, because they wanted to refuse persons from getting information for a period of 180 days. Then came 45 days and now the Bill before us, it is back to the original 30 days. That is “ah tack back” and that happened because of the voices of the people who stood firmly against this PNM Government and the Opposition. [Desk thumping] That is why the Government had to take that decision because of public pressure. It was because of public pressure. When I looked at clause 7, from the onset I want to agree with Sen. Seepersad that clause 7 of this Bill must be withdrawn immediately. [Desk

UNREVISED 73 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) thumping] It must be withdrawn because this particular clause does not benefit the people, because when you pass legislation in any particular Parliament, you pass legislation with an aim in order to correct a mischief. There must be a rationale connected with respect to any amendment on any particular piece of legislation that you are amending. So let us see, let us examine what clause 7 does. Clause 7, what it does is that if a public authority denies a person a request when they file a request under the Freedom of Information Act, and as soon as the 30 days is up and the denial is made, or at any time within the 30 days, the public authority tells the applicant that they cannot have the information. They inform them via notice and then that notice, together—not the notice alone—together with the relevant material is passed on to who? The Attorney General. Who is the Attorney General? The Member for San Fernando West, and acting, the Member for Laventille West. Politicians, Madam President, politicians are now going to have in their hands information from state entities and other independent institutions in this country. I will get to that later on in my contribution, Madam President. So we reach at the point where denial is made, the person get the notice; the AG has a copy of the notice with the relevant material; the applicant, he has the notice. Now, from the date on which the person receives the notice, and the AG, the Attorney General now has 30 days to review that particular request. When the Attorney General reviews within this 30 days it bars a person, Madam President, from applying for judicial review during that 30-day period. So as long as the denial is made, no JR until 30 days. None. None whatsoever. So then we come to the point where the rationale for this particular piece of amendment is that it is an industry. The Minister complained about an industry. I do not know since when it

UNREVISED 74 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) is calling a Government into account and holding them accountable and requesting information on how the taxpayers’ money is being spent is an industry, because the people of this country who pay taxes have a right to know where their moneys are going. [Desk thumping] But you come with an excuse, with a rationale, that this particular legislation is to centralize all of the requests into the Attorney General office, all of the requests that were denied. They talk about the Balgobin case, which is the Malcolm Jones case; they talk about the Singh against the Public Service Commission case, $1.7 million in cost. I will deal with that afterwards. They talk about lawyers milking, fleecing massive amounts of money under the freedom of information requests. That was the words of the Attorney General during a press conference in this country, and as an attorney-at-law, Madam President, I am worried when the titular head of the Bar can make such obscene remarks about persons who are members of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] But through wise counsel, Madam President, the Law Association stood up against those remarks made by the Attorney General. And permit me to read into the record what the Law Association position is on this matter. This is what it says: “The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago has listened with increasing concern to the spate of ‘lawyer-bashing’ which has permeated the debate on the proposed amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. It is not, as is being suggested, that attorneys-at-law are being accused of pursuing frivolous claims of breaches of the Act on behalf of their clients. Indeed, given that the major concern is the amount of money in costs which public authorities are ordered to pay as a result of successful challenges to refusals

UNREVISED 75 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) to provide documents requested, there is the clear recognition that the various claims which gave rise to these orders for costs were meritorious.” Madam President: Sen. Hosein, I think you have made your point, I do not think you have to read the entire press release, please. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam President, just for the record, it is just two very short sentences. Madam President: Well, then make reference to those two very short sentences and move on, but do not quote the whole press release, please. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam President, what the Law Association was saying is that instead of blaming attorneys-at-law for the state of affairs that brought this legislation here, what they said is that they should fix the public authorities. What they are doing, Madam President, is legislating the incompetence of this Government. [Desk thumping] When you appoint persons of state entities— Madam President: Now, you see the difficulty, Sen. Hosein? Are you quoting from the press release or are those your comments? Sen. S. Hosein: Madam President, you just asked me not to quote, so I am now— Madam President: No, no, just answer my question when you rise. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam President, I am not quoting anymore, I am referencing to the media release. Madam President, please permit me, this is one last sentence; I want to quote this sentence because it is of particular importance which must find itself on the record of Parliament. It says: “The danger exists that by subjecting attorneys-at-law to highly publicised

UNREVISED 76 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) criticism for doing their jobs successfully, they may be reluctant to take on controversial challenges and otherwise unlawful action by the State may go unremedied.” Madam President, this is clearly extremely worrying what the Law Association had to say about the comments coming from this Government, extremely worrying. But we must also listen to what the ordinary commentators, what some of those who are professional in the field had to say. And when you look at yesterday’s Newsday there is a headline which says: “Ramesh: Keep AG out of FOIA” Keep him out. And the former Attorney General expressed his concern that a political head is now going to be in charge of reviewing probably confidential and privileged information in this country. Madam President, it is extremely worrying. We have informed the population, we warned the people of this country of a creeping dictatorship, a creeping dictatorship. [Desk thumping] The Trinidad Guardian yesterday, an article by Mr. Regis: “Ramesh: Too much power for ministers” Then we had all of the comments coming by Senior Counsel Daly and also Mr. Reginald Dumas, it is extremely worrying. Well, let me get back now to the 30 days on which the Attorney General wants to avail himself of to review particular applications that were denied. Madam President, you must know that according to the Civil Proceedings Rules of this country, Civil Proceedings Rules 1998, as amended, there is an appendix called Appendix D, subsidiary legislation, which guides the procedure of the court, and it speaks about pre-action protocol for administrative orders. And the regular

UNREVISED 77 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) time—so before—let me break it down—if somebody has a claim to file in court what they will do, the first thing they will do is give their attorney instructions. Before the attorney acts he will send a letter, a pre-action protocol letter to the defendant, the proposed defendant. Normally a 20-day period is given to try to settle the matter amicably before you enter the court because you do not want to abuse the court’s resources, and if there is no settlement after this pre-action protocol letter is sent after the 30-day period then a claim is filed. Because, Madam President, the court tends to frown upon, or the court would not order cost in circumstances where a person did not file a pre-action protocol letter, because the court would look at the behaviour of the person, whether or not any steps were taken to settle the matter. Then the claim will be filed. But, Madam President, judicial review claims is a special creature. It is a right accrued to a person by reference to the Judicial Review Act. So I want to give a timeline. The public authority refuses the request, 30 days kick in, no JR can be filed. I have to wait for the Attorney General to respond then I can issue my court claims for pre-action and then go to JR. With judicial review proceedings you have a 90-day period from the date in which the decision, the person would have been aggrieved to file your claim for judicial review. You must act promptly or within 90 days. So you already take away 30 days because the Attorney General needs 30 days to review, then you already take away 20 to 30 days when I file my pre-action protocol letter. That leaves a person with 30 days to file a judicial review application. You are frustrating, Madam President, a person’s access to the court via this particular provision, [Desk thumping] frustrating it. But you will hear, Madam President—and, also, when a

UNREVISED 78 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) judicial review application is going to be filed, when a pre-action protocol letter is issued for judicial review proceedings, a copy is sent to the Solicitor General’s office, which is the Office of the Attorney General, and also the public authority. So the Attorney General does have notice of the pre-action protocol letter, section 39. Also, Madam President, when the judicial review application is filed the Attorney General’s office will also be served with a copy of the proceedings. So the Attorney General, at all material time, will be aware if a person is going to challenge the decision of a public authority. That is a very important point, you know, because the acting Attorney General, the Member for Laventille West, spoke of, if the Attorney General knew about the Malcolm Jones claim, that public authority, Petrotrin, if they knew about that FOIA, that particular FOIA, this matter would not have reached the Privy Council. But, Madam President, permit me to respond to that and put the facts on the table, because I have a timeline of how that Malcolm Jones matter went. This is how it went. Justice des Vignes outlined it at paragraph eight of the judgment, the first instant judgment. So the FOIA request was submitted on the 11th of March. On the 22nd of April Petrotrin refused to provide the witness statement. On the 11th of May the claimant then asked, “Will you provide me with an edited copy of the witness statement?” No response from Petrotrin. On the 4th of July, Ravi Balgobin Maharaj decided to send a pre-action protocol letter to Petrotrin. On the 29th of July, which was 25 days later, Petrotrin asked for one month to reply to the pre-action protocol letter. On the 29th of August, one month after, Petrotrin responds to the pre-action protocol letter confirming that they are not disclosing the edited versions of the witness statement. On the 24th of October, an application for leave for judicial review was filed. So it

UNREVISED 79 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) took almost seven months for a claim for judicial review to be filed in that particular matter, the Malcolm Jones matter. But, Madam President, we have the record, the Solicitor General in that matter was in fact copied on the pre-action protocol letter, and this was a fact stated in Mr. Maharaj’s affidavit where he said that copies of the letter which was served on the Solicitor General was endorsed by the relevant officer of the Ministry of the Attorney General, Jonathan Henley, as proof that it was served on the AG as exhibited. So, Madam President, the Attorney General’s office knew of the Ravi Balgobin Maharaj matter before it was filed, so how can the acting Attorney General come to this Senate and to ask us and tell us that had they known about the Ravi Balgobin matter it would not have reached the Privy Council? Madam President, that is extremely misleading, [Desk thumping] because the evidence shows that the Attorney General’s office was aware of the judicial review proceedings before it was filed via a pre-action protocol letter. That is extremely important to note, Madam President. So if the AG has all of this time to consider these requests, why are you asking for more time? Why are you the gatekeeper? Why do you want to see all the information? Why do you want to say yes or no to refusals of requests, Madam President? It is a sinister political move, because the Privy Council in the Malcolm Jones matter acknowledged that there may have been political interference with the matter to withdraw the claim against Malcolm Jones. Malcolm Jones served on the energy subcommittee of this PNM Government while he was before the courts. It is extremely worrying, Madam President, extremely worrying. Then, you could remember—while I was doing my research, you want to give this Attorney General

UNREVISED 80 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) all of this power to review refusals, Madam President. Do you know there is an article, the 8th of June, 2016, by CCN TV6; this is the headline of the article: “Child Dies Waiting on AG’s Approval” Madam President, a child in this country died because they were awaiting the advice of the Attorney General via the Children’s Life Fund. How can we trust this Attorney General? [Desk thumping] How can we trust this Government to deal with these matters expeditiously? This 30 day— Madam President: Sen. Hosein, I remind you that when you read something into the record you are making that part of your contribution, so you have to change up how you present your contribution, eh. Just remember that, please. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam President, I want to ask, why does the Attorney General want to interfere in the process of freedom of information? The Attorney General is a political creature. Where else in the world does this power exist? Madam President, we have checked almost 100 countries all over the world that have FOIA legislation. This power simply does not exist in the world. Let us look at Caricom, Antigua and Barbuda, who makes the decision, public authority; Bahamas, public authority; Barbados, they have a draft Bill; who is it?—the prescribed authority; Belize, public authority; Cayman Islands, public authority; Guyana, Commissioner of Information; Jamaica, public authority; St. Lucia, public authority; St. Kitts and Nevis, public authority, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, public authority. My other colleagues would deal with the other jurisdictions, but, Madam President, this power exists nowhere in the world, nowhere. [Desk thumping] You are legislating for your incompetence; that is the mischief. Your

UNREVISED 81 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) incompetence is the mischief in this particular piece of legislation; that is what it is. But you would remember, Madam President, and it is a matter of public record, when they were saying that it was UNC lawyers, UNC lawyers that were abusing the FOIA legislation. Madam President, it is a matter of public record that there are many cases in which UNC lawyers or perceived persons to be UNC were not involved in. I have a list, Madam President—look, Wescan Trinidad Agency v The National Insurance Property Development Company Limited , judgment given on the 16th of the eleventh, 2017; Roger Simon, Audra Simon v The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education; Ravi Balgobin Maharaj v Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago; Ramdeo Sookdeo Corporal #16157 v The Commissioner of Police; The Minister of Planning and Sustainable Development v The Joint Consultative Council for the Construction Industry. Madam President, if you look at the persons who are on record in these matters, you may not want me to call the names, but these persons are not perceived to be UNC persons. So how can the Government make such a damaging dangerous statement? That is why the Law Association had to reprimand this particular Government for “lawyer bashing”. [Desk thumping] It is “lawyer bashing”, Madam President, “lawyer bashing”. That is what it is. But I want to see how this particular legislation will work. I want to show how this particular legislation would work. Madam President, if a person files a frivolous application, and I want to quote from section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act, and it says: “Where in relation to a request for access to a document of a public authority, a decision is made under this Part that the applicant is not entitled to

UNREVISED 82 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) access to the document in accordance with the request or that provision of access to the document be deferred or that no such document exists, the public authority shall cause the applicant to be given notice in writing of the decision...” So, Madam President, that is what the mischief is, section 23. So a new 23A is going to be inserted. So what 23 says, that there are certain instances in which the public authority can deny the information to an applicant. Now, when you look at what they are trying to do with 23A, Madam President, is that as long as the request is denied, the AG has it. If someone in this country files a frivolous application; for example, I want to file for any particular person’s tax returns to the Board of Inland Revenue, I know that is a confidential privileged piece of information, and I obviously know that the Board of Inland Revenue will tell me, no, but this particular section, as soon as the request is denied it is triggered. So, therefore, you can have persons’ information that is confidential and privileged, and in the example I gave with respect to the tax returns, landing on the desk of a politician in demand of the Attorney General. Madam President, that is an extremely dangerous, dangerous particular provision that is here. Any person can file a frivolous application and they know it will be denied, and that, Madam President, will form part of the relevant material that is described under section 23A, which the Attorney General will have access to, and that can lead to political mischief in this country and that is why we must call for clause 7 to be withdrawn in its entirety. [Desk thumping] It is fundamentally flawed and it cannot be fixed. Madam President, I know it is time. Madam President: Yes. Hon. Senators, at this stage we will suspend the sitting and we will return at 2.00 p.m. Sen. Hosein, you have used up 25 minutes

UNREVISED 83 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) of your speaking time. 1.00 p.m.: Sitting suspended. 2.00 p.m.

[MR. VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair] Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Hosein, you have 15 more minutes. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. Before we went on the break, Mr. Vice-President, I was making the points of the issues with respect to the lawyer bashing, and the issues with respect to costs, and then finally I wrapped up on the issue regarding the filing of frivolous applications, and the fact that the Attorney General would have known about the Malcolm Jones matter before it would have been filed, because the pre-action protocol letter and the JR application were both served on his office. So, Mr. Vice-President, I want to move on to a new aspect of the FOIA amendment, and that deals with a very fundamental issue in Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Vice-President, you would know that by virtue of our Republican Constitution it is enshrined in our law that there is a doctrine called the separation of powers doctrine. And if you look at the Constitution, Mr. Vice-President, you would see that the Constitution is the supreme law and that Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign democratic state. The Privy Council would have examined what that means, that is section 1 of the Constitution, and they found that there are three arms of the State, which is the Legislature, which is the Judiciary, and which is the Executive, and one must not exercise the function of the other. But, when you look at the FOIA legislation, and you look at the Freedom of Information Act in particular at the definition section, you will see at section 3—this is what a public

UNREVISED 84 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) authority means Mr. Vice-President. The same public authority that, when it refuses a request, has to hand over the information to the Executive arm of the State which is the Attorney General. And this is the definition of a public authority: “Parliament, a Joint Select Committee of the Parliament or a committee of either House of Parliament;” Public authority: “…the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Industrial Court, the Tax Appeal Board…” ―a superior court of record― “…Court of Summary Jurisdiction;” ―the Magistracy; the THA― “…Municipal Corporation… …Regional Health Authority…” And this will shock you Mr. Vice-President, “a Service Commission…” Now, we know the reason why service commissions in this country were insulated from the political arm, the Executive of the State, was because of political interference in the hiring and appointments of certain positions that ought or have to be independent. So, Mr. Vice-President, what this Bill does, it tramples upon the constitutional boundaries of our Constitution, and it is in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Because how can you have—if I file a request to the Judiciary, or the Commissioner of Police or a service commission for personal

UNREVISED 85 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) information, Mr. Vice-President, as long as that request is denied, the denial notice together with the relevant material is passed on to the Attorney General. Mr. Vice- President, that is an extremely dangerous power that they are vesting in the Attorney General via this Bill, very dangerous power. Because you will now have the Clerk of the House, or you will have the Speaker of the House, the Commissioner of Police, having to go to the Attorney General to ask him whether or not I can continue to refuse this particular piece of information by the applicant, and where it drives a dagger in the heart of the doctrine of constitutional separation of powers is by the additional of 23A(4). This is what it says: “A public authority shall…” —a direction is given— “comply with the advice given to it by the Attorney General under this section.” Mr. Vice-President, you will appreciate the danger in which a political head, Attorney General, is directing the independent arm of the Parliament, the independent arm of the Judiciary, the independent arm of the police. The service commissions, Mr. Vice-President, and they, what?—must. They shall comply with the advice of the Attorney General. Mr. Vice-President, how can that be proper in a sovereign democratic state like Trinidad and Tobago? It is a sinister move by this Government, Mr. Vice-President, sinister, and we cannot allow this. You have the country up-in-arms about this amendment. You have people protesting all over the country. It is all over social media, every page you turn in any daily newspaper for about a week now, you have people complaining about this FOIA legislation,

UNREVISED 86 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) asking for the Government―asking to be heard on this matter. And what does the Government say? “No consultation. We aint have no time with the people of Trinidad and Tobago.” Mr. Vice-President, could you imagine that? This Bill has the ramification to deny persons, or restrict, or frustrate persons from accessing information in this country about how some of these state agencies work. And the reason why we are fighting so hard on this side of the House for this Bill to be withdrawn Mr. Vice- President, is because when we come to this Parliament and we file questions holding this Government to account, we do not get proper answers from this Government. [Desk thumping] So we will have to access the freedom of information because without that, Mr. Vice-President, would you know that this country would have still been in the darkness with regard to the deal with Sandals. It was Afra Raymond who was on the staircase of the courtroom in San Fernando, together with his attorney at law, fighting this Government tooth and nail for them to disclose the memorandum of understanding that they signed with Sandals [Desk thumping] to give Sandals tax amnesty, to give them, sell out the country. That is what it was, Mr. Vice-President. So that is why we must preserve this power so that we can access the court without hindrance, without obstacle, without frustration, so that we can hold this PNM Government to account because they have spent millions and billions of taxpayers’ money and it has not benefited the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] It has not. It has not. And, Mr. Vice-President, the Attorney General would have spoken about the Malcolm Jones matter, and that how the former attorney would have been in breach of the Companies Act with respect to giving certain advice to Petrotrin.

UNREVISED 87 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d)

Now, Mr. Vice-President, I want to draw you to section 60 of the Companies Act which says that directors: “(a) exercise the powers of the company directly or indirectly through the employees and agents of the company; and (b) direct the management of the business and affairs of the company” And the director section 99 says that the directors have a fiduciary duty to the company to: “(a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.” Now a public authority, a state enterprise, that is incorporated under the Companies Act, Mr. Vice-President, would now be subject to the review of the Attorney General. So what if we have the Attorney General—and I am not accusing this Attorney General, any Attorney General, because of a political motive, gives advice to a certain state enterprise which is not keeping with the directors’ fiduciary duty that it owes to the company. Mr. Vice-President, the company will now run afoul of their fiduciary duties provided under section 99 of the Companies Act because you will have a situation where the company and the Attorney General may be fighting with whose advice they should take. But, Mr. Vice-President, this Bill directs the state enterprise that they must act in accordance with the advice given by the Attorney General. How can that again be proper? That is improper, Mr. Vice-President. [Interruption] Sen. Sobers just reminded me that all of these directors of state companies will now be exposed to liability. For

UNREVISED 88 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) what? A course of action in breach of a fiduciary duty, Mr. Vice-President. So we have to be very careful when you legislate. But, the Minister of Finance, he talked about the poor research, he said we have poor research on this side, very poor. But Mr. Vice-President, he quoted—he accuses us, he accuses us Mr. Vice-President. Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Hosein, you have five more minutes. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you. And, Mr. Vice-President, but had the Minister of Finance done his research, had he done his work—he quoted—I move to the Central Bank amendment, he said we should look at Jamaica. Let us look at Jamaica, how they deal with their Central Bank. Now, there is an Act of a Bill before the Jamaica Parliament called the Bank of Jamaica (Amendment) Bill, 2018. It is before a joint select committee of the Jamaican Parliament. And, Mr. Vice-President, [Crosstalk] you know what that Bill does in Jamaica? It modernizes and creates a more independent Bank of Jamaica. And the Minister would have referred to the Minister of Finance in Jamaica being able to approve the salary of the Governor General once it goes above a certain limit and other employees of the bank. Do you know, Mr. Vice-President, that that amendment Bill deletes the power of the Minister, it erodes, it takes away that Minister’s power to approve the Governor’s salary. I have the Bill here, Mr. Vice-President. I have the Bill. If you look at the Bill you will see that there is a deletion of the power at section 6 of the Bill. Clause 5, it amends section 6 of that Act. Mr. Vice-President, so how could the Minister of Finance come here to quote Jamaica, when Jamaica is going to make their Bank of Jamaica more independent by deleting the power of [Desk thumping] the Minister of Finance to

UNREVISED 89 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) approve the salary of the Governor? “Come nah man”. It is laziness on the part of this Government, Mr. Vice-President. It is laziness. [Continuous desk thumping] But I would have come here to hear that this Government defends the Prime Minister’s increase in his pension, but they stayed away from that for a while, especially the Minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General. I would just like to correct the record, I referred to him as the Acting Attorney General earlier. I am to understand Minister Stuart Young is the Acting Attorney General. Sen. Ameen: Again? Sen. S. Hosein: Yes. But they talk about where they want to go? Jam rock, they quoting Jam down. They quoting from Jamaica, right, about the definition of salary that it includes housing allowance. But I do not know how they did not study the Jamaica legislation for the Prime Minister’s pension. Because the Jamaican Pensions (Prime Minister) Act, hear how it defines salary, Mr. Vice- President. ‘“salary’ means the emoluments provided in the estimates of expenditure of the Island, exclusive of duty allowance, entertainment allowance, or any other allowance, or emoluments whatsoever or any amount provided as contribution to the office or any other expenses” Did you see housing allowance in the Prime Minister’s pension there? Why you do not follow—you only following one particular piece of legislation. “You cherry picking”. When you want to quote do everything across the board, Mr. Vice-President, [Desk thumping] do it across the board. Because when you have people in this country suffering, when you have mothers being denied their baby grant, when you have people lying down in the

UNREVISED 90 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d) halls of a hospital on the ground because they cannot get a bed, just remember that when the Prime Minister walks away from office he has a housing allowance, while many of our people of this country remain without a shelter or a roof over their head, Mr. Vice-President. Just remember that. This is brutal, Mr. Vice-President. This is a brutal piece of legislation against the people of Trinidad and Tobago. You tell the people of Trinidad and Tobago that they must tighten their belt, that they must wean off the Government. But I want to tell this PNM Government that they must wean off the public’s purse and the Treasury of Trinidad and Tobago, [Desk thumping] wean off. That is what they must do, Mr. Vice-President. It is hypocritical, hypocritical, that they wanted this legislation that people can access information up until 180 days. They had to tack back, but they want to take Central Bank information in seven days. Sen. Mark: Yes, imagine that. Sen. S. Hosein: This is the Government’s freedom of information, you know, this clause of the Bill that deals with Central Bank. This is their freedom of information. That is what they want. 2.15 p.m. But I must say, Mr. Vice-President, that this problem, this piece of legislation was in existence for over 15 years, and no Government ever complained about this particular legislation; the only one was this one led by the hon. Keith Rowley. You will see, the figures will show, that it was this Government that had the highest amount of refusals of FOIA requests in the history of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] You know what that sends a signal?—that shows that this Government is the most corrupt Government, Mr. Vice-President.

UNREVISED 91 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Hosein (cont’d)

Hon. Imbert: Point of order. Sen. S. Hosein: What is the point of order? Hon. Imbert: 46(6). How can you say that? Mr. Vice-President: Yes. Sen. Hosein. [Crosstalk] Sen. Mark: You are the most corrupt. Sen. S. Hosein: I have two seconds. Mr. Vice-President: Yes, I understand that, that is why—[Crosstalk]— Minister and hon. Senators, please allow me to rule. Sen. Hosein, yes, that particular line that you are going down, as much as you are wrapping up, is imputing improper motives; I would ask you to refrain from that. Continue. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, and to end on this point that we need accountability in Government, because without this FOI legislation we would have not known about the fake oil scandal; [Desk thumping] we would not have known about scandal, and we will soon find out about the Dragon gas deal [Desk thumping] Mr. Vice-President, and I thank you very much. [Desk thumping] Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Richards. [Desk thumping] Sen. Paul Richards: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for recognizing me, as I join this debate on the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019. And let me say from the start that I will not be as theatrical as my colleague Sen. Hosein who seems to be learning very well from the leader of his bench, and I say that in a complimentary way.

UNREVISED 92 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d)

Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you very much. Sen. P. Richards: Mr. Vice-President, I still consider myself a relative neophyte in the Parliament, but I must say that when I got the Order Paper in the other place, and I looked at the Order Paper for this Bill, I was surprised, but it is a learning process, because of the amalgamation of the disparate types of legislation being attempted to be amended, so it was kind of different for me, if not confusing in many ways. So, I sought to frame my contribution which from the very start I will say that there are several aspects of this that I fully agree with, and several aspects which I have great concerns, if not downright or outright disagreement with. For the Government’s part, most of it I agree with, but I will counter that by saying that the parts I disagree with, I disagree strongly with. So let me start by using, defining two words. Conflation: the merging of two or more sets of information, text, ideas, et cetera, into one. And another word I would like to put as a foundation is inequity, a lack of fairness or justice, inequality. And I say that in the context of the two main parts of the Bill that I intend to comment on because I know the other Members of the Independent Bench that would be commenting after me on several other parts. And I say that because it is confusing that something as sacrosanct and important as a freedom of information amendment is put amongst so many money-type Bills in terms of the ability to effectively debate on them and elucidate the points that are necessary in their debate. Let me also start by saying that there is no price that any State should put on good governance, accountability and transparency because the cost of unchecked corruption, inefficiency and alleged malfeasance is almost too high to pay as we

UNREVISED 93 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) have seen in many incarnations of Governments in Trinidad and Tobago. And if my research holds correct and the research of several political analysts in Trinidad and Tobago, the last four administrations were all voted out primarily because of allegations or acts of corruption, and this underscores the importance of any and all instruments in our legislative framework that uphold and strengthen the principles of accountability and transparency including the very important Freedom of Information Act in Trinidad and Tobago. And I will quote some documents elucidating that point, because while I know or I am presuming, I think, accurately so that this Government and the last Government are appreciative of the instrument that is the Freedom of Information Act, there are some nuances in terms of what this Bill is presenting in terms of inserting the Attorney General officially in this, because the Attorney General, from my understanding and from legal minds as the State’s legal advisor, has the remit to intervene in any matter at any stage if he or she feels that the State may have a case to proffer. So to insert it in this Bill and in this way, to me, is of great concern because of the political nature of any Attorney General, and I am not speaking about the person, I am speaking about the office in our system and the political nature or creature that is Attorney General in terms of, in this specific case, Mr. Vice-President, the now extension of the time if the public body refuses to pass over the information that is requested under the Freedom of Information Act as requested by any person. And I know the speaker, Minister Hinds, indicated that there had been some uncovering of what had been described as “sinister attorneys” or “political activists” presenting what he described as “frivolous things” clogging up the

UNREVISED 94 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) system and opening the State to paying millions of dollars in possible cost. I would have preferred with such a strong accusation the presentation of definitive data and the numbers of so-called “frivolous claims” and the cost to the State, because the substantive Attorney General has been commendably very good in the past of providing that type of data to substantiate claims upon which, in this case, these amendments are predicated, and that was not done in this case. And given the implications from several persons in the public domain, some of whom I would quote later in terms of the concerns of this extension and the insertion of the Attorney General, not necessarily this person but the office as a political creature in this process, I think that could have been a better presentation in support of what has been described as the mischief that is trying to be corrected here. And I am also concerned with that because when you know, when you look at, for example, and I will quote a document by Esther Brimmer and the title is “Vigilance: Recognizing the Slow Erosion of Democracy”, there are several questions that this document proffers and persons should be asking themselves, because very often in societies the slide to anarchy and the erosion of democracy is not as steep or as quick as we feel; it goes in very small increments until we cannot even recognize the republic that we once recognized years ago, and we have to be very careful about slow and very incremental erosions of institutions of democracy like the Freedom of Information Act. And I am not saying that this is the case here, I am saying we have to protect against it because we never know who will occupy that office of Attorney General or the Government that will be in charge of this institution in the future when we

UNREVISED 95 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) insert a political creature like an Attorney General into this equation, and before we know it, we cannot even recognize the republic that we once treasured, and the democracy that is fragile in our situation. I mean, a classic example of that, an analogy, is how we have accepted in Trinidad and Tobago where persons on Remand for 10 to 15 years and we talk about due process and the equality treatment. That is another example of erosion of rights that is slow and now accepted in Trinidad and Tobago and we have to guard against it fervently in the context of this Freedom of Information Act as a pillar of our democracy and our democratic processes and instruments in Trinidad and Tobago. So the observers in the document asked four key questions: Are the actions being conducted by a government entity? Do these actions affect the core functions of the democracy? Are there alternatives or can the actions be sustained or change to suit a wider popular view? And there is one that is a little more radical: But has the situation turned violent? And the other points that the document makes, Mr. Vice-President, is how well are we monitoring, how slowly or quickly these tools are eroding our democracy? And again, this is not directed at this Attorney General or this Government. What we are seeking to insert into law, the Attorney General taking up the issue 30 days after the refusal of the public body giving the information. So we have to ask ourselves these questions in the context of what may present itself in the future in Trinidad and Tobago. And is this amendment strengthening the democratic process in Trinidad and Tobago or is the insertion of this political

UNREVISED 96 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) entity slowly eroding that or possibly eroding that or politicizing that? And I think many of the speakers before and in the public domain have suggested that it may not be supporting or strengthening it, it may be certainly eroding it even in terms of, one, the delay envisioned, the extra 30 days and, two, the insertion of the political entity or creature that is the Attorney General. So, I think we have to make that one of our strong considerations when debating or considering supporting or not supporting this kind of amendment. Many have spoken about the issue of accountability and transparency in the context of this freedom of information amendment in this Bill, and I have to ask myself also: Is the amendment going to make a big difference in terms of the reason proffered by the Minister in the Ministry of Legal Affairs earlier on in his contribution or is it simply just going to kick the can down the road?—because to my understanding that does not, even if it goes into the Office of the Attorney General for consideration, that does not negate the option for legal redress through the court system by those who have asked for the information in the first place, and if it does, I stand corrected, but by my understanding it does not. So all it does is insert the Attorney General, he also has the remit to say, no, and it can still go through the court system, still possibly costing the State millions of dollars. And I do not know if that is what the intention or the stated intention of the amendment is, so that is a grave concern to me in terms of the amendment accomplishing what it is sets out to accomplish according to its presentation. Maybe what needs to done, through you, Mr. Vice-President, instead of institutionalizing inefficiency in these public bodies which is basically what has happened over the years, public bodies are not compliant, they have inordinate

UNREVISED 97 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) delays, they use exemptions in many cases which are codified as reasons for refusing to give information, and according to one of the speakers earlier, we live in a secretive type of society for one reason or another in terms of public bodies and their compliance. Maybe the way to go is to put systems in place, rules and regulations to mandate efficiency in these cases. The hon. Minister of Finance in his presentation spoke about the Bank of England and their freedom of information department which, because of the number of requests they have, they have put a department in place to facilitate that. The Minister in the Ministry of Legal Affairs spoke of the Parliament and its efficiency where he asked for information and he got it in three days because a system is in place in those agencies. Instead of inserting this type of amendment, would it not be more productive to ensure that public bodies understand that this is the day in which we live, it is a society in which we treasure accountability and transparency and efficiency, and we mandate that they put systems in place, an information officer to ensure that it is done in a timely manner so that they do not reach to the stage of 30 days, and in a timely manner, because part of what a democracy demands is transparency and accountability, the freedom of public information once it is not national security or medical records, as stated by the hon. Minister of Finance, in a timely manner instead of accepting as the Minister in the Ministry of Legal Affairs said, “Well, the police officer take long to go and take the report and X and Y”—and we end up just basically codifying the inefficiency, because that is what we are doing. We are accepting, okay, well, and we always complain, through you, Mr. Vice-President, “Well, the public service slow and there is bureaucracy”, but what we are doing

UNREVISED 98 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) here is saying well we accept it. We do not demand more of them and we continue it. There is also according to section 38A of Freedom of Information Act 22:02, and I quote part (1): “A person aggrieved by the refusal of a public authority to grant access to an official document, may, within twenty-one days of receiving notice of the refusal under section 23(1), complain in writing to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman shall, after examining the document if it exists, make such recommendations with respect to the granting of access to the document as he thinks fit within thirty days or as soon as practicable thereof.” So there are existing options without inserting the AG into the equation. So why do we not place emphasis on strengthening the resources of the office of the Ombudsman as an alternative approach than this which has seen quite a bit of rejection from several quarters and can be easily seen as the politicizing of the process. I think that is one of the options available to us, or remove many of the restrictions as are presently codified in public bodies that they seem to be using more and more to deny or delay information or the granting of access to the information with the exception, as I said before, national security and medical records which are already in the law, and strengthen their ability to give resources to their departments which are responsible for submitting this information in a timely manner. That, to me, is a more acceptable route, and within the present remit of the law as it stands. So I have grave concerns, not to mention as has been mentioned before by our colleague Sen. Hosein, it has been much discussed in the public domain about

UNREVISED 99 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) the issue of the media and people like Afra Raymond and their fight, the editorial fight under the present construct that is, to get information which should be readily available to the public in matters of State that do not negatively impact or do not have relevance to national security or people’s public records. And I have a quote from an online source Wired 868 which takes a quote for Senior Counsel Martin Daly and former Ambassador and Head of the Public Service Reginald Dumas on grave concerns about many of the provisions in this miscellaneous provisions Bill, and I quote: “Why is a Government which says it is committed to transparency proposing to make it more difficult for citizens to access information from official sources? [And] why, at a time of economic belt-tightening and obviously rising unemployment—whatever the official pronouncement on that issue—does the government consider it a good idea to raise pensions for certain officeholders whose emoluments are already well in excess of the country’s norm, at the expense of other taxpayers in certain pressing society needs?” And I will deal with that part a little later on, but you see people who are respected commentators having, voicing similar concerns, the Media Association and the declaration of conflict immediately. I am a member of the media having serious concerns because it is already quite difficult, challenging and a delayed process, for members of the media who are a part of a critical institution of any democracy, the fourth estate, getting information on state agencies to conduct legitimate, journalistic investigations which have in the past proved useful to the sitting Government and past Governments in terms of unearthing corruption, inefficiency, government wastage and malfeasance in the public service. The

UNREVISED 100 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d)

Media Association and its members have grave concerns about this clause 7 and think it should be totally eliminated. I proffer an alterative, if not the total deletion of clause 7, which would on one hand possibly remove the “Attorney General” from the equation because of the reasons I have outlined before; or two, ensure that public bodies enact measures including, as I said before, removing of some of those restrictions and caveats that they have used to deny or delay the provision of the information to legitimate requests, and ensure that we make the system more efficient in the interest of transparency and accountability, which the present Government has stood on from the time it was leading up to 2015 elections and whilst in office. So, I do not see it as anathema to stated government policy to do that. So, if we can find a way to delete the insertion of the “Attorney General”, but strengthen the public and demand quite frankly the public bodies’ ability and willingness and track record of providing information in a timely manner, I think we can come to some amicable compromise. Sen. Khan: Sen. Richards, in most instances when a request is denied, from my experience, it is denied not because you could not provide it or you could provide it fast enough, but you deny it on a perceived legal basis, that it could be challenged and it is not appropriate legally to so do. Who will the advice come from, as a Government, if it is not from the Attorney General? Sen. P. Richards: Thank you. And my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is there is an option to kick in the office of the Solicitor General at that point to look over situation and provide some sort of counsel. So there are already mechanisms in place, to my understanding. I do not see that the AG is the

UNREVISED 101 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) last bastion of state protection in this case for legitimate, legal challenges; but on the other hand, Minister Khan, through you, Mr. Vice-President, we know that we operate in an environment of secrecy. We know that public bodies delay and deny information that is legitimate because it may make them look bad, and by extension in some instances, the Government of the day. I am not saying the present Government, I am saying governments or administrations. So, we cannot sit and pretend that it is always above board, and it is in the interest of protecting the public body. It is very often in the interest of protecting the public body from proper scrutiny and protecting some possible malfeasance that may have come from the political directorate. So, I do not think that it is an anathema in terms of the suggestions that I have made in terms of making the system more efficient and accountable, because as it stands it is not. And in terms of response to the situation outlined by the Minister in the Ministry of Legal Affairs who contributed earlier, he is not here presently, and persons for so-called frivolous requests, you know, at some point let the public know as is legally possible, because saying something in the open air because there are political activists on both sides who can be accused of that.

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair] So it is not exclusive to one or two or three political parties. It may be people who have legitimate interests—and we welcome back Madam President— who, and people generally. It is almost like, yes, let us assume that the argument that there is mischief about is taking place. It is like Peter paying for Paul and as usual, Paul paying for all. So people who have legitimate concerns are now hampered by this, and you add another layer of doubt and mistrust in the system by

UNREVISED 102 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) inserting the political creature that is the “Attorney General”, and I do not think that is a good move especially in the divisive present political environment. And again, it is not a commentary on this Attorney General, it is on the office of the Attorney General and whoever may sit there in the future wherever he or she may be, who may not be as magnanimous as this Attorney General or this Government. The law has to have the foresight as to what is possible and stop at the point where it can be an anathema to transparency and accountability and, I think, that is very important. Through you, Madam President, my final comment on this because I feel very strongly about this freedom of information provision that is proposed here. I really think the answer is to take out clause 7 and strengthen those public bodies and possibly remove the impediments to them providing information in which they have been using effectively. I want to quote from Freedom of Information: a Comparative Legal study by Toby Mendel revised and updated in 2008 by Abdul Waheed Khan, Assistant- Director General for Communication and Information at UNESCO. And I quote: “The free flow of information and ideas lies at the heart of the very notion of democracy and is crucial to effective respect of human rights.” In the absence of respect for the rights of freedom of expression which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. It is not possible to exercise the right to vote, the right to investigate human rights abuses takes in secret, and there is no way to expose corrupt inefficient government. The importance of the right to access information held by public bodies sometimes referred to as the right to know has been recognized in Sweden for 200 years, and

UNREVISED 103 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) the right to know is also cloaked in the right to timely access to knowledge. It is not just about having access to knowledge, because very often the issues that are being interrogated by the request for information are time sensitive. So a 30 or 60 day or more delay may render the point that the investigator is trying to prove mute in a society like ours that moves pretty, pretty fast from one day to the next. So the delay aspect is also very important in terms of the provisions in this. And I continue quoting from document: “In 2003, the idea that the right to information had been internationally recognised as a fundamental human right was a bold claim…” So the claim with phrases somewhat tentatively. “This is no longer the case and there is very widespread support for this contention. While there are no doubt of those who dispute this claim, they are flying in the face of history and in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary. Freedom of information is a fundamental human right…and the touchstone of all freedoms to which the UN is consecrated.” And again, I stress, the right to know also has a time component to it. It is not just the right to know six months down the road or three years down the road. It is the right to know as soon as is effective, because of the systems you put in place to effect that efficiency, and we should not be codifying inefficiency because that is what it seems like what we are doing, to me, in this case, although that may not be the intention. Madam President, also I just want to quote on this final point on this issue. The Organization of American States Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights is a legally binding treaty, guarantees freedom of expression in

UNREVISED 104 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) similar terms and even stronger than UN instruments. In 1994 the Inter American Press Association, a regional NGO organized the hemispheric conference on free speech which adopted the Declaration of Chapultepec—I am sure I am pronouncing that wrong— a set of principles which elaborate on the guarantee of freedom of expression. And underpinning freedom of expression, in any society that is civilized and forward thinking is the right to know because expression should be predicated on knowledge and accurate information. It is not just about being free to say what you want in a vacuum. Your expression, your opinion, which is part of your right has to be underpinned by your access to information; otherwise people just “mouthing off”, as we all hear, and it does not have any context or validity; so that is my comment on that. The other comment I would like to make through you, Madam President, is—and I mentioned the word before you returned to the Chamber which is conflation. So there is conflation between the various aspects of this Bill, and there is conflation within certain aspects of the Bill. And I am absolutely sure that the argument proffered by the hon. Minister of Finance about judges and retired public servants who are struggling to take care of themselves is not lost on anyone. I am sure most people listening and looking on and our commentators have no problem making sure people who have served effectively in Trinidad and Tobago are taken care of by the State by these provisions. So I wholeheartedly support the emolument for judges, et cetera, and persons who have in the past served. I however think that conflating it with Prime Ministers’ pensions in the present environment and Ministers with portfolio is where the contention lies,

UNREVISED 105 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) because the Government is on record as saying we have to belt-tighten, and I am not saying that Ministers now and in the past have not given up their all, and we all know, at least, I know how demanding a Minister’s portfolio is, and the kinds of demands that are placed on any person serving in those honourable offices, and the fact that when you leave the office, in many cases, you “cyar geh no wuk” because nobody will touch you, you are a political agent, and that is a fact. 2.45 p.m. We tend to have it easy, or I, let me not say we, for this Bench, that is anathema. And even so, because we are also a political creature of a different kind. Also, there is hands-off of even Independent Senators because we vote on Bills, because people have perceptions of us. So people who serve in these positions and other public officers have to be protected and taken care of in their state. I am in agreement with that wholeheartedly. Retired judges also fall into that category. You sat as a judge and when you go back out and you may have retired but you are not at the end of your productive life, because of the position you once held, it is difficult to get a job, to maintain your lifestyle, you “cyah” practice again. So I am in agreement that persons in those positions and Ministers, should be taken care of because the hon. Minister through you, Madam President, of Finance has been very good at prosecuting that case and we are replete with individuals who we know, as Madam President has indicated through sensitivity, we will not call their name to demean their stature in society in any way, but we know of it. But when it is conflated in the public’s perception with persons who the public already feels is getting great salary, et cetera, and I think there is where the concern is. And I know the conflation may have been strategic because what

UNREVISED 106 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) government is going to come and say, “You know what? Leh we increase our salaries and emoluments by itself. Yuh would geh licks.” And I understand that nuance in it, but that does not make you any less deserving of the emoluments because one day you will not sit in the seats which you occupy now. But I think there needs to be some sort of consensus on it, and find ways to present it, so that it does not seem as if—and I am being extremely sincere with this—self-serving, in a manner of speaking, and inequitable in a national context, because the perception outside and when you listen to the talk shows which are not really the repository sometimes of great information, but it gives the national community a chance to air their perspectives on things. I listened to a couple this morning and people were generally upset of the notion that sitting Ministers are going to get extra, but, I mean, yes, they deserve it on one hand, but then when you are telling the population “people are losing their jobs, it is a tight economy”—and it is—“and have to be very tight about how we handle things.” It just seems conflicting in many ways. And I understand it is not an easy fix, it not an easy situation to resolve, but I think we have to have more discussion on it to see the way forward in the interest of one, protecting the livelihood and standard of living—well not even protecting the standard of living of persons who have served but—making sure they have a decent standard of living, one, but also taking into consideration the fact that the public is looking on and they have been asked to tighten their belts, and they do not have housing allowances and other allowances being tagged onto their overall packages when they leave their jobs. So that is a conflict that is not an easy one to resolve, but I think it must be considered moving forward.

UNREVISED 107 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d)

Madam President, also you know the other aspect. I agree with the amendment of the Non-Profit Organisations Act to extend to a year, so that many of these organizations do not have the resources to comply within a year, so I think that is a good thing. And another thing, and again I am trying not to be self-serving in this and not even considering myself but, there are, under the present provisions of this, my understanding, and Minister of Finance please correct me if I am wrong. If a Minister is appointed without parameters as outlined here, for a day or a week: Is he or she eligible, or is there a number of cycles that one must serve? Please? Hon. Imbert: You are referring to the pension issue? Sen. P. Richards: Yes. Hon. Imbert: There is a scale after five years you get one-sixth; after nine years you get a third; after 12 years you get a half—no after 15 years you get a half; and after 18 years you get two-thirds and that is unbroken service, when it is aggregated they go much longer to 21 years to get two-thirds, and then other increments so, no. If a Minister serves for one day, he is not entitled to a pension at all. He has to serve for five years and then he gets one-sixth of the amount and then it just goes up progressively. But you have to serve 21 years if your service is broken to get the two-thirds, okay. Sen. P. Richards: Thank you for the clarification, Minister. And the other thing I would suggest, and I know it is a difficult prospect in the context of what is already before us and the push back in some areas, because I think, as I said before, not all aspects of these are unreasonable or unacceptable but the issue of the classification of those within this House, who are eligible, who become eligible

UNREVISED 108 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) and I know it has been mentioned before by Sen. Mark, and I am certainly not proffering that people who serve three months, or three years, or five years, but certainly I know of Independent Senators who have served three terms, or two terms and are not presently under this construct eligible, and they have also served as the Minister has said in his presentation admirably and well, and at some point we need to have that consideration for them. Madam President: Sen. Richards, you have five more minutes. Sen. P. Richards: Thank you very much. Minister, you wanted to— Hon. Imbert: Yes certainly, the issue with this matter is we did not want to make it too complicated. There was a Bill in 2014 that would have allowed persons without portfolio to make a contribution because currently, Independent Senators, Opposition Senators, and Government Senators without a portfolio are not members of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, so they do not make contributions, and therefore they are not entitled to benefits. There was a Bill in 2014 to bring people like this into the system, by just paying a small sum towards the pension scheme not the full amount, but unfortunately that Bill was withdrawn. That is certainly something that should be considered in the future. Certainly. Sen. P. Richards: Thank you, Minister, for the clarification and finally, Madam President, on the issue—I kind of lost my train of thought—so what I will do is wrap up. To just outline my main points, I would prefer, I have no control over it, as the Government fully remits that in the interest to me, exercising the intent of debate that these kinds of Bills not be combined, and I know the rationale is going to be, well, we are running out of time in the session and we have a certain

UNREVISED 109 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Richards (cont’d) amount of Bills to pass, et cetera. But I do not think it is an acceptable excuse and I say that without any derogatory intent. I do not think it is just in the interest of properly ventilating the issues relating to these Bills. So I guess better legislative and time schedule management would be in place, and we need to be very, very careful of not institutionalizing inefficiency in public bodies, in terms of the access to information and the delay, and as I said before and I would close in this. It is very concerning to introduce the Attorney General’s Office in this equation. I think there are other ways to go about dealing with the alleged malfeasance and the frivolous nature of things, but even that has its place in a democracy, because who is to say what is frivolous to you may not be frivolous to me. So you saying it is frivolous may be because there is a political context in your concern, but it may not be to me to be fair. And people have the right to information of public bodies. And with those few words, Madam President, I thank you. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Minister in the Ministry of Finance. The Minister in the Ministry of Finance (Sen. the Hon. Allyson West): Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me the opportunity to join this debate. I will just address a couple of the issues raised by the preceding speakers before I get into the meat of my contribution, which will focus mainly on the amendment to the national insurance legislation and the tax amnesty. Madam President, Sen. Hosein in his contribution said in relation to another matter, the Freedom of Information Act, he said “People in this country who pay taxes have a right to know where their money is going.” I would agree with that statement, but I am relating that statement to the amendment we are seeking to

UNREVISED 110 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) make to the Central Bank legislation. There are various provisions in the legislation in Trinidad and Tobago that protect privacy in the banking sector. The understanding on which that is based is that privacy is necessary for the protection of the financial sector, and also it is important to protect people’s financial data. So to me that provision essentially is availing the financial institutions legislation, the Central Bank legislation, in the income tax legislation. In all of those bits of legislation there is a clear intent to ensure there is protection of financial data. This Government is in no way seeking to interfere with that. What we are seeking to do, is to get information on the staffing structure at the Central Bank and to get information on the remuneration paid to persons employed by the Central Bank. That in my view, is not interfering with the financial sector, it is not interfering with people’s financial information, and is not seeking to violate any of those provisions in the legislation, with the possible exception of the provision in the Central Bank Act itself, which when I looked at it prior to having to respond to a question raised by Sen. Obika, I did not interpret to mean that the information on salaries and structure was not information that could have been provided. I did not think it was information that was protected because when I read a provision that says that the Central Bank officers are not allowed to reveal information that they receive in respect to the operations of the bank, I do not interpret that to mean salaries, and staff structure, but it has been interpreted in that way. And what this results in, is that the people of Trinidad and Tobago who are responsible for paying the salaries of the Government, and the Central Bank and others indirectly have no way of finding out, how the Central Bank is structured and organized, what remunerations are paid. All we are seeking to do is change

UNREVISED 111 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) that. Not to interfere with how they structure their affairs, not to interfere with the remuneration that is being paid, but I see no reason why people are not entitled to that information. And as I said, it in no way affects the provisions that protect the privacy of financial information in Trinidad and Tobago which will continue to operate. Sen. Hosein again throwing out bits for press bites, sound bites, says that even the Attorney General in reviewing an application that is refused under the FOIA has to consider and the application relates to the provision of tax information, then the Attorney General would have access to tax information through the ‘backdoor’. I think it is unreasonable for anybody to say that for the Attorney General to determine whether the Inland Revenue is entitled to provide tax information if that is requested, needs to look at somebody’s tax return to make that determination. So what we are doing is trying to create concern and panic in the public where none should exist. All the Attorney General has to do is look at the application, look at the provisions of the legislation to determine whether there is a reasonable cause for saying that there is no basis for revealing this information. He does not have the look at people’s tax returns. So let us not try to put misinformation out there where none should exist. Another comment made by Sen. Hosein in respect of the Freedom of Information Act is if the Attorney General overrules a statutory body then he is putting the directors of that body at risk of a breach of fiduciary duty claim. If the directors of a body acting properly on sound advice determine that this information should not be provided then they have a reasonable basis for challenging any

UNREVISED 112 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) claims brought against them for breach of fiduciary duty. If having refused to give that information and the AG instructs them to do otherwise and they act in accordance with legislation which says you have no choice, how can a court find them in breach of fiduciary duty when they acted properly in accordance with the legislation and their duties? So it seems to me that too is a frivolous claim. Moving on to Sen. Richards’ comments, I understand his concern regarding the need for more information. This Government is certainly not seeking to reduce the public’s right to access of information. 3.00 p.m. What we are seeking to do is put a system in place that reduces the likely burden that the Government will have to bear where applications are denied in a situation where there is little basis. The only time that an application under the FOI is required to be referred to the Attorney General is where the public authority to whom the application went says, no. If the public authority in question says, yes, the matter does not come before the Attorney General. Remember the Attorney General represents the Government in any application for judicial review in respect of which an application is denied, the Attorney General will be joined in that application, and we are saying it is wrong for the Attorney General for the first time to see this when the matter is filed and the dispute is already before the court, and then he has to go to defend a matter which he may not agree in the decision in respect of which he may not agree with. So Sen. Richards asked for statistics and I will attempt to provide some of those. The number of requests made to public authorities during the period 2009— 2016 is what I have. I do not have the more recent years. So in 2009 you had

UNREVISED 113 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d)

1,221; 2010, 1,556; 2012, 315; 2013, 818; 2014, 869 applications; 2015, 532, and in 2016, 899. The number of decisions that an applicant was told that he was not entitled to get access to the information, of the 1,200 in 2009, 128 were denied. Of the 1,500, I am rounding up here, in 2010, 68 were denied; of the 315 in 2012, 14 were denied; of the 818 in 2013, 106 were denied; of the 869 in 2014, 37 were denied; of the 532 in 2015, 139 were denied; of the 899 in 2016, 145 were denied. The compliance rate— Sen. Richards: Thank you, Minister. Through you, Madam President, would it not suggest to the Government then that some sort of more efficient or accountable system needs to be put in place in these public bodies that are causing this issue as opposed to the route that is suggested here? It seems that there is some issue with the decision making process in these public bodies. Sen. The Hon. A. West: Okay. So let me finish with the statistics and I will come back to your question, Sen. Richards. The compliance rate, that is the rate in respect of which yeses were given averaged 84 per cent. So it went from a high of 95.7 in 2014 to a low of 83.8 in 2016, so it is moving up and down, but the average is a compliance of 84 per cent in respect of which yeses are received. The number of applications for judicial review filed where decisions have gone against the applicant: in 2009 it was nine, in 2010 it was seven, in 2011 it was 12, in 2012 it was 10, in 2014 it was seven, in 2015 it was 99, and in 2016 it was 107. So you see where we are going with applications for judicial review. The total percentage of judicial review in respect of the total made, it started off with .7, it went to .4, 3.8, 1.2, 0.8; 2016, 18.6 per cent judicial review applications; in 2016, 20.8 per cent judicial review applications. And unfortunately, I do not have

UNREVISED 114 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) the figure in respect of which that cost the State, but I have heard the Attorney General speak on these matters and he says in every case that has come recently, the complainant has been awarded costs in excess of $1 million. So, it is a significant financial impact on the State, and it seems to be creeping in the wrong direction, and so we felt it was important to put a system in place which said hold on. Before we get to the stage where we have to incur $1 million-plus in respect of each application, let somebody else who has to appear before the court and defend this decision whether or not he was involved in the decision-making, let somebody else have a say in this. Let somebody else have a say in determining whether the no should stay a no, and remember the Attorney General only gets involved where it is a no. Where it is a yes, and the majority of cases, over 85 per cent of the cases may go straight to the applicant and the AG is not at all involved. Putting things in place to make things more efficient. Yes, we agree completely, we should do that, but remember in the majority of cases yeses are given and in the majority of cases the 30-day period is met. So, yes, there can be improvements in all cases, but it is not as dire as it appears, we are not seeking to institutionalize inefficiency. What we are seeking to do is stop this creep of costs against the State where decisions are made that may not necessarily be the right decisions. So, that is what we are seeking to do with the Freedom of Information Act, to determine whether a no should remain a no or whether it should change to a yes. So, in our view we are actually giving the members of the public a greater ability to get the information that they are seeking, by saying that somebody else could review a no to determine whether it should be a yes, so you will not have to

UNREVISED 115 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) incur the cost of going for a judicial review in a case like that, unless the Attorney General agrees with the initial decision. So, we are seeking to address what we consider to be a flaw in how the system operates and to ensure that the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information Act is adhered to. That is the objective of the amendment. I know we can always look around corners and say that the Legislature or the Government is creeping towards reducing the benefit of the Freedom of Information Act, but that is certain not the intent, and it will not be the effect of this particular legislation. I do not think we should look forward to see what else could come in the future to determine how we treat with this particular provision. So I recommend to the members of the public that they give us support in respect of that provision for the benefit of the same taxpayer who wants the freedom of information, and for the benefit of how we operate in Trinidad and Tobago. So, Madam President, having commented on that, I would like to switch to the meat of my provisions, and in that respect I will refer us to a comment made by Sen. Mark in respect of the NIB. He says the NIB is shrinking. Government is bringing legislation to break the law. We should be increasing rather than decreasing contributions, and, of course we are breaching ILO conventions and so on. Madam President, I am not sure that we as a whole in the country understand what the NIB does and what benefits are payable under the National Insurance legislation, and so to understand the rationale for this provision we have to have a clearer understanding of the benefits that people are entitled to, where they become registered under the NIS. So, let me give a short synopsis of those benefits, and I am looking here at short-term benefits because the particular provision as you are

UNREVISED 116 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) probably aware was contemplated in the context of us having to register migrants, who we hope are temporary migrants, to Trinidad and Tobago, who we are allowing to work, and who will therefore be in the system for at least a year. So the benefits which people registered under the NIS are entitled to, are varied, and if we look at the short-term benefits and the rules around them, they are as follows. Sickness Benefit, you are entitled to a Sickness Benefit if you are registered with the NIB and you make 10 weekly contributions in the 13 weeks prior to the sickness. You must be in insurable employment, and you must be losing earnings as a result of the illness. Once you qualify you are entitled to 60 per cent of the weekly earnings, and this is payable for a maximum of 52 weeks. So, somebody could make contributions for 10 weeks but get 52 weeks of benefit. Hon. Senator: Fifty-two weeks of benefit? Sen. The Hon. A. West: Fifty two. Maternity: You are entitled to a Maternity Benefit once you make 10 contributions in the period in question. You are entitled to a Funeral Grant, which is a fixed amount; you are entitled to Employment Injury Benefit. You get this Employment Injury Benefit if you make at least one contribution to the NIS. So imagine somebody who is here for a short time, who is not a resident of Trinidad and Tobago, who has not contributed to the fabric of the society, being entitled after making one contribution to a benefit of 66 and two-thirds of their weekly earnings for up to 52 weeks. There is also a disablement pension, which you become entitled to once you have made one contribution. If you become disabled as a result of an accident at work and you get this after the injury allowance or what I called above the employment injury benefits. So you can get an injury benefit of the 52 weeks, and

UNREVISED 117 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) thereafter you get a disablement pension, and it is potentially payable for life. So you get one year of allowance, you get a lifetime of disablement benefit, after making one contribution towards the NIS. There is also a disablement grant which is a lump sum. There is also a death benefit which is payable after you make one contribution; and you are also entitled to medical expenses of up to $33,000 to cover doctors’ fees, drugs, private hospitals, et cetera. Having said all of that, let us look at what the person must contribute to get these benefits. The NIS contributions currently, based on salary and wages, run from $9.60 per week to $110.80 per week. So imagine we have somebody in Trinidad and Tobago, for a temporary purpose, having paid $906, is entitled to Employment Injury Benefit, disablement pension, disablement grant, death benefit, refund of medical expenses. So, if there is anything that, to quote Sen. Mark, will shrink the NIB, it is if we allow the abuse of these provisions. So, what we are seeking the amendment to do is to allow us to review the circumstances to determine whether we should deny certain people the right to register, and the right to get entitlement of these benefits, and this is for—remember the Prime Minister and other persons from the Government who have spoken on this, say that we recognize our neighbourly duties to our neighbours who are suffering pressure at this point in time, but we do that always in the context of recognizing our duty to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and it is in seeking to protect the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. And it is seeking to protect the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, and to ensure that the NIS which is already under pressure, as I have admitted in responses to questions brought to this House, that the NIS is not further eroded by an irresponsible extension of the benefits to persons who are here temporarily. That is the objective

UNREVISED 118 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) of the legislation, and I commend it to the Members of the Senate to provide us with the support that we need to pass this legislation. Madam President, the last matter that I want to deal with is the amnesty. In that context I will mention that before I joined this honourable House, before I changed my profession, and long before I even contemplated whether I would get involved in this kind of activity at all— Hon. Senator: And did you regret it? Sen. The Hon. A. West:—I worked in another place. [Laughter] And when the Minister of Finance, in 2016, brought a provision for an amnesty, the place where I worked, PricewaterhouseCoopers produced a tax newsletter dated July 2016, and one of the things we said, and I quote: While past amnesties have resulted in the collection of a great deal of outstanding taxes, which would be most welcomed at this time—and off record, it still would be welcomed at this time, back on—we are of the view, that any further amnesty should have immediately preceded the introduction of the Revenue Authority with a new and more focused approach to tax administration. I say that in the context of Trinidad and Tobago having over the years granted amnesties in 2000, 2007, 2010, 2015, 2016, and again seeking to grant an amnesty in 2018. Now, an amnesty is a tool that is employed when tax administrations are not as efficient as they should be. Because what it is doing is saying to your tax- paying public, you have not complied with your tax obligations by not filing your returns and/or not paying your taxes on time, so we will give you a period during which you can do that, and during that period we will not impose the interest on penalties that would otherwise be due. So, having recognized that the tax amnesty

UNREVISED 119 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) is to address inefficiency in the administration of taxes, it is reasonable to say, okay, having granted this amnesty, what are we going to do about this tax administration to ensure that this is not a recurring event? And what we propose to do, as I indicated, is to bring the Revenue Authority legislation before this House and again seek your support in getting that through, so that we can ensure that going forward, tax compliance is more robust, and the need for ongoing amnesty is significantly reduced. So let us understand what this amnesty means. Firstly, this particular amnesty, and of course again in the context of a situation where we are hoping to morph very shortly into a revenue authority, this particular amnesty waives taxes in respect of a longer list of—waives interest and penalties in respect of a longer list of taxes than we have in the past. So it covers income tax, corporation tax, withholding tax, unemployment levy, business levy, Green Fund levy, health surcharge, petroleum profits tax, supplemental petroleum tax, value added tax, gaming tax, financial services tax, tourism transfer taxes, land and building taxes, and the online purchase tax. And what it does, it says to taxpayers at large that during the period June 15th to September 15th, you have the opportunity to settle all your outstanding taxes and file all of your outstanding returns with the Board of Inland Revenue, and if you do that within this period we will waive the interest and penalty that would otherwise be due on the late filing of your returns and the late payment of your taxes. What it does not do is to waive any tax obligation that exists. What it also does not do is to extend that waiver beyond the amnesty period. So if you pay your tax, if you miss your amnesty period and you pay your tax a day after the

UNREVISED 120 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) amnesty comes to an end, all of the taxes and penalties that previously existed and that would have accrued during the period of the amnesty come right back in force. So you have that window to act, and some people are saying, is it long enough? We have lost two days, what are we doing? Remember that in the mid-year review, which happened over a month ago— Hon. Senator: The 13th of May. Sen. The Hon. A. West: The 13th of April, we would have—May, sorry, we would have indicated to the public that this amnesty was coming. Sen. Thompson-Ahye: May I ask what was the rationale for starting on a Saturday? Sen. The Hon. A. West: The Minister of Finance is anxious to answer that question, so I will leave it for him. [Laughter] Sen. Thompson-Ahye: Logically, I hope. Sen. The Hon. A. West: But, having said that, what I am saying is that people were alerted to the fact that the amnesty was coming so they could have put their affairs in order and got themselves ready. So, in that context it is my view that they do not need an extended period although the legislation does give the Minister the power to extend it beyond the 15th of September, where he thinks it is reasonable to do so. So, as I said, people are aware that the amnesty was coming and they have been getting ready, because I have been having all sorts of questions about when the amnesty is coming or what it covers, and they have essentially three months to act. The Board of Inland Revenue is prepared for what hopefully is an onslaught of people to come in and settle their affairs, and become up-to-date. Because,

UNREVISED 121 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) following the conclusion of this amnesty, Madam President, we expect more robust compliance provisions, we expect more robust compliance activity, and therefore those people who choose not to take advantage of the amnesty should be made to feel the full brunt of the legislation. And the Board of Inland Revenue does have significant authority in terms of its compliance powers, and we expect them going forward to exercise those powers to keep people on track and keep them up-to-date in their payments and their filings, because otherwise, Madam President, what happens is that the burden of the tax keeps falling on fewer and fewer people, and then the Minister has to keep considering, do I need to adjust the tax rates to compensate for the shortfall in the tax. And the way to avoid or mitigate against that is to ensure that everybody who is required to pay, pay what is required to be paid. And it for this reason that the amnesty is being introduced. Now, one of the things that the amnesty does is to give those people who— before I say that, let me say that the interest and penalties imposed under the tax legislation are fairly hefty, and they are hefty because they are intended to act as a deterrent. So for example, somebody who does not pay his withholding tax, used to have a penalty of 50 per cent, it is now 25 plus interest of 20 per cent on top of the tax and the penalty. Somebody who does not pay their VAT on time has interest of 2 per cent per month and so on and so forth. Somebody who does not their pay their PAYE on time has a penalty of 25 per cent plus interest of 20 per cent on the tax and the penalty. So, these are all very significant. Also, the legislation gives to the Board of Inland Revenue the power when it assesses somebody to additional tax over and above what that person has declared, to charge a penalty tax or additional tax of up to three times the tax liability. All

UNREVISED 122 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) very significant. And so, people who have not complied and who have as a result, seen their tax obligation, when you include the penalties, go up to amounts that far exceed, in some instances, the tax liability itself, consider seriously, “should I go and pay this tax and put myself on record so I know that the board is going to come after me, or should I try to stay under the radar and do not pay the tax at all”? This amnesty gives those people the opportunity to regularize their situation without bearing the burden of those heavy taxes. And so we are hoping that by the end of it we have a more comprehensive list of taxpayers than we currently do, which will help the Revenue Authority going forward. We have people who have paid up their taxes, and so we could look forward in respect of compliance issues, and that where we have to look back, the number of cases are fewer. So it would make the operation of the tax authority as we transition, a smoother and easier transition. So, it is for this reason and the reasons outlined by the Minister of Finance, that we have brought the provisions of the tax amnesty at this point, and again, I commend that provision to you. I understand the concerns of Senators, that there are several different disparate provisions in this one legislation, but they are all significant. They are all important, they need to be done in a timely manner, and so it is for this reason that we have brought them together. It is not to slip anything by. It is to ensure that going forward we can operate in the manner that we need to operate, to do things efficiently and properly, and with that, Madam President, I thank you. [Desk thumping] 3.30 p.m. Sen Khadijah Ameen: Thank you very much, Madam President. I take this

UNREVISED 123 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) opportunity to join in the debate for the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 2019, that includes at least six measures that are unrelated or barely related. A measure for a tax amnesty, which is a mechanism for the Government to scrape together more revenue; a measure for the Government to pay itself more and Members of the House of Representatives, the President, the Prime Minister and judges more in a time when citizens are losing jobs, are being denied their back pay and allowances; a measure to restrict citizens’ access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, in a time where the Government has publicly declared the purpose of this measure is to quote “stop UNC lawyers from accessing information on the PNM Government” and to give the Attorney General, a political creature, the power to do so. Fourth, an amendment to deny certain persons coverage from the National Insurance Scheme under the National Insurance Board. These certain persons and the conditions we have no knowledge of because the Order has not been made available to us. And this measure puts the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago at a disadvantage on the job market. It also seeks to amend the Central Bank Act to allow the Minister to have access to information in the Central Bank as if it were a department in the Ministry of Finance. The sixth measure gives the Minister more control in the Non-Profit Organisations Act, which was only recently debated in this Parliament. Madam President, I intend to touch on a few and to go in depth on a couple. First of all, Madam President, I appreciate the frankness of the speaker before me, the Minister in the Ministry of Finance. The measure to forgive the penalties and interest on taxes as proposed under the Income Tax Act, the

UNREVISED 124 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

Corporation Tax Act, the Petroleum Taxes Act, the Value Added Tax Act, the Miscellaneous Taxes Act, the Income Tax (In Aid of Industry) Act, the Tourism Development Act, all the taxes—all the revenue that will be collected in those places would be—all the unpaid would be forgiven the penalties and interest. Madam President, I was happy to hear the Minister of Finance, in laying the Bill here, indicate that a change has been made to correct an ambiguity in one of the provisions that would have allowed the penalties, but not the interest balances, for persons who had complied, paying the principle before the amnesty period, to also have the interest forgiven. And I think it was simply an oversight. It was not dealt with in the House of Representatives and I intended to bring it to the Minister’s attention today and I am happy that has been cleared up so that persons who complied would not be punished, whereas persons who did not comply would be forgiven. Madam President, the date suggested—the date in this Bill is Saturday 15 June, 2019, to Sunday 15 September, 2019. I know it may have been selected because it may sound easy to say, the 15th June to 15th of September but effectively, there are a number of days where the offices would not be operational on a normal Monday to Friday, 8.00 to 4.00 operation as Government offices are. I do know that there have been times when the Ministry of Finance would extend their opening hours into Saturdays and Sundays and I trust that perhaps the Minister in clarifying the need for the date as indicated by the Minister in the Ministry—would you clarify whether the offices would be open on Saturday and Sunday? The Minister—my other question had to do with whether this would take

UNREVISED 125 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) effect after the proclamation of this Act, and the Minister has indicated that it will be retroactive, so any person who files on Saturday 15th of June—I do not know if the office was open—would be forgiven. Madam President, we have had these amnesties granted on a number of occasions. The main incentive for this amnesty is not for goodwill. It is so that Government could provide an incentive for people who owe the State in taxes to come forward and pay them. It is a measure for the Government to recover revenue that is owed to it. It is an opportunity for the Government to have a little more dollars and cents to balance their books when it comes to the revenue of Trinidad and Tobago. And it brings into question the rate of penalties. The Minister in the Ministry of Finance read out the rates in terms of the penalties, the interest 25 per cent on certain taxes, I will not repeat those, but I want to endorse—to indicate out of that, that the penalties—the rate of the penalties and the interest is meant to be a deterrent, so that people will not pay late. But, in fact, what it does is that because there is such a low compliance rate and such inefficiencies with the authorities going out and being proactive, it is easy for businesses and for individuals to err and the moment these taxes are late it is then easy to stay under the radar, and to avoid paying tax or wait until there is a penalty. So the question would come whether it would be more efficient for the Government to consider lowing the interest and penalties and leaving that as an incentive for people to pay so that even if they pay late, the penalty is not so excruciating on their pocket that they have an incentive to not file. It is something that should be considered, because I know that taxes seem to be a measure that Government is heavily relying on and I have spoken about their increasing number

UNREVISED 126 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) of taxes over the years, that I am not in support of. The other measure, Madam President, has to do—the third measure has to do with the—sorry. The second measure has to do with Government proposing to increase the pensions and the retiring allowances to the Prime Minister, the President and judges. And, Madam President, I do not intend to spend too much time on this, not because it is not worthy of speaking out against, but because my colleagues will deal with it more in depth. But, Madam President, I would suffice it to say at this time that we are in a period when many people are not losing their pensions alone, they are losing their jobs and their income. [Desk thumping] We are in a time when people are working and they are the working poor, teachers, nurses in our country, whom our—the very fabric of our country rely on. Indeed the working poor. We are in a time when even back pay for police officers is being restricted and allowances for these essential services. They cannot protest, you know; they cannot speak out and they are being taken advantage of and they are being told to tighten their belt. And in many instances people have no choice, but here—and because of that, I do not dispute the argument of the Government in terms of the decency in which you want people who served in public office to retire and to be able to maintain themselves or at least have enough to take care of their own medical expenses. I do not dispute those argument. I am saying at this time when the Government is firing so many people, this is not the time for there to be an increase for Government officials. And I leave that there. Madam President, the other measure has to do with the Government's attempts to restrict citizens’ access to information under the Freedom of

UNREVISED 127 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

Information Act. Madam President, I heard again today what we have been hearing in the public domain. The purpose of this measure from the Government side is to stop UNC lawyers from accessing—from abusing the system. It has been said by the sitting Attorney General, I believe the Minister in the Office of the Attorney General, MP Hinds, repeated it today and it has been said in other places by Members of the Government. Madam President, that is even more of an endorsement as to why a political creature should not be inserted in the procedure to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act. [Desk thumping] To give yourselves the power to intervene or interfere—this is not simply a notification, Madam President. This is an instruction that if a request is made for information, and the agency does not feel it is fit to disclose that information, they must send that information to the desk of the Attorney General, a political creature, for him to decide if it should be denied or not. And if he does decide it should be denied, then the applicant could take it to court. What this does, Madam President, is provides for very sensitive information that an agency, it could be an independent body, it could be an arm of the Government, if an agency decides that this information is too sensitive to disclose via the Freedom of Information Act they have to send the information to the desk of the Attorney General. And so, information pertaining—information that is very sensitive, that could be pertaining to another Government official or pertaining to a Member of Opposition or pertaining to any person who objects to this Government could end up in the hands of the Attorney General, whereas he would not have been able to access it before. That, Madam President, is dangerous. [Desk thumping]

UNREVISED 128 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

While I understand the Government’s explanation that this is a measure to provide a sort of oversight, to double check on denied applications before it goes to court and to provide the Attorney General with notification of the denial, Madam President, in other jurisdictions, this type of oversight is provided to an independent body and that I could understand. Not an Attorney General, not a political creature. The objections have been far and wide from persons in the media, persons in the wider society, I pity my brother Sen. Harvey Boris, temporary Senator. He is a man in the media and he will have to vote today. He will have to vote on whether the Government should restrict the freedom of information, whether the Attorney General, a political creature, should be inserted into the procedure and I do not know how he would explain himself to his PNM colleagues and to his media colleagues. I am sure it would be a bit of a pull and tug for him and his conscience to make that good decision. I know his programme is named the “Hot Seat” but today, today indeed he is in the hot seat. [Laughter, desk thumping and crosstalk] Madam President, the fourth measure has to do with the National Insurance Board and I intend to go in depth to that, so I will touch on the Central Bank, the fifth measure, which is for the Minister to have access to certain information. And I said that it really reduces—it further erodes the independence of the Central Bank as an institution and we have seen a number of institutions where that independence is being eroded by this Government and it is dangerous. It is a slippery slope. Sen. Richards spoke about the steps that lead to the erosion of democracy and lead to the erosion of independence of organizations and this is another step down that slippery slope that I do not agree with.

UNREVISED 129 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

The sixth measure has to do with the Minister of Finance being given more control in the—we recently concluded debate on the Non-Profit Organisations Act and the amendment to that section 27, to provide—is amended to provide further control to the Minister to determine, by virtue of an Order, the period in which a non-profit company registered under the Companies Act, may submit a completed AML/CFT/PF risk assessment questionnaire to the Registrar General. Madam President, during this debate the Opposition indicated that not enough or in fact no consultation at all was done with the NGOs. During the committee stage, because we did go—we had a joint select committee and the NGOs were happy to come and make their recommendations and I—this matter would not have been discussed at that time. 3.45 p.m. So here we have these two measures, they may seem small, but my question is whether there was any consultation with the NGOs; there were 47 NGOs at the time we were discussing that Bill who were calling for consultation. So that is my question, whether, that has been shared with the NGOs, whether we had any agreement or consensus? And the fourth measure which I now come back to, has do with an amendment for the Government to provide for an additional category in the National Insurance Scheme of employment. An additional category of employment that is to be regarded as uninsurable employment and shall not be registered for the purposes of this Act. My first question and the first question of any person would be, what is the description of this category? What would be contained in this Order? We have seen the Order. The Ministry however, in laying the Bill did

UNREVISED 130 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) indicate that—and it was further endorsed by the Minister in the Ministry, that this measure is intended to deal with migrants and to deal with what they call preventing migrants from making— Sen. S. Hosein: Contributions. Sen. K Ameen:—contributions and from making claims which would be a drain on the National Insurance Board. My first point is that this Parliament should not be asked to rubber stamp a power to be given to the Minister and we do not know what it would be used for. At least the draft Order should be circulated so that we will know what we are getting into. The Minister has indicated that it is meant to deal with migrants, but we do not only have to stick to that, he does not only have to stick to that. The Minister could determine what uninsurable employment even outside of migrants is, and that, Madam President, is taking a rubber stamp from this Parliament to give blind approval to the Minister. That I do not agree with. Madam President, I just want to share from an article entitled “Social Security for Migrants-A rights-based approach”. And it was published by the ILO in 2011. And I am sharing this only because the Minister indicated that this measure is meant to deal with migrants. It says that any: “…member of society, every person has a right to social security. Effective social security systems are powerful tools to provide income security, prevent and reduce poverty and inequality, and promote social inclusion and dignity. As an important investment in the well-being of workers and the population at large, social security enhances productivity, employability and supports sustainable economic development…”

UNREVISED 131 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

It goes on to say that: “Increasing social security coordination between countries through bilateral and multilateral agreements and the ratification of relevant international Conventions should be a high priority of social policy as the well-being of millions of migrant workers and their families are at stake.” This article acknowledged the need for coordination of social security provision between countries so that persons who are migrants would not fall subject to abuse. It recognized that: “Migrant workers often face disadvantages in social security coverage and entitlement to benefits compared with national workers who live and complete their whole working life in one country.” It spoke about: “Migrant workers’ social security rights may also be affected by the principle of nationality.” The article also acknowledged that: “…some countries discriminate against migrant workers through national legislation that excludes specific categories of migrants, or in more extreme cases, all non-nationals from coverage or entitlement to social security benefits, or applies less favourable treatment to such groups on the basis of this principle.” That is exactly what this Government is doing, discriminating against migrant workers in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] That is actually one of the main criticism of countries in this report. [Crosstalk] Sen. Mark: Well, deport them. Sen. Khan: People are discriminating against them here.

UNREVISED 132 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

Sen. Mark: “Doh” bring them and then discriminate against them. Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Sorry. Sen. K. Ameen: Madam President, for example: “The network of social security agreements is particularly dense among industrialized countries.” So, for instance: “The European Union…” —because you have so many workers from one country going into another country they have to share information. They must—as part of their bilateral and multilateral agreements reveal the—sorry, the entitlements and the payment made by a worker in one country to another. What the report also mentioned is that there are instances where because of the system of social security and sending information to the migrant countries, some of the countries might be significantly underdeveloped and their administrative structure may not be very present and in many cases they lack the capacity— Madam President: Senator, Sen. Ameen, you now really, I know you have been making reference to this report but you are straying now from the central issue of this Bill. So I will ask you to try and come back to it, please. Okay? Sen. K. Ameen: Thank you, Madam President. I want to pin the lack of structure, administrative structure as indicated in this report, back to the situation with Trinidad and Venezuela because that is what the Minister indicated the purpose of the measure was for. But, more or less the fact is that the less

UNREVISED 133 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) developed countries where many migrants would flee from, sometimes because they are experiencing civil unrest or chaos within that country, it is difficult to have arrangements. That may be very relevant with Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela, if not some of the other countries where migrants are coming to Trinidad. So for us, I think as a country, in order to protect the human rights of these persons, and it is not only Venezuelans, rather than proposing for these persons to be considered uninsurable, which violates their human rights, the Minister should be giving consideration to some of the ILO recommendations. I am particularly concerned about the social protection for women, migrant women, because migrant women would also qualify for benefits when it comes to maternity benefits and for persons who may be injured on the job. The speakers on the Government Bench have indicated, compared the amount an insured person would have to pay as a contribution and compare it to almost maximum of what they could get in benefits. But what they did not mention is that there would be hundreds of persons or maybe thousands who would be paying but would never make a claim. And that is how insurance works. That is how the cost and the benefits balance out and, in fact, the National Insurance Board returns a profit every year. So you cannot tell me that a few migrants who might make a claim, who might get pregnant, who get injured, would send the National Insurance Board into disarray and take all of its profits. [Crosstalk] Madam President, that is misleading, that is creating a picture to scare Trinidad and Tobago. [Continuous crosstalk] The National Insurance Board has been returning a healthy profit and I do not see—

UNREVISED 134 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d)

Madam President: Members please. Could we listen to Sen. Ameen in silence? Those who do not want to hear Sen. Ameen, you have the opinion of leaving the Chamber for the time being. Sen. Ameen, please continue. Sen. K. Ameen: [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the Ministers have created that fear or tried to create that fear, that perception, that if migrant workers are allowed to pay national insurance and if they are allowed to make claims that they would somehow drain the Treasury of the National Insurance Board drive. That is far, far from the truth. Madam President, my second point with this measure is a question as to, what is the basis of this recommendation? Is it that we had recently concluded registration of Venezuelans in Trinidad and so far it has been reported that roughly 14,000 have been registered and, of course, we have no figure for the unregistered ones who are in this country. My question to you: What facts have advised you to put this measure in place? This should be informed by an actuary report. It cannot be that it is an arbitrary recommendation of a politician or a political party. [Desk thumping] That is not a basis to make such a change in legislation that affects the human rights of persons, whether they are citizens or migrants. [Crosstalk] This is another one of those “vaps” recommendations and “vaps” announcement that the Government make. [Desk thumping] The human rights of aspect of this measure is very worrisome. But, Madam President, it is not only worrisome for the migrants who will, according to the indication of the Minister, be considered un-insurable. This measure will have a serious impact on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and let me explain why. [Desk thumping] When an employer is required to pay national insurance contributions for a

UNREVISED 135 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) national of Trinidad and Tobago but they are not required to pay for a migrant or a non-citizen, who do you think they will give preference to hiring? Very often, migrants perform work that is beneath their qualifications. Migrants provide a pool of cheaper— Sen. Mark: Cheap labour. Sen. K. Ameen:—cheap labour for employers. And here we have a situation where so many people in Trinidad and Tobago are out of jobs and you have thousands from Petrotrin, several from other Government agencies, well- qualified persons who are jobless and facing the job market, doing work well beneath their qualifications and here you have a measure that gives the employers in Trinidad and Tobago an incentive to employ a migrant over a national of Trinidad and Tobago. It puts out citizens at an unfair disadvantage. [Desk thumping] So I want to warn the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, while the Government will pretend or come to us and tell us that this does not concern you, we really do not want the Venezuelans to make too many claims that would “buss our pocket”, I want to warn Trinidad and Tobago, that this measure will have serious implications and put Trinidad and Tobago’s jobless citizens and job seeking citizens at a serious disadvantage when it comes to getting a job. [Desk thumping and crosstalk] Madam President, we have seen a number of major companies, major conglomerates, putting out advertisements in the newspapers in different languages, namely Spanish. We are aware of the presence of not only Venezuelans, but people from African nations, a lot of people from Jamaica, many

UNREVISED 136 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Ameen (cont’d) agencies, even Government agencies we go to, we meet people from other Caribbean countries, particularly Jamaica who when it comes to security and so on, security firms and so on, and many of them tell you stories of being taken advantage of, they are exploited, they are paid lower wages than their Trinidadian counterparts. Very often the company seems to have a high number of migrants as employees and this is because it is a cost advantage for them. They exploit workers and we must ensure that no human being, citizen of Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere, that their rights are violated, that they are exploited on the soil of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] So for that reason, I want to ask the Minister if he could share with us his proposed order, what the contents might be, what the principles in that order might be, that would allow the protection of migrant workers, the protection of women, in particular, and their children when they apply for maternity benefits or may qualify for maternity benefits? And I am very, very concerned about that. The international organizations may have a say about this as many of them have been keeping an eye of Trinidad and Tobago with the Venezuelan situation, nearby, so close. Madam President, I thank you and I look forward to the wrapping up of the hon. Minister. [Desk thumping] Sen. Amrita Deonarine: [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam President, for the opportunity to contribute to what seems to be a very controversial Bill, the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019, as amended in the House of Representatives.

UNREVISED 137 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d)

Since this Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, Madam President, the voices of our democratic society has been logged, voicing concerns that this policy shift, the policy shift included in this Bill is one that everyone should be concerned about. Some even feel that the contents of this Bill are a start of a gradual erosion of the democratic norms of society. The leaders of the country have to be cognizant of the fact that the role of the State, the size of the Government is very large and any policy decisions are subjected to severe scrutiny because all of us are impacted some way or the other. At the same time, because we are an energy economy, real growth derived from the expansion of the energy sector which accounts for less than 5 per cent of the population is any benefits which accrue from this sector is very slow to trickle down to the regular man on the street. So today, Madam President, I would like to focus primarily on four aspects of this Bill, that is the tax amnesty, clause 2; the retirement allowances for legislators, the President, the Prime Minister and judges, that is clauses 3 to 6; the Central Bank Act, clause 9 and the Freedom of Information Act, clause 7. Madam President, what I have drawn from this Bill are the following: 1. Citizens are being offered, very commendably, a fighting chance to come clean with their outstanding taxes and penalties before the Government presses ahead with the TTRA; 2. There is an enhancement of their retirement allowances of the past and present Executive arm of our country, while still many public servants awaiting for their outstanding pensions; 3. The Minister of Finance is asking the Central Bank to disclose human

UNREVISED 138 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d)

resource information, information not readily accessible under the Freedom of Information Act to the regular citizens of the country; and, 4. The time period to access information from public bodies is being proposed to increase from 30 to 60 days and will now include the Attorney General, a politician who is trying to turn noes into yes, so that the people of the country can get some more information when a public authority says no. So, I want to start by focusing on the tax amnesty, and I am starting with the tax amnesty because I would like to start with the positive by commending the Government for giving the citizens of the country a chance to pay their outstanding taxes for the period up to December 2018. I also commend the Minister of Finance for going an extra mile to waive the outstanding interest on penalties incurred on taxes, not only during the prescribed period but also prior to such period. Given that our tax structure is one where most of our tax revenues come from individual income and profits, this is an easy short term measure to raise revenues. So what I grasp is that the main objectives of this amnesty, as the hon. Minister, both the Minister in the Ministry of Finance and the hon. Minister of Finance has outlined, is that people are going to be allowed the opportunity to bring their taxes up-to-date, and more importantly, it is a short-term measure to generate additional cash flow for budgetary support. Now, I want to talk about this a little more, because what I am wondering is why we have to end up resorting to this short-term measure. This is primarily because we are still reliant on the energy market and once again due to the dip in oil, oil prices, there has been a shortfall in revenue earned during quarter one of fiscal 2018/2019, which resulted in very little supplemental petroleum taxes being

UNREVISED 139 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) earned. So, in this instance, Madam President, we are expecting that the short fall in the collection of supplemental petroleum tax will be compensated to some extent by the moneys earned in the tax collection during the amnesty. I know we are excepting to collect around $5 million, but I am not sure what the extent of the short fall in quarter one of fiscal 2018/2019 was, so I do not know if either one of the Ministers could clarify that for me. So, while taxpayers are being afforded the opportunity to reduce their tax liabilities, indirectly the Government is hoping to encourage some sort of tax compliance. You find that we are confident that we are going to earn $500 million or even more in the short space of time of nearly three months, it is evident that we are very much aware of the extent of the lack of tax compliance. But to what extent should we expect the tax amnesty to increase compliance when TTRA is established. Looking at the Auditor General’s Report on the public accounts of Trinidad and Tobago in 2018, specifically on page 33, it was reported that the arrears on taxes on incomes and profits recorded by the Ministry of Finance stands at $29.4 billion of which companies alone account for 77 per cent. Oil companies, $11.8 billion; non-oil companies, $10.8 billion. So given the extent of what I would call a lack of compliance that is clearly becoming a norm in the country, does the Government have plans to implement a tax administration audit system to keep track of those taxpayers who are reporting previously undeclared incomes or are we waiting on establishing the TTRA before we kick in measures like that? How are we going to ensure that these so-called offenders are going to declare more accurately and honestly in the future? The point I am trying to get here, Madam President, is that this is a short run

UNREVISED 140 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) measure to increase immediate compliance. However we need to be reminded that an amnesty should be followed by increased enforcement efforts to encourage continued compliance. Another point on the tax amnesty, Madam President, is that we need to remember that we are just coming out of an economic recession, well, barely coming out of an economic recession. The Government needs to be cognizant of the fact that many individuals and companies may not have the adequate cash flow available to meet their tax liabilities in this short space of time, that is, the three months for which the tax amnesty is going to be provided for. Their tax burden can be excessive and correlate poorly with the ability to pay in three months’ time. During these hard times many companies and individuals, in particular, would have taken loans and are currently repaying debt and also would have had to dip into their savings as well. So, access to immediate cash flow to take advantage of the benefit may not be readily available, given that many people may have committed to repaying debts and their saving are low, consideration should be given to extending this tax amnesty to maybe the next fiscal year. Now, Madam President, I want to move on to clauses 3 to 6 of the Bill which speaks to the retirement allowances. And I understand that—Madam President, I agree that the current and past executives who are serving and have served our beloved nation should continue to be honoured with respect when they have retired. I also believe that they should not have to struggle financially upon demitting office, not one year after, not five years after not even 100 years after. The hon. Ministers have very well painted quite a few examples here today of the suffering that some of our ex-executives had to encounter or are currently

UNREVISED 141 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) encountering. But, with the most respect, Madam President, the country is not yet on a sustainable path of real economic growth to warrant such a policy shift. So, I would caution the Government on this move because the current fiscal situation must be taken into consideration before we commit to yet another form of recurring expenditure. The CSO just recorded—well I got information from the CSO earlier this year that the economy experienced quarterly real economic growth, that is growth in GDP, year on year, for three consecutive quarters in 2018: Quarter one, 0.9 per cent; quarter two, 2.1 per cent; quarter three, 1.5 per cent. Following eight consecutive quarters of economic decline, Madam President, in these eight consecutive quarters of economic contraction at an average of 4.1 per cent. And this turnaround that the CSO has recorded in 2018 has been primarily due to the uptick in the natural gas exploration and production, a sector that I have mentioned earlier accounts for less than 5 per cent of the population employment. Furthermore, the growth that we have recorded is taking some time to trickle down to the people of the country. Though we are forecasted to experience positive growth by the IMF, the reality is that we are still in the process of settling outstanding pension payments to public servants. We have to borrow to settle VAT refunds; we have to borrow to conduct most of our capital investment in the country; our Exchequer Account is 40 billion in deficit; the overdraft in our Central Bank account as the hon. Minister would have clarified for me in an answer to one of the questions on notice, is $10.4 billion as of I believe it was April 2018. The stock of debt is growing. We have not heard what the long term economic strategy to attain a balanced budget is. You have almost every Ministry coming in front of

UNREVISED 142 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) us in the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee and Public Accounts (Enterprises) Committee expressing concerns about the lack of resources and allocations not being released in a timely fashion, et cetera. So, Madam President, these are the current challenges that we are still trying to overcome. So, again, I question, is this the time to be committing the country to additional recurrent expenditure? The hon. Minister has brought before this Parliament this policy measure, but just like other Senators who have asked in this honourable House, I am asking: What is the estimated annual cost during this critical period of economic recovery? What is this estimated annual cost to the taxpayers for the implementation of this enhanced retirement allowance package? 4.15 p.m. You see, Madam President, most respectfully, when we come forth with policy measures like these, it is hard for the average citizen of the country to swallow when they have not themselves been feeling any ease in their pockets. It comes across as if the leaders of our country are making sure that they are taking care of themselves first. Madam President, I would move on from this matter. I want to touch a little bit on clause 9, the Central Bank Act. And, with respect to clause 9, it appears that the Minister of Finance would like to access information from the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, the human resource information, in particular, as the Bill outlined: “(a) the salary and terms and conditions of…directors”—deputy directors— “officers and employees… (b) the organizational structure… (c) the number of current or former officers and employees…

UNREVISED 143 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d)

(d) the number of filled or vacant positions in the organisational structure… (e) such other matters relating to the employment of staff as the Minister thinks fit.” Firstly, now, I was listening to the debate in the other place and I heard that the main reason for obtaining this information is administrative in nature. My question is: If it is administrative in nature, what exactly is it going to be used for? Is it just FYI? Just for reference? If that is the case, then why not just include a provision in the Freedom of Information Act so that not only the Minister of Finance would access the information but all the regular citizens of the country could access this information as well. Central Banks in countries such as Canada, Australia and England, have an “access to information policy” which is covered under the Freedom of Information Act. Even if you get information on the salaries of persons and the perks of their jobs, and so on, no personal details are given. For example, Amrita Deonarine is earning X dollars in the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago—just as an example. Secondly, I am questioning, just like another Senator has raised as well, why seven days? What is the rationale for requesting this information and demanding information in seven days? Also, with respect to (e) “…other matters relating to the employment of staff as the Minister thinks fit.” —respectfully, I do not agree with this, other than it being too broad and it needs some definition. Under no circumstances “other matters relating to the employment of staff” should be demanded by the Minister of Finance. Because, Madam President, you already have that—you are asking for the salaries and terms

UNREVISED 144 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) and conditions, the organizational structure, the number of former and current employers, the number of filled vacant positions in the organizational structure. What else is there that could be included under “other matters relating to the employment of staff?” So I would ask the hon. Minister to clarify this for me. Now, I took the pleasure in going through the Central Bank Act and I also see—I was quite surprised. I see that the Minister of Finance is already very well involved in the approval of many things and also is involved in the consultation on many aspects in the operations of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, and the human resource information is one of the very few things that the Minister does not access. So, I mean, I know the Minister said that this would not—indirectly, during other persons’ contributions, that it will not harm the independence of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago. But I am just saying this for the record, that if the hon. Minister gets this information and is in any way able to, or tries to influence this role of hiring persons or the employment and terms of conditions of persons at the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, this can open up serious risks for the monetary policy decisions that the Central Bank can make. And the last thing I want to talk about, Madam President, before I conclude is, I know a lot of people would have spoken about the Freedom of Information Act and I just have a couple questions, I believe. So I am wondering if the Government, at any point, looked at why there has been an increase in the number of requests receiving noes. And what are the reasons for these increases in noes? Is it that information being requested is information captured under Part IV of the Schedule of the Freedom of Information Act? Was an analysis done on the type of information public authorities have been declining to grant access to? Also, is the

UNREVISED 145 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) public aware of the rules and guidelines on the type of information they can and cannot access? Also, I do not know, and maybe this is just me seeking clarification as well. Why does it have to take 30 days for a public authority to say no to a request? I think that if I receive a request for information and I, as a member of a public body, it should take no more than two weeks for me to be able to gorge or to decipher, or to decide that, no I cannot provide this information. So I could understand that 30 days, if they are able to provide the information—anyway. Would the involvement of the Attorney General, why does it have to take 30 days? And I guess it is because of the legal processes. I want to know what the process is, so I would humbly seek clarification from the Minister of Finance. Madam President, in terms of the freedom of information, we have to be reminded that the right to information is an anti-corruption tool and any changes that will extend the length of time it takes to access information—information that belongs to the people of Trinidad and Tobago—and also anything that causes the inclusion of a politician, will leave room for speculation on the credibility of information that we will receive. I was looking at Canada, for example. Briefly, I was looking at Canada, and the Attorney General in Canada who is also a Cabinet member is not involved in processing of requests for information. In Canada, each ministry establishes their own freedom of information department and requests are reviewed internally by a person who is appointed by someone known as a privacy commissioner. So I would humbly seek clarification on these questions that I have raised. Madam President, I would begin to conclude and I would end by echoing how I began this contribution today. Over the past few weeks citizens of Trinidad

UNREVISED 146 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Deonarine (cont’d) and Tobago have been expressing their reservations about some of the clauses in this Bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to listen to all sectors of society and not be dismissive of differing views. Here in our Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, no matter your creed, your race, your personal and economic standard, you must find an equal place and you must have an equal say. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat): Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. There is something in this Bill, Madam President, for all members to contribute on, and I would say this. There are some things in this Bill that you simply cannot argue with, and that would be the proposed clause 10 and the proposed clause 11. Those are administrative, with legal consequences, but very important, it gives the Minister the discretion, with safeguards included, to extend the time for doing certain things, and I would get to that. I do not think there could be much argument with proposed 10 and 11. Madam President, if relevance was important in this debate, not much could be argued about on the national insurance provision. Submissions on it have been buttressed by irrelevance. The pensions, it is either you support it or you do not and I will get to that. And the amnesty is vital, not only because of the opportunity to get the taxes that are due, to get them in, but also in the context of two pieces of legislation we passed recently, the non-profit organisations legislation and the explain your wealth legislation. It is an opportunity for individuals and

UNREVISED 147 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) corporations to clean up their records, bring their records up to date, file what has to be filed, pay what has to be paid so that a level of accountability could begin. And the freedom of information, Madam President, people have flocked to that one with all manner of misinformation—misinformation. It is simple. What is proposed is simple. It adds to what exists. It really does not derogate. And I am surprised that this has become something that has created an opportunity for so much misinformation, that I hope to assist the public, at least, and some of my colleagues here, in understanding that there is no harm in what we are doing here. So, Madam President, the amnesty provision, without destroying the opportunity for the penalties to be levied at a later occasion, the Bill proposes that the amnesty be for a particular period in which people who come and pay what is due, do not pay interest and penalties. However, the tax that is due must be paid, and that is very clear in proposed 2(2)(a) and (b), (c), (d) onward, which sets out the amnesty, and (3) which starts with beautiful words: “For the avoidance of doubt”, the waiver does not apply to the waiver of the outstanding tax, just the interest and penalties and I think that is very important. And at (4), when the period expires, if you have not participated in the opportunity, then the penalties and interest will apply as though the waiver had not existed. And, as I said, you cannot really—we have seen maybe the Minister of Finance has not collected as much as he expected to, but we have no doubt that the use of the amnesty has caused some people who would not have ordinarily paid up, to come into the fold and pay up. The second area is, of course, the pensions, Madam President, and the arguments have been around three concepts that have been expressed without

UNREVISED 148 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) much depth in it: affordability, equity and most importantly, “How it go look”? Well, Madam President, you know, before he sang a song that upset me, I really enjoyed listening to Buju Banton, and one of my favourite songs is: “It is not an easy road.” And he says in that song: It’s not an easy road. Many see the glamour and the glitter. For them they think it is a bed or rose, but he who feels it knows. And our legislators—let us not fool the public. This is not about an increase in pay for me. I am on record as saying I am happy with what I get. I came into this job expecting to be an elected MP and I know what went with it. And as fate would have it I ended up in the Cabinet and I knew what went with that. But I am also on record on the issue of salaries, as saying our legislators need to be better paid. But this is not—the public has been led to believe that this is increasing salaries. This is not about that. Hon. Imbert: Exactly. Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Madam President, all those persons who we are talking about, employees, nothing I say this evening should be seen as disrespect to daily-paid workers, monthly paid employees in the private and public sector, retirees, people on social welfare grants, and so on. Nothing I say suggests that they are not deserving of more but many of the people working in this country are members of unions—trade unions—who are prepared to strike, to shut down, to use OSHA in furtherance of collective bargaining. For many of them, their unions represent them, whether it is in pension discussions and ultimately on pension plans and pension management plans, and in the collective bargaining

UNREVISED 149 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) process, represent them. Their unions represent them in the Industrial Court if there is a trade dispute or otherwise. But, Madam President, nobody represents the legislators. And sometimes we have legislators who, for most of their careers, are conflicted. They are unable to negotiate for themselves, and the Salaries Review Commission does not address the issue of pension. So who represents these legislators? To whom do they turn? I am not going to benefit from this. Many of us here in this House are not going to benefit from this. But these are legislators who have served. When they serve they could not represent their interest, and now that they are out they are in a worse off position. And I have worked in environments, Madam President, particularly manufacturing environments. I have worked in factory environments where engineers come and demand a piece of machinery costing millions and millions of dollars, and boards have no problem approving that. But when you ask for something for employees in the form of training, or in the form of better opportunities, people always try to “nickel and dime”. And this is not about affordability. This is not about affordability. Maybe it means building one less road or “tiefing” one less million, but I am very clear in my views, Madam President, and I am very consistent in what I am saying, that our legislators who are no longer in these Houses of Parliament, and even when they were here had no one to represent them, have us today in this House to represent them. And as the Prime Minister said, this is a matter of principle. This is a matter of principle. And for that reason when it comes—my other colleagues have spoken in relation to the judges, the Prime Minister and the President—Her Excellency the

UNREVISED 150 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d)

President. Madam President, legislators who are no longer in these Houses should be treated fairly. In relation to the Central Bank, Madam President, yesterday was Father’s Day and I always go through my father’s archives. He is not with us anymore. And many years ago there was something I stumbled upon, the 1969 publication of all the public service positions, the holders of the office, the date of appointment and the monthly salary—1969. That was transparency. Just as the Letts Diary came in a hardbound form, this was issued every year. Madam President, if you look at Canada, every province has a piece of legislation called Public Sector Disclosure of Salaries Legislation—every one of them. And many of them are required by law to publish in a nationally circulating Sunday newspaper the details of the salaries of every person in the public sector who earns, in some cases, more than $75,000 a year, and in some cases, more than $100,000 a year, in the case of Ontario. And it is every public sector employee, every Crown enterprise, the equivalent of our state enterprise; every school, every university, every college, required—every municipality, not just the salaries, you know, Madam President, reimbursements made during a year, expenses incurred on account of travel and various allowances must be disclosed for all to see. And if it was not a secret in 1969, it should not be a secret now for anybody, because, we, in this House—as they say in Trinidad—all our business on the road. Everybody knows what legislators receive. Everybody knows what Ministers receive. And I do not see—I am actually quite surprised—quite surprised—that this ability of the Central Bank to shield what is basic information. This is not the Angostura Bitters recipe. This is

UNREVISED 151 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) basic information, what somebody is paid. What is the org structure? What could be so fascinating about the Central Bank’s org structure? Without much effort I think I could draw that, the org structure. What could be so fascinating about that, about the salaries? What could the Minister of Finance—what interest could he be serving except the public’s interest? And as he has said in the other place, and he said today, “It is my colleague, Mr. Obika.” This is the Obika clause [Laughter] because it is because of a question that my colleague— Sen. Mark: “Doh try dat.” Hon. Imbert: Just ignore him. Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat:—because of a question that my colleague asked, the Minister of Finance realized that what could only archaic and contrary to the public interest, exists in the law and it has to be changed. Sen. Mark: Tell us the Jwala clause. Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: There was a matter recently, a freedom of information matter, involving another—NEC, relating to the résumé of somebody who was appointed president of NEC, and the matter, I believe, went to the Privy Council. The résumé, Madam President? You could go on LinkedIn and see most people’s business. What could be so amazing or secretive about the CEO of a corporation that is funded by the State that it cannot be disclosed? Well, the Central Bank is no different, and I do not think we need to argue a lot about clause 9. Madam President, clause 8, National Insurance. The Minister of Finance, in the other place and here, he has said it. Of course we want to assist the

UNREVISED 152 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d)

Venezuelans. We want to assist and this country has done what it could do to facilitate the Venezuelans. We have gone through a process of registration which will allow them to get a waiver of the work permit requirement, and will allow them to seek employment in the country. But the Minister has said, this cannot be, in trying to assist, we cannot hurt the long-term interest of the rest of Trinidad and Tobago by causing a run on the national insurance fund. We who sit here know the situation with the national insurance fund. We know the challenges. We know the performance. We know the performance of national insurance, and we cannot, on the basis of somebody making 10 contributions to the national insurance, give access to a benefit that goes way beyond the 10 contributions. For example, the Maternity Benefit. So, Madam President, this is not about emotions and I cannot—my friends confound me; confound me. You do not want the process of registration of the migrants. You do not want that. You “doh” want them here. The Government “ha” no policy. We “doh know wha we doing.” Then you want us to extend and encourage the most disgusting protest outside the Oval on the second-to-last night—the most disgusting. To be associated with that foolishness— Hon. Senator: Organized by the UNC. Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: —to be funded or whatever, I “doh” know what part you took in it, but I passed through there and I could not imagine these well-oiled and well-heeled Trinidadians having the time to go out there to terrorize the Venezuelans in their moment of distress. Rank foolishness, as they say. And then come back here today and talk about seeking the interest of the Venezuelans? This Government has sought the interest of the Venezuelans on behalf of the

UNREVISED 153 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) right-thinking citizens of this country. [Desk thumping] But we have also accepted that there is a point to which we cannot go. We cannot go to that point, and the legislation is meant to give the Minister, by Order, the power, by Order, to make exclusions to the requirement for those who are employed in this country to make contributions to national insurance. Which brings me, Madam President, to this freedom of information, and some of what I have heard. My colleague—a very tamed version of Sen. Mark today. It must be because it is a Monday. His reference to the FOI czar which only, of course, brought me to the Resmi czar. But, Madam President, I listened to Sen. Hosein and I want to say this. The starting point of the proposed clause 7 is the Act that it seeks to amend. That is the starting point, and anybody wanting to go into 7 should go into the Act, because the objects of the Act, this Freedom of Information Act, Madam President, has one objective which is to grant access to information that is in the hands of public authorities. That is what it is. It is not for anything larger than that. But one of the things you must know in approaching the Freedom of Information Act, one of the things you must be very clear in your mind is that this FOI is not a free-for-all. It is not every piece of paper in this country that is accessible. In fact, Madam President, in this legislation there are more things that you cannot access than things that you can access. So let us get it very clear in our minds. For those who sit opposite me who have been telling the people out there that FOI is a free-for-all; it is not a free-for-all. It is well constructed legislation that gives access to information that is in the hands of a public authority but includes a series of exceptions and exemptions.

UNREVISED 154 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d)

The second thing is, Madam President, there has been this talk about politicizing freedom of information and that the Attorney General, his involvement is politicizing the process. I am very shocked. 4.45 p.m. Madam President, section 3(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act, the Act that the proposed clause 7 seeks to amend sets out the right of the members of the public to access information in the possession of public authorities. But it also says that this right is: “…limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests…” So the exceptions and exemptions target two things. One, essential public interest and, two, private and business interests which exist in relation to information provided by a public authority. And, Madam President, once you come across this thing called “public interest”, it necessarily engages the Office of the Attorney General. Because I had to go back, for example, to the Attorney General’s website and it is in the exact form as it was through several Attorneys General, including Mr. Ramlogan, and it is simple and well written: The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago has a dual role. He is a Member of Government with two separate constitutional roles: a Government role and a role as the guardian of the public interest. In his governmental role, he acts as a Member of the Government in the performance of his duties and in his role as a guardian of the public interest he acts independently in a quasi-judicial capacity representing the community at large. Now, Madam President, having said that, I will say that is an excellent

UNREVISED 155 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) exploration of this issue of public interest and the role of the Attorney General in Trinidad and Tobago in defence of that interest. It was explored. One of the speakers before me, I think it was Sen. Hosein spoke about Reginald Dumas and the irony is that that issue was explored at length by Justice of Appeal Jamadar in the Reginald Dumas versus the AG case, the matter involving the Dumas’ challenge of His Excellency’s appointment of two persons to the Police Service Commission. And in there, one of the issues in that matter raised was the locus standi of Dumas as a member of the public and his peculiar interest in that matter, and one view that was expressed is that it is for the Attorney General to raise these issues. And Justice of Appeal Jamadar made the point that in our jurisdiction, the Attorney General does not jump in in these matters, notwithstanding his role in relation to the public interest and that Dumas was absolutely in order to bring this claim because there was no other way something like that would reach to the court. But having said that, Madam President, once you are dealing and the legislation in 3(1)(b) sets out that the exceptions and exemptions to access to freedom of information are in relation to the defence of the public interest, you engage the Attorney General whether you like it or not or whether you like him or not or whether you like this Government or not. That is the law. And, Madam President, I have listened also to this thing, it is almost like politicians, they have no role in this freedom of information. And I would suggest that those who have that view, go to section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act and section 22 is clear, very clear in two aspects. The first is, at section 22(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, it says:

UNREVISED 156 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d)

“A decision in respect of a request made to a public authority may be made, on behalf of the public authority, by a responsible Minister, a Permanent Secretary, a Head of Department, a…”—CEO—“or a designated officer…” And in relation to the designated officer, the power exercisable by that designated officer is in accordance with arrangements approved by the responsible Minister. So I cannot interpret the word “Minister”—is surely not a Minister of religion—it is a Minister. The responsible Minister is one of the decision-makers in relation to an FOI request on behalf of a public authority, and when a Minister becomes a decision- maker that is reviewable by judicial review or otherwise, the role of Attorney General as legal advisor to the Cabinet is engaged. Where else would a Government Minister get exercising this public function, making a decision that is reviewable? Where would a Minister get advice other than through the hon. Attorney General? So in that regard, in the exercise of the authority under 22(1), a Minister, a politician can make a decision and in doing so, is entitled to seek the advice of the Attorney General. Madam President, in 22(2) in certain circumstances, where a decision in relation to an FOI request has not been made, in judicial review proceedings, the court is entitled to deem the decision as having been made by a Minister, 22(2). So it is not when a Minister makes a decision under 22(1) alone. Where the arrangements have not been put in place for decision to be made, the Minister can be deemed to have made a decision and if the statute includes a deeming provision in relation to a Minister, then once again, the Attorney General must be engaged. So, Madam President, whether it is exercising his constitutional role in

UNREVISED 157 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) relation to advisor to the Cabinet or whether it is exercising his other role as guardian of the public interest, in the exercise of the functions under the Freedom of Information Act, not only a Minister is engaged, but the Attorney General is already engaged. And what does this section seek to do? Madam President, quite simply, this proposed clause puts something that helps an applicant and that something does not currently exist because in the current course, a request is made. There is a response or a lack of response within the 30 days. There is a refusal. And what happens if there is no refusal? If there is compliance, fine. If there is a refusal, instead of going through judicial review proceedings, the Attorney General has the opportunity to review the decision of public authority. And the Government is taking, I think, great risk by going this way to create another opportunity for applicants seeking information from the State because the language of this clause says that the public authority must, must abide by the advice of hon. Attorney General—must—and we are doing something that any Government, any Cabinet and any legislator should be very, very careful in doing. But the circumstances set out by the Attorney General in the other place and the Minister of Finance here where we find ourselves makes it necessary if we are on the one hand to provide responses and to provide the sort of access that the legislation contemplates and on the other hand, to reduce the litigation cost being incurred, then we must have a clause of this nature to facilitate this process. Madam President, I heard my colleague Sen. Deonarine talk about reducing the 30 days to maybe 14 days. Well, those of us who have worked in the public sector as Minister or otherwise know that 30 days could become 30 years very

UNREVISED 158 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) quickly. Madam President, I have told the country that tomorrow afternoon, I am going to Rio Claro to distribute some Cabinet approvals for leases. Most of those people have been waiting for more than 30 years. I have told the country about Sheila Mohammed from Point Fortin when she whispered to me, “Minister, I have been waiting for 60 years”. Sen. Mark: “Ah thought yuh going Chaguanas East.” Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: I am going to Rio Claro tomorrow, I am going to Chaguanas East tonight. [Laughter] For persons who have leasehold interest in state property, the lawyers amongst us would know, in Westmoorings for example, where the State really has no interest in the running of the towers. If you are disposing of a unit down there, you have to get the consent of the Commissioner of State Lands and last week, I had to intervene, for example, to a lady who said her buyer has been waiting for more than nine months, the transaction. She needs to dispose of the unit to settle some medical bills that she has to settle. And, Madam President, this thing, a consent, a sheet of paper with 95 words written on it, can take months and years. So 30 days in the life of the public sector is like lunchtime for most of us. It is nothing. And when you think about Ministries and when you think about how Ministries operate, the opportunity for a freedom of information request to reach to the desk of a Minister or a Permanent Secretary or something like that, you are talking about months. So that the Government has left it at 30 days but we believe that this opportunity for the review by the Attorney General is an opportunity to maybe have a decision made that would not ordinarily be made.

UNREVISED 159 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d)

And why do we want to do that, Madam President? The Act itself, the parent Act is very clear. It says at 3(2): “The provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the object set out in subsection (1) and any discretion conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.” So if there is a refusal and the Attorney General gets the opportunity now to intervene and in 30 days, review the refusal, there may be what section 3(2) of the Act asks us to do, to facilitate, to lower the cost, to do things in a prompt manner so that information could be accessible where the Act itself says that such information is accessible. Madam President, I also want to make the point that even the freedom of information—we were in a joint select committee which recently interviewed the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Communications, and that is the Ministry where the Freedom of Information Unit resides and I asked her a question. I asked the Permanent Secretary about the vacant positions in the FOI Unit, about contracts in the FOI Unit that are going to expire shortly and the FOI unit and the FOI people where they exist in Ministries are no different from the rest of the public service. They all sit and wait in hope that an HR division somewhere will cast the light upon them and renew their contracts or continue their contracts or fill vacant positions. So many of these units and this unit itself has its own challenges in relation to resources. So we would like that in one day, you can email a request and get an answer immediately. But I sat here a while ago and sent an email to an institution

UNREVISED 160 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) and had to leave here and go to the institution and say, “I sent you an email a few hours ago”. Madam President: Minister, you have five more minutes. Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: So it does not necessarily work so. So, Madam President, in relation to my colleague Sen. Hosein when he talks about the FOI clause seeks to restrict information on the way the Government operates, the Government has no interest in restricting, the Act provides. The Act is very clear. The Government does not like to go to court. The Act sets out what is accessible and what is not accessible. What we are seeking to do is to do what the Act asks of us, to make decision-making a little faster, to reduce the cost and to allow decisions to be made in relation to the Attorney General’s requirement that he acts in the best interest of the public. I read the same press release about the lawyer bashing and the Law Association offered no commentary on the way this clause could work or the way we could improve the FOI process. All their commentary was targeted to is what they perceived as “lawyer bashing”. I listened to my colleague quoting Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj who talks about a political hand will now be responsible for reviewing confidential information. But by nature, the job of a Minister, the functionaries in a Ministry, we are required to get into confidential information and that is nothing new, this is nothing new. But the Act is very clear of what could be done and could not be done and you know, if we had focused on those words contained in the clause, all of us might have been home a long time ago. And the question of, why does the AG want to interfere? The nature of the Attorney General’s role is to interfere, especially when you are dealing with public

UNREVISED 161 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d) authorities, to interfere, to intervene. The advice that is given comes via the Office of the Attorney General in many cases. That is the role of the Attorney General and you may not like personalities and you may have your own fears and so on, your own concerns, but it has been like that in the history of the position of Attorney General in this country and the Government does not wish to change that in any way. So, Madam President, I would say in conclusion that the amnesty, there is not much to be concerned about, this is something that has been done before. The FOI, I have a particular view on it and in relation to section 22(1) and 22(2) of the parent Act and in relation to section 3(1) and 3(2) of the parent Act, I think that what we are doing here is consistent with that. The national insurance provision, I believe that we have to strike the balance in relation to our willingness to accommodate Venezuelans, but we must also protect the long-term health of our national insurance fund. The Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, I think they have been lucky that a Minister of Finance did not have sight of that provision but I think that their luck should run out and the public should have access to that information, not just the Minister, and the two provisions in relation to the Companies Act and the non- profit legislation that we just passed, I consider them to be administrative, to grant the Minister the discretion to extend the time within the safeguards that exist in the proposed clauses 10 and 11. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Hon. Senators, we will now suspend the sitting and we will return at 5.35 p.m. 5.03 p.m.: Sitting suspended.

UNREVISED 162 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat cont’d)

5.35 p.m.: Sitting resumed.

[MR. VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair] Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Obika. Sen. Taharqa Obika: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. As I rise to contribute to the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019, I seek to focus and circumscribe my contribution to about three clauses of this Bill and I believe I can start with clause 9 of the Bill. When it comes to clause 9 of the Bill, Mr. Vice-President, we are treating with the amendments to the Central Bank Act, an important question was raised by Sen. Seepersad where the hon. Senator raised the question: Is it that the Minister of Finance is aiming to make the Central Bank a division of the Ministry of Finance? [Crosstalk] Mr. Vice-President, so I was merely repeating the question that the hon. Senator raised during an earlier contribution to this very debate so it should come as no surprise to the hon. Ministers opposite. Now, the question in a sense is left to be answered, and I will seek to provide some further questions so that the hon. Minister can assist the population of Trinidad and Tobago to put that question to rest with the answers that will be provided at the winding-up. Now, that question is anchored in the issue with political closeness, political proximity and I want to go to an article in a magazine that is respected by persons who are in the field of economics. If you bear with me to find that page. So that is The Economist and The Economist of April 13, 2019. The title of the article is Central Banks: “The independence of central banks is under threat from politics.

UNREVISED 163 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d)

That is bad news for the world.” And The Economist, a magazine that whilst it is not a journal, it takes from the peer review journals in economics and presents positions and perspectives that can provide some clarity to decision-makers and this is what they said here and I will just take some excerpts from it. And it says: “In the 1970s it was normal for politicians to manipulate interest rates to boost their own popularity.”—which—“…led to a plague of inflation. And…”— therefore—“rich countries and many poorer ones shifted…”—thereafter—“to a system in which politicians…” —meaning Ministers of Finance for instance, would set for broad policy directives such as constant prices or stable prices in the economy and they left independent central bankers to operationalize it. Now, however, The Economist is observing that this success is threatened by modern populism, an easy reference to the President of the United States, for instance, and his battles with the Fed. Brexiteers. India’s government replaced a capable central bank chief with a pliant insider who has cut rates ahead of an election. We also are facing a general election. And in this report, they also went to central bankers from Europe. And so that brings us back to the question that I raised at the very beginning of my contribution. The question raised by Sen. Seepersad which is: Is the Minister of Finance aiming to make the Central Bank a division of the Ministry of Finance? Now, Mr. Vice-President, in this entire debate, one asks the question: whether the Central Bank Governor, in all of this—I do not wish to personalize my contribution so I am speaking to the post of the Central Bank Governor. Because

UNREVISED 164 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) when you turn to clause 9 of the Bill which seeks to amend the Central Bank Act, Chap. 72:02, to require the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago such information pertaining to HR, org structure, employment-related information as the Minister may request, we are sure that there will be many commentators on this issue and no less a commentator, Mr. Vice-President, and I will get to the attempt to lead me down a particular line, as we say in Trinidad and Tobago, to douse, to quench my fire by stating this is the “Obika clause”. [Crosstalk and laughter] Mr. Vice- President, fortunately or unfortunately, I am not one who tries to pat myself on the back despite the length of my arms [Laughter] so I will not be baited by that suggestion. Because I will never countenance a clause that only seeks to give information and access to one individual. Freedom of information. As the hon. Minister proclaimed, what he is seeking is freedom of information and I have a part that deals with that in my debate because there is a commentator that spoke to that so I want to get to that—today on Power 102 FM. You know, because coming from Point Fortin to here, it is a short drive of two and a half hours and today was three and a half hours because of traffic, because of the rains. So I listened to the Power 102 programme coming up and I listened to one William Dumas. He is a respected citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and he was raising an alarm and it is sounded to me as if he was expressing the fear that the PNM wants to control the Central Bank. Now, I am not saying that is the case. [Crosstalk] I would never cast any aspersions on the hon. Minister of Finance. I do not think I would want to bring that into this debate. I would never assume that the hon. Minister would want to control the Central Bank, no, but this is the concern

UNREVISED 165 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) and the fear of William Dumas. And what he said is that it may seem innocuous, the measure, it may seem innocent just to get the information, you know, human resource information—[Interruption] Sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice-President— Reginald Dumas. You see, the journey from Point Fortin to here was so long [Laughter] because of the traffic congestion that I had to reset my reference. So, it is Mr. Reginald Dumas, for the record, I apologize to the goodly gentleman. So what Mr. Dumas is trying to say is that politicians need to be protected from themselves [Desk thumping] because once you insert a politician into a process, then you become wary that control is the focus. And he said that if we are to go by the hon. Minister of Finance’s definition of “freedom of information” by this clause, then we have to change the definition of “freedom of information”. It will no longer be providing information and access to all citizens of Trinidad and Tobago but really providing information to one citizen, the Minister of Finance. [Desk thumping] But a simple recommendation could be gleaned even from the hon. Minister’s submission and before I go to the hon. Minister’s submission, I want to reference another individual, former Central Bank Governor Euric Bobb, quoted on June 13, 2019, as stating that clause 9 is an intrusion in staff matters. Hon. Imbert: How is it? Sen. T. Obika: And the hon. Minister asked how. Because the final part of clause 9 basically states—just before the final part, the penultimate part says it is a catch-all of such matters as the Minister thinks fit. So let me get to that part of clause 9 that really points to that. So if we turn to clause 9(e): “such other matters relating to the employment of staff as the Minister thinks

UNREVISED 166 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) fit.” 5.45 p.m. So, Euric Bobb, a former Governor of the Central Bank, sees it as an intrusion into staff matters. So I want to address the position of the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Vice-President. Because I feel for the Governor and the Deputy Governor or Governors. But I want to tell them they can speak their mind. And even though they may feel powerless, even though they may feel that they are under the might of this Government, that they may be too small, if you feel you are too small, Mr. Vice-President, it means you have not spent the night with a mosquito. That is an African proverb. It may sound humorous, but humour is a way to distil things that are pertinent and poignant. If the Governor of the Central Bank feels he is too small, spend a night with a mosquito. He has the power, and if he speaks, all of this will be put to rest. So I want to encourage the Governor to speak his mind. The population will listen and he will be vindicated. History will absolve the Governor of the Central Bank if he speaks. So I want to continue. The Bill will insert, under section 56(6)(e), what I just stated before. Now, I want to quote from the parent Act itself, just that part 56(1): “Except in so far as may be necessary for the due performance of its objects, and subject to section 8 of the Financial Institutions Act, every director, officer and employee of the Bank shall preserve and aid in preserving secrecy with regard to all matters relating to the affairs of the Bank, any financial institution or person registered under the Insurance Act or of any customers thereof that may come to his knowledge in the course of his duties.”

UNREVISED 167 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d)

Now, one may say: Well, if this were anything that affected any financial institution or person registered under the Insurance Act would be insurance companies or companies that provide insurance services, then maybe the organizations that are so affected would have spoken. You know, one could easily arrive at such a conclusion, Mr. Vice-President, and say that whether, in this whole thing, the Bankers Association of Trinidad and Tobago, whether the—what about the Association of Trinidad and Tobago Insurance Companies (ATTIC)? Or what about the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Trinidad and Tobago (ICATT)? One could have asked that question and one could have said that maybe all this noise about the autonomy of the Central Bank and the potential of a runaway Minister of Finance to corrupt the integrity of the Central Bank is just talk, one could say that. But one could also say “maybe, maybe”, Mr. Vice-President. When you make legislation, you do not make legislation for politicians who know where their crease is and stay within it. You make legislation for persons who may try to go beyond their office and overreach. So that is where you have to protect yourself from yourself. Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Obika, let me just intervene here at this point in time. As the eleventh speaker in the debate so far, what is happening is that this is a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill that seeks to make amendments to several other Acts. And a lot of the speakers that have gone before are focusing on very specific ones, and you have started off by focusing on the one that deals with the Central Bank Act. And because of a number of speakers have done that before, we are running into a situation where tedious repetition is coming into play. So, unless

UNREVISED 168 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) you have something absolutely new at this point in time, in relation to the parts of the Bill that have been spoken about before, or unless you are going to speak about the parts of the Bill that have not been spoken about, then you are going to run afoul of tedious repetition. So I am going to ask you to stay within the boundaries that I have just outlined as you continue your contribution. Sen. T. Obika: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, and I want to assure you that what I have to say here was not dealt with materially by anyone in this debate. And you can count on me on that whenever you are dealing with Central Bank or these types of matters. Now, the hon. Minister, and I want to respond to what the hon. Minister said, and he stated that the Reserve Bank of Australia is required to disclose by law, salary bands, Canada, USA and Jamaica, and so on. But disclosing by law to whom? Is it only to the Minister of Finance? And if so, the hon. Minister should point us to the relevant clauses in those legislations that he referenced, otherwise we dismiss it out of hand. Because what he said in his contribution was not that. What he said in his contribution is that he is available, all right, not to whom, specifically. In addition to that, Mr. Vice-President, the action that the Minister could engage in was not said even by the hon. Minister in his contribution. So I want to just reject that point there. There is an issue of moral suasion that was not dealt with at all in this debate. All right? Moral suasion; what is moral suasion? When the Governor of the Central Bank is trying to engage in—I have to just lay the context for persons to understand where I am coming from. The hon. Minister may be very versed in

UNREVISED 169 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) the concept of moral suasion but I am sure the population would like to benefit. The Central Bank Governor, in trying to engage in money market policies, may try to convince first, before bringing the heavy hand that he has, based on his position, try to convince and coerce the Chairmen of the banks in the Bankers Association to follow his lead, in terms of monetary policy as regards the repo rate, and so on. When you have a Central Bank Governor who, in the minds of the chairmen of the commercial and merchant banks in Trinidad and Tobago—in their minds, that he is subservient to, not independent from a Minister of Finance, because of the employment structure in the Central Bank, he may lose his ability to use moral suasion because they may feel that he is a political creature. And that is a very important point. Now, another point, Mr. Vice-President, that was not raised in this debate is bona fide information, bona fide information. Now, the data analyses of the Central Bank have been at odds with the Central Statistical Office lately. The 2018 Annual Economic Survey of the Central Bank, which came out in 2019, uses a different metric to determine sectoral performance. The CSO has already shifted. Hon. Imbert: Point of order, 48(1). This has nothing to do with disclose— Hon. Senator: 46(1) Hon. Imbert: 46(1), I am terribly sorry. This has nothing to do with disclosing information to the Minister about employment. Sen. T. Obika: I could have dealt with that, Mr. Vice-President. Mr. Vice-President: Senator, in relation to the point of order, you have a very tight boundary. So I would allow you just to continue for a few seconds more, but tie it specifically to the clause in the Bill.

UNREVISED 170 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d)

Sen. T. Obika: Right, so, bona fide information. The Minister in the Bill, in clause 9, the organizational structure of the bank, requests regarding the number of current and former officers and employees of the bank, the number of filled or vacant positions in the organizational structure of the bank. In this country, it may seem innocent when a Minister of Finance is asking for this type of information; any other staffing matters as he sees fit. Suppose the Minister ask: “Who did that review that says, in the 2018 Annual Economic Survey, the banking sector only grew because of debt consolidation and low refinancing?” “That is a bad review. Do not say that. You should not say that. Who?” Suppose the Minister of Finance—not this Minister, because he would not do such a thing—would do something like that? Suppose the Minister of Finance took umbrage to the statement of $620 million to pay for the Venezuelans and then decides: “Who did that research?” Hon. Imbert: Point of order, Mr. Vice-President. The clause refers to matters of employment, organizational structure, salaries, number of officers. Sen. S. Hosein: Which Standing Order? Hon. Imbert: Standing Order 46(1). It has nothing to do with what he is talking about. Mr. Vice-President: Members. Sen. Obika, in relation to the point of order, two things are happening: one, you are stretching ideally one point that a lot of other Senators have spoken to in various ways using various examples and that major point is really the independence of the Central Bank, in relation to the clause that is before us. And what you are doing is using other sub-points to bolster that one point. So, I am just going to ask you, if you have any other novel point at this

UNREVISED 171 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) point in time, outside of the independence of the Central Bank and keeping it independent, I invite you to do so now. Sen. T. Obika: I am guided, Mr. Vice-President. So I will close my part on Central Bank on this point. What about the Central Bank staff association? This Bill seeks to, it speaks to HR matters. The Bill speaks to HR matters. What about the staff association? What about the recognized union, Banking Insurance and General Workers Union? Were they consulted? I guess by the Minister’s protest, they were not. Now, I want to move on to the tax amnesty—[Interruption]—much to the pleasure of an echo coming from this part of the Chamber. Not sure. Oh, Sen. Cummings, I invite you to join the debate, through you, Mr. Vice-President. I want to turn to clause 2 of the Bill, which speaks to the tax amnesty. And the last tax amnesty was conducted from July 01, 2016, to September 16, 2016, and the hon. Minister will correct me if I am wrong in that regard. And the hon. Minister indicated that a particular sum was raised during that time. But when you bring figures to the population, Mr. Vice-President, for the population to determine if there is benefit to the tune that the Minister ascribes, they would need supporting information. For example, this $500 million, $500 million over two and a half months is nothing to shout about, given the level of taxes that the Government collects from companies, in terms of goods and services. I guess international trade would not be captured under that, right? So, taxes from energy companies alone was $10 billion in 2018 fiscal, $10.6 billion. This is from the Review of the Economy 2018, Appendix 21, page 100. All right? So, the hon. Minister should indicate

UNREVISED 172 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) specifically, maybe which sectors that tax was generated from, so he can give some response there. But, clause 4 of the Bill introduces a tax amnesty. All right? And a tax amnesty is a simple procedure and the Minister’s clarification basically is consistent with the tax amnesty of 2016, in terms of the types of taxes to be collected, if one goes to the Inland Revenue Division’s website. But there is an issue here, Mr. Vice-President, that has been raised in another place, is that the Minister of Finance is on record, even in this debate, as tying the tax amnesty to the coming into existence and into force of the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority. And it seems as if we are treating the TTRA as a fait accompli. I am not sure that we should be speaking of such a creature, when in fact it requires a three-fifths majority of this Parliament in both Houses to even exist in the first place. I do not think that point was dealt with in the debate. So I want to refer to what Ernst & Young stated on this matter. And I am quoting here from a document entitled: “‘Indisputable recovery’ Trinidad and Tobago Mid-Year Budget Review 2019” —published in May 2019, Tax Alert Trinidad and Tobago by Ernst & Young. Now, they raised some critical issues, but I will circumscribe by reportage on that document to the tax amnesty and the TTRA. And what they said is, well number one, Indisputable Recovery was in inverted commas. So they were not taking ownership of any recovery. They were simply quoting the Minister of Finance. It came across more as in jest than to be taken seriously. But that is just an opinion of someone.

UNREVISED 173 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d)

Now, on page 3, under “Macroeconomic Review”, Ernst &Young highlighted the discrepancy between IMF and Ministry of Finance estimates. But, when it comes to the tax amnesty, Mr. Vice-President, it stated that the Revenue Authority in particular, and I quote: “The Honourable Minister announced that the Joint Select Committee on the TTRA legislation had concluded its meetings and the amended TTRA legislation would imminently be laid in Parliament for debate. The Honourable Minister of Finance did not clarify whether the amended legislation would still require a three- fifths majority for passage as was the case with the original Bill.” So, there you have it. Ernst & Young is raising an issue regarding the TTRA. And there is another issue regarding the tax amnesty, Mr. Vice-President, the time period of the tax amnesty, mid-June to mid-September. And if there are some issues here—one could understand why of all the institutions, the TTMA was asking for an extension of this period, saying that the period was a bit too short. And I will say one reason why. One, the timing of the announcement of the tax amnesty was too close to the period of the tax amnesty. All right? Whilst the Government may have been aware of its coming into existence, one needs to take into consideration the business cycle of companies, the annual sales cycle of companies and the overall business cycle of companies and the use of cash flows. Because, for example, companies in the distribution sector, for instance, their buying period begins now. Well, it started probably a month ago. All right? Because if you have to bring containers from China, Panama for the school term, you have to do it now. So, therefore, your business is highly leveraged because

UNREVISED 174 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) you borrow at this time to do that, to engage in such a transaction. You do not have access to you, the liquid funds to honour claims based on your tax obligations to the State at that time. Now is actually probably the worst time for many of those companies in the distribution sector, because of the buying period which does not happen now. Now is a slower period compared to September to February. So if a longer period was envisaged, companies who would have a positive net cash flow during the amnesty would be in a stronger position to pay the Government. So that is one point I want the hon. Minister to take into consideration, given the buying period, given the business cycle, the annual cycle for net cash flow for many businesses in Trinidad and Tobago, to look at an extension that comes after consultation, for instance, with the Supermarkets Association, with the Manufacturers Association. I understand that the hon. Minister wants to collect funds in time for the budget. That is a normal expectation. That is normal. That is a normal expectation, Mr. Vice-President. Now, but there is another issue that I want to raise regarding that, regarding VAT, because VAT is one of the taxes to be featured, to be captured under this, business levy as well. Now, notwithstanding the hon. Minister has increased the minimum threshold for which you must begin to pay business levy and value added tax, that does not affect the companies that are already captured by the existing threshold, because their total sales is beyond the half of a million dollars anyway. So these companies are owed significant sums, in terms of VAT returns, to the extent where you have businesses accusing the Government, rightfully, or not rightfully, of riding the balance sheets of business to be able to meet their recurring expenditure. I cannot say that that is a position that I can endorse. But if

UNREVISED 175 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) one looks at the facts, it speaks to a concern that one must appreciate. And if you look to, there was a submission by KPMG regarding the VAT refunds and the tax amnesty. Mr. Vice-President, could you tell me what time I should end? Mr. Vice-President: Quarter past six. Sen. T. Obika: Thank you. So, you have to remember this is the environment we are faced with, an increase in the business levy threefold; increase in the Green Fund, threefold; increase in corporation tax from 25 per cent to 30 per cent for companies and 35 per cent for banks and non-payment, in terms of moneys to contractors, and so on. They may say that is a regular thing in this country. But still it is something that they are faced with, the business community is faced with. So the VAT refunds and the tax amnesty; I think this should be my last point on the tax amnesty, in particular. I will end on the NIS. So, Mr. Vice-President, I want to quote from a Guardian newspaper article of the 14th of May, 2019, by Peter Christopher, titled: “Stakeholders seek Tax Amnesty clarity” And I quote: “...officials from KPMG yesterday questioned the short period of the amnesty. ‘Normally it’s a bit longer. Could be about six months...if I recall the one...we had in 2010…’”— No, they were mistaken about 2010. This is from KPMG Tax Director Gillian Wolffe-O’Neil and: “She pointed out that the previous amnesty...” So, this is the point I want to make on that, and I quote: “‘I assume they will take advantage because it is an opportunity to be

UNREVISED 176 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) compliant and it gives everyone a peace of mind. You may not be aware, but sometimes if you want to tender for a project or for a contract you have to get a tax clearance.’” So can you imagine, Mr. Vice-President, you have someone who is a contractor. The Government may not be owing them, but the Government may be owing the persons in their ecosystem who are struggling to pay them. They may have been subcontracted. A significant part of their revenue earnings may come from subcontracted services to other contractors who themselves are owed by the Government, who are owed by the Government for VAT refunds, and so on, and the Government is owing them but they themselves have to pay their taxes. What about if the Government had decided: “You know what? Let us allow you to write off what you owe us with what we owe you?” There is no requirement for a cash movement. I understand that this was the practice sometime before and I understand that this practice has ended. [Interruption] Okay, the hon. Minister is saying it was never the practice. So, if this was never the practice and the Government is owing persons, they are owing these contractors, so the Government owes you 10million or one million, you are owing the Government 800,000, if the Government were to pay you your one million, it stands to logic, to reason that you would be in a better position to pay the 800,000 you owe the Government. So it cannot be that the Government is taking this big stick policy, not paying its bills, not honouring its debts and asking the citizenry, the owners of companies, to honour their debts. I mean, the one does not work with the other. Sen. Khan: The debt is taxed on the profit.

UNREVISED 177 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d)

Sen. T. Obika: So, I want to end on the national insurance. Profit is on accrued basis, not a cash basis. The hon. Minister is saying that the debt is taxed on profit. Profit is on an accrued basis, not on a cash basis. Business functions with cash. So you can post a profit, Mr. Vice-President, you made $100 million from the Government, but they have not paid you. So your cash situation is dire. Your business can fold up waiting for this money. So I want to end on the NIS situation. All right? And then these same contractors are faced with a situation where the banking sector is turning away from them because they themselves realize that they have cash flow shortage issues and they are not getting paid and those same banks are minimizing their exposure to the Government. Hon. Imbert: Point of order, 46(1). What does this have to with the amnesty? Sen. T. Obika: I will continue. Mr. Vice-President: Continue, Sen. Obika. Sen. T. Obika: Thank you very much. So the National Insurance Scheme. [Crosstalk] Yes, Sir, national insurance. I am on it. I want to thank the hon. Minister for assisting me to reach to clause 8 of the Bill. So I want to say this point on it. The National Insurance Scheme, based on the ninth actuarial review should be, by this year, still making a profit, still be making some capital gains, still be. All right? It should still be. We do not have the information to say if it has, if it is, because we need the tenth and probably the eleventh to ascertain that. But by now, what you find will happen is that the contributions will be less than the claims and there are no gains on the fund and the fund will decline. Based on

UNREVISED 178 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) the ninth actuarial review, it said that the total number of pensioners rose significantly from 135,000 in 2013, and is expected to climb to 353,000 in 2062, and there is an issue with the ratio of contributors to pensioners, as we have an increasing population. The clause on the NIS has to do with uninsurable employment. And Mr. Vice-President, it may disturb you to know that there are employers already who do not pay the NIS for employees because of the treatment of the employees. They treat them as external service providers. And by that treatment they try to circumvent that whole issue of honouring health surcharge and NIS, almost as if you are a separate company. So if you have 20 employees in your establishment, each one is like a separate entity, a separate enterprise, independent contractors. Now, Mr. Vice-President, this is a way of circumventing the policy. All right? And it is unethical if you look at it with a sharp eye. What is happening is that companies would be reducing their worker wage bill by as much as 15 per cent, in some instances by not paying NIS. And they will discriminate against Trinidad and Tobago citizens, because the Trinidad and Tobago citizen will demand NIS, will demand health surcharge, and will demand all the requirements of safe and just work. Now, this also, Mr. Vice-President, will reduce the size of the National Insurance Fund. Because when you have less contributors to the fund, you have a dwindling formula. The formula is not to the advantage of the fund and the Government needs to rethink that and needs to get proper actuarial advice. It must not be himself to himself. You must get proper external independent actuarial advice before you make this decision. [Desk thumping] So, from the actuarial

UNREVISED 179 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Obika cont’d) review it states, and I quote: From 2019 to 2020, assets would rapidly decrease and the NIS funds will be completely depleted in 2029 to 2030, if nothing is modified, in terms of contributions or benefits, not surreptitiously allowing employers to remove workers from the National Insurance Fund. Because if you look at the Review of the Economy and you look at the health surcharge that the Government collects, Mr. Vice-President, you will see that it has declined from 264 million to 225 million, 218 million, 184 million because, of course, less and less workers are being afforded the opportunity to their proper benefits and what this Government will do will continue to decline. I want to leave with the words of Walter Rodney: “For the only great men among the unfree and the oppressed are those who struggle to destroy the oppressor.” Everyone who stands up to the acts of this Government with this Bill is doing what Walter Rodney did when he stood up and spoke truth to power. And we will continue to do so until we get justice for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. I thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping] 6.15 p.m. Sen. Dr. Varma Deyalsingh: [Desk thumping] Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for allowing me to partake in this discussion of this Bill and as my fellow Senator, Ms. Deonarine suggested, it was a Bill, there was a lot of controversy came, you know, with the intention to debate this Bill. So thank you for allowing me to partake in the debate on: the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of

UNREVISED 180 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d)

Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019. As I looked at this Bill, I see different pieces of—it is an omnibus Bill and different pieces of legislation were brought forward for us to give some consideration. So, it was a mixture of Bills that I was asked to look at and I felt I was being assaulted from different avenues, like I was getting an upper cut, a lower cut, below the belt and I did not know from which side I was being struck at. But all in all, Mr. Vice-President, I looked at the Bill and I tried to get some idea about it and I say the first aspect of this Bill actually seeks to provide law for the tax amnesty which Government recently said would apply from this month to mid-June. Other aspects deal with the amendments to the Pension Act, Freedom of Information Act, National Insurance Act, Central Bank Act, Companies Act and Non-Profit Organisations Act, and among the clauses the Bill amends the Retiring Allowances Act, the President’s Emoluments Act, Prime Minister’s Pensions Act and Judges Salaries and Pensions Act. So, looking at these proposals, I would like to first look at the proposal and see what changes are asked of us to look at, to give consideration. And secondly to see if there was a rationale for such a change and to see if I support these changes. And first I would like to look at, I think, which is the most controversial one, which is clause 7. The one that has gotten a lot of beating in the press and a lot of constructive criticisms from Members on this side. So looking at this Bill, it actually—I must look at the Freedom of Information Act, and I must remember the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1999 was a historic piece of legislation in which the state information should properly be

UNREVISED 181 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) classified as public information. The Act very pointedly states its objective of: “creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of public authorities limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by public authorities.” So any amendment to this important piece of legislation should be aimed at enhancing this right in my opinion and not somehow suppressing it or thwarting it or trying to get some sort of restriction in it. And it is a fact that it was a previous PNM government under the late Mr. Patrick Manning, who actually took pieces of this Act and reduced the companies, the scrutinies, the state bodies that were able to scrutinize. So, it did shrink a little bit and even when that happened then, there was criticism that it was a means to see if we could stifle the Freedom of Information, stifle, you know the citizens from being able to look into the running of the State. And when this clause came up for discussion, I was pleased that members of the public, previous Attorney General, civil society, all became awake, it was as if we raised a “jep nest”. It showed me that the people were aware, they were alert, and they were willing to voice their opinion. And I know it is political season, it is “silly season”, people would oppose, but I did see some non-partisan individuals voicing concerns. So I had to look and see if they voice their concerns, probably something in this piece of legislation, you know, we need to look at a little further. And in fact, I did listen and I noticed the other side took cognizance of the fact because even the original clause that came out, the Attorney General did in fact

UNREVISED 182 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) make some changes to it, and I am hoping that he is again willing to listen to some recommendations from this side. So again, we have to ask the question as people asked, did the Attorney General indeed produce this clause as a knee-jerk reaction to certain Privy Council decisions? Or was the population reading too much into this? Were we seeing a danger? Is it really that he needed to plug the gap for attorneys who see an avenue in law, as it was quite likely put, to make some money to get at state funds? But you see, democracy embraces the principle of open Government, accountability, transparency and citizen participation. These are essential in any democratic governance, and in the execution of good governance we should be increasing the availability of information about governmental activities and increased access to new technologies, openness and accountability. So, we should be getting information faster with the high-tech information, with the computer system, we should be having the Ministries in such a way that information should be easily accessible and quicker, given that you ask for information, we should not have to delay it in any way. And you see, in terms of spending public money, it seems that if we are looking at the argument put on by the Attorney General that, you know, he may not be aware when certain matters were brought to—in the Petrotrin issue and certain matters came and people asked for this freedom of information and it was refused. He as Attorney General really did not know, but and if he did not know, he said it is his prerogative to know these things because he is the defender of these Motions. But again, looking at the arguments, we have seen that in fact, the Solicitor General would know, and should have told him. We know the fact that also, that at

UNREVISED 183 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) the end of the day, he would get these pieces of legislation because he was the one who would have to defend it. And in such a way, he would then be able to say, “Listen, let us see if we can stop this in its tracks rather that it going on to the Privy Council, let us see if we can stop it”. So he would have had other ways, other means of getting this information. Even a policy decision could be made that any state enterprise who refuses the application for freedom of information should tell their line Minister and their line Minister could now be able to inform the Attorney General, “Look, this is waiting in the wings”. So instead of changing this whole clause, instead of opening this, as I said, raising a “jep nest”, instead of causing great public concern, I am thinking it could have been done in a way that you had other avenues available. And I am thinking, you know, we are looking at the new procurement legislation, openness, transparency and I am saying—and even as a nation we were part of Open Government Partnership which this country joined in 2013. So we should have a mechanism in place where if persons apply for this we would have a team of personnel available to try and get it as quickly as possible to give, to disperse that information. It shows then we are up in times, we are dealing with any sort of allegations of corruption and any sort of enquiry.

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair] Even in the medical field, sometimes people will use this Freedom of Information Act, to try and get files, medical files that they would use to go to court and it is there. So we give it and the idea is to give this information as quickly as possible, not to put another layer of bureaucracy to hold it down. And we are asked to:

UNREVISED 184 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d)

“…amend the Freedom of Information Act, Chap. 22:02, to extend the period within which a public authority is required to inform an applicant of its decision in relation to a request for information.”—and—“A public authority would, however, be required to obtain the approval of the Attorney General before refusing a request and the Attorney General would have”—30 days—“to inform the public authority of his decision.” So I looked at the clause and I realized that there were other avenues in place. And I realize that instead of disrupting society and letting persons come to the conclusion that it is some sinister plot, letting the conspiracy theorists come in and say that probably the Attorneys General want to control. We have heard the creation of tsars here. I am thinking it may be a simple thing as Sen. Seepersad suggested to just withdraw the clause, bring it out, just withdraw the clause. [Desk thumping] And I too would like to agree with my fellow Senator that this is a good idea and I support you on that venture. So another reason, Madam President, that I was hesitant to support this clause is when I looked at a previous Bill we looked at before, the Bail (Amdt.) Bill, and it was stated in the Bail (Amdt.) Bill by the Attorney General that sometimes he found that the granting of bail was not in sync with what the Government would have had intended. In the terms that, you know, certain people were on serious charges and they were out on bail and the whole idea of trying to get the Bail Act amended is to try and put some restriction on that. And even at that debate I mentioned, you know, we are now going into the role of judicial, we are looking at the judicial discretion and again when I looked at this same Bill I see a similar issue, because similar rationale was proposed that, it is

UNREVISED 185 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) because the attorneys are getting so much money. The attorneys who are applying for this, if they are not getting their benefit in time, they will now go and they are now getting millions of dollars from the State. It is like if they were milking the State. But these are issues I am thinking that the attorneys whatever benefits they get it is really the Masters of the court or the judges to decide that. And it is really the judicial discretion and I am thinking here again we are looking at going after the fact that the judicial discretion there may be giving moneys that people may think that are too exorbitant. So this was another way I looked at the separation of powers and I was a little bit sceptical to go after this and I am thinking probably the better way would have been as my Senator suggested. And I must say, my previous Senator who was here, Sen. David Small, when he was on a joint select committee looking at the state enterprises, he actually made a statement that this is unbelievable, somebody is trying to hide; we are not tolerating this, the Parliament is the highest law of the country. And he said that in relation to the Petrotrin officials coming and not wanting to open up to him in his committee. And I am saying it took an individual outside, Mr. Ravi Balgobin Maharaj, to actually get the Law Lords to get the transparency and to get the accountability that was needed in cases like this. So it actually, we in Parliament were not able to get that from the joint select committee, but an individual outside was able to access it. So, I am saying, you know, it is like we have a culture here within, not just this Government, other governments may try to stymie information, may try to hide information. And I think we need more transparency, accountability, we need to

UNREVISED 186 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) lift that veil of secrecy that exists and I am thinking that a time may have to come when all contracts, licences, plus Cabinet Notes and Minutes, unless classified should be placed in the public domain. Madam President, I would now like to go on to clause 2, the tax amnesty. So dealing with clause 2: “The tax amnesty would consist of the waiver of penalties with respect to tax payable under a revenue law specified in the Schedule of the Bill if the tax owed is paid between 15th June, 2019 and 15th September, 2019…” And I heard here that the majority of persons are in agreement with this tax amnesty. But you see what I am looking at is that we are sending a wrong message to the population. We are sending a message that I could pay my taxes, I can hire somebody—pay my taxes, I can give whatever penalties and do that within the law as a civic-minded citizen. But the guy who is slacking there, the guy is sitting back, the guy who is not even taking it on, he gets away with this. So it is like if we are having legislation that is bringing mediocrity or slackness to saying that if you do not pay your taxes on time you are going to get a “bligh”. And it happened before in 2016 and again the Minister of Finance also said it happened in 2015 and 2010. So why must we keep giving this message, why could we keep telling persons “Hey, doh pay yuh taxes, probably in the next two years we will give you another amnesty”. So because the reason of this, Madam President, because I think we need to have a culture of change and a culture of persons saying your taxes are due, the country will suffer if we do not get the taxes. We have to pay it or actually you will serve the full penalties that is due. So I am thinking, because of this, I will not be in support of clause 2. [Interruption] The amnesty of the

UNREVISED 187 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) taxes. Yeah, because you see you have to get the culture, I mean, we have given an amnesty in 2016, we giving it in 2000—so every so often we are giving this amnesty so we are not getting that model of change in our citizens. You have to pay your taxes, if you do not get that model of—so you know it is every law- abiding citizen who pay their taxes will feel what is the sense I am doing it, you are letting other people get away. So, I am thinking, yes, it will help people, we are giving people as they say a “bligh”. But what we are actually doing there is not creating a model of change, a culture of change, of responsibility of paying your taxes that we should be trying to achieve. Looking at clause 9, Madam President, this would: “…amend the Central Bank Act, Chap. 79:02, to require the Central Bank…to disclose to the”—Finance Minister—“such information pertaining to the human resources and organizational structure of the Bank and such other employment-related information as the Minister may request.” When I looked at the criticism that came about from this clause, I noticed it was independent persons out there, it was not politicians. I looked at the 13th of June, Express article by Anna Ramdass, the headline is “Bobb expresses concerns on the bill”. And in this article she mentioned that a past president of the Central Bank, Vice-President, Mr. Terrence Farrell, Mr. Winston Dookeran, all those persons had reservations about this piece of legislation that we are proposing here today. All of them said the independence of the Central Bank will certainly be compromised. And they did not like, again, the intrusion of any Ministers to pry into, to peep, to look, to be a voyeur into the aspects of the Central Bank’s runnings. And again

UNREVISED 188 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) this again I think may create a tsar, because a Minister now may have a power— Madam President: Sen. Deyalsingh, I really have to intervene at this stage and just remind you that several speakers before you have dealt with this point about the Central Bank, and you are now sort of rehashing what has been said by numerous speakers before you. So, I am going to ask you please to tighten your contribution. If you want to make a point, make it, but move on because I cannot have everybody repeating the same arguments. Sen. Dr. V. Deyalsingh: Madam President, I just wanted to make the point that it should not be a Minister now being able to tell a President of a Central Bank or the person in charge of the Central Bank that “listen, I will not look into your affairs so you can hire who you want”; that might be a kind of unholy sort of alliance we may be creating, you scratch my back, I will scratch your back. And I am thinking we should not go there. But you see when I looked at the—I am not saying this Minister of Finance will do that, but what I am saying is there is a possibility, but when I looked at the concerns that those past esteemed individuals who headed the Central Bank and you know their objection to this, I also noted, Mr. Afra Raymond in one of his articles on 16th of April, 2010, where he looked at the fact that the CIB, you know, he had some issues with respect to the creditors. May I read this, Madam President? With respect to the creditors of the petitioner, the petitioner has met the statutory obligations for the Board of Inland Revenue except for the corporation tax returns for certain years, he mentions. So in his case, Mr. Raymond actually said we should have more scrutiny of

UNREVISED 189 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) the Central Bank. We should have more openness and he was claiming for that. And in my opinion, I want to agree with Mr.—I want to agree that the runnings of the Central Bank should be open to scrutiny, but again what I am saying is, as my Senator here, Sen. Deonarine, suggested next to me that it should not be just for ministerial scrutiny, it should be open to all. So if you want look at the runnings of the Central Bank just as how in a previous government we had taken the Central Bank away from scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act and a few other state bodies. I am thinking instead of having ministerial control, open it up a bit so at least we would be able to scrutinize it. The persons on the outside, the citizens on the outside, to see in this Clico fiasco as Mr. Raymond suggested, you know, we would have the opportunity to scrutinize this. So because of this coming to light with Mr. Raymond, I want actually more scrutiny into the Central Bank. I would rather not have the Minister be the one solely looking into it and because of that I would not give support to clause 9. I would like to look at clause 8, which would: “…amend the National Insurance Act, Chap. 32:01, to empower the Minister to prescribe, by Order, that certain persons are to be regarded as employed in uninsurable employment during a period specified in the Order.” Now, Madam President, this issue here, I looked at it and I realize there were arguments to and fro. One of the arguments was that the, so-called, business organizations would utilize, probably ministerial control to say, “listen we are hiring certain amount of persons, we are not going to pay NIS, so we will be able to hire them”, and that will be an unfair disadvantage to our normal Trinidad

UNREVISED 190 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) citizens waiting for jobs; that is one argument I heard. The other argument I heard was the fact that it would put a strain on the NIB and the NIS. But we have to appreciate that the director of the NIS fund did say it is in trouble. We have to realize we have an ageing population and we have to realize that if we do not have young people coming in to sustain the fund, persons like myself when we retire would not get benefit from it. So we need a younger population and probably the Venezuelans are the answer. If they come in here and they are able to pay and contribute to that fund I am saying all well and good I think they should. And for another reason I think this is good. They will be giving that benefit to that fund, that is one. And the second thing is I am looking at, why should we, you know, let us say, it has been touted around that it is pregnant women and you pay one benefit and they will be abusing the system—[Interruption]—yes. But in a sense what we are saying there is that they are individuals, they are human beings, they are here, they came here, they have registered here, they have given amnesty. So they should be afforded all benefits that other citizens are afforded; we should not be discriminating from somebody who we let come into our country legally; these people are registered. So they should be afforded that benefit, Labour Day is soon, you know what massage we will be sending that we are having persons, we are hiring them and if you fall and damage yourself there as a Venezuelan you will be afforded no benefit; if you are a pregnant woman and you need access. So, I am saying, Member, those pregnant women their children when they are born they are citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. We have to take care of them and medically it is, you know, something against me saying we have to—we cannot say a benefit, a health

UNREVISED 191 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) benefit could be afforded to you and not to somebody else. We are all citizens of this world, we are all fellow human beings, and we all should treat with each other. So, in a sense I look at the fund and I am saying that I am thinking that, you know, the benefit of the individual should be there, but the argument I want to come here. I would not like again any sort of ministerial control to this, you know, to giving or not giving NIS because you see Minister I want to protect you guys, I may want to protect—from allegations further down the line—where someone may want to say well I have a friend they hire 200 Venezuelans and you could just give a little notification that you are not going to be paying NIS. We do not want that to come around, we do not want people to make that allegation. I do not want people to be coming down in the future and saying these things. So because of this, I am saying let the NIS be paid, we need those individuals in there, we need that fund to be going, we need them to be benefiting and again we looked at the—remember we came—140th country to sign the 1952 Convention relating to the status of refugees and because of this we are pledged to uphold the terms within this document and we have an obligation to provide fair employment and therefore cannot discriminate against this individual. And I would like now, Madam President, to go on to the pensions, right, and I am looking at clauses 4 to 6, where we looked at, you know, looking at the pensions, the emoluments that we are going to give to the President, we are looking at the President’s Emoluments Act, the Prime Minister’s Pensions Act, Judges Salaries and Pensions Act and you see, Madam President, I have no problem with the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice getting better emoluments. Those are leaders in their own rights, they have a huge responsibility

UNREVISED 192 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) in the country and I am saying that when I look at a CEO getting $100,000 I am thinking the Salaries Review Commission should take note of that and should be able to address issues of that because they are our leaders and they should be reimbursed better. However, when I looked at these clauses 4 to 6, I looked at the other players in it, I look at the fact that legislators and previous legislators, I looked at judges and retired judges and I am asking could we really afford this now? You see, while I empathize with this section of the population, I am looking at what is happening again to persons who are there waiting for any sort of benefits and they are not getting their benefits, they are not getting their backpay. We had a Member speak about being written to about COLA from a public servant. So you see we will be sending a wrong message and I am thinking, yes, it may be needed but probably not at this time. You see, what I am looking at is those individuals had jobs and those individuals had every opportunity to save and I want to go back and just quote, Madam, when we were discussing in this House on the Finance Bill, 2018, on Tuesday December18th, and it was discussed that, and in that discussion on that Finance Bill it was stated that the pensions to people retiring were taking too long to process. So we would want to give the pensions, you know, like a quick fast pension payment to those retirees in different categories. And even when we were discussing this, I was happy when the Minister of Finance then suggested that they increase the disability grant from 1,800 to 2,000. But even in that discussion what I mentioned is that judges and other persons and retired persons had the opportunity to work, they had the opportunity to save.

UNREVISED 193 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d)

But you had many disabled persons who never had a job, would never have been employed and that segment of the population I think would be very vulnerable, and I am suggesting that, you know, if moneys that we were going to pay out to the retired judges, moneys that we were going to pay out to legislators may go into this fund with the disability because that segment of the population never worked and was never afforded that opportunity to save. 6.45 p.m. And I am looking that, you know, we have to send a mentality that, okay, you have a job—you work as a legislator, you work as a judge—why can you not have the work ethic to save? What message are you sending to the population out there, the young persons? Well, you got a job but you never saved for a rainy day. This is wrong. My mentality Madam, was when I started to work as a student, from then, a third of my salary went into banking and investing; a third went into paying bills and a third went into living—going out, enjoying life—and this is something, a message, we should get out to the young people, not wait until you get old and depend on the State to give you a handout again. People have to learn to save and those persons had the opportunity. We should not be bailing out persons like that. So, again, I would now say, and it is because of the hash economic times, because we would be sending the wrong message to the young persons. We are now teaching them, do not save, the State will somehow bail you out again, some time again. I am thinking, I will not support this part of the clause except for any sort of benefits that will be given to the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice in that role, because I think as leaders and the responsibilities that they

UNREVISED 194 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) have, they could be afforded something better. Looking at the NPO, clause 10, where to: “…amend the Non-Profit Organisations Act, 2019…to remove the twelve- month limit on extensions of the time by which an existing non-profit organisation is required to be registered and to allow the Minister to extend, by Order, the time by which an existing non-profit company is required to submit its AML/CFT/PF questionnaire to the Registrar General.” Again, we are getting the power into the hands of the Minister. I remember when we debated the NPO Bill, I came out and I said certain NPOs may not be above board worldwide, globally. They were looking at the Red Cross and different organizations. They were looking at the situation in Haiti where an NPO got money and wanted to build hotels and these things. So, we were looking at that and we decided because of the fact we will have to put them under more scrutiny. But here now, what we are seeing now, we are giving the power of the Minister, you know, to open up, to extend, to extend this. And, you know, I am saying again, would this not, you know, let persons accuse the Minister of—and, again, I am not saying anything about this Minister, but I mean if it is a power of a Minister to say, “Hey, Mr. NGO, we will give you an extended time”. Probably the next time a Bill like this comes out, you would not have 47 NGOs opposing it [Desk thumping] because some of them may feel they are grateful to the Minister. So to prevent something like this, I am saying we should not allow this possibility. [Desk thumping] We came here, we debated something, we decided it is 12 months. I am saying, if you are going to have any sort of a change, why are we having a change

UNREVISED 195 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh cont’d) here now? And I am saying that power to extend, I am saying, I see the possibility of ministerial control. I see we are giving again a culture of slackness where we say, the NPOs, well, just be slack. Do not do your books on time. Just as in the Companies Act, you do not do your books in time, the Minister will give you a “bligh” again. So, in closing, I see these Bills are intended to probably give the powers to certain Ministers, and I disagree. I see it is to have certain emoluments to be given to legislators, judges, and I am saying I disagree with the majority of that and I also see an attempt to look into the public bank, and I am saying we need to open that more. I am hoping we can open that more. And I am looking at our watchwords: productivity, tolerance and discipline. If we are to be more productive, we should have a department where any organization, if they are asked to give the freedom of information, you know, any sort of documents pertaining to someone enquiring into the runnings of that, we should have more productive state departments that could come up to mark and give these documents. We should have the Attorney General’s Office running in such a way when he is made aware of it, he can give this thing quickly. So we need to be more productive. We need to be also more tolerant to our Venezuelan brothers and sisters who, you know, may be here legally, give them some benefit and we need to have the discipline to put our taxes on time—the discipline for the NGOs to get their books to order. And, again, I think we need to stop the culture of slackness and delaying. Thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries (Sen. The Hon. Franklin Khan): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to join

UNREVISED 196 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d) this debate on the miscellaneous provisions. We will be amending today, hopefully, eight pieces of legislation. I will restrict my contribution, as it is coming to the end, to the freedom of information and the retiring allowances for legislative services among others. Madam President, last Friday, I watched the debate in the other place and it was the UNC at its best or should I say the UNC at its worst. The flipflop, there is no consistency of policy. [Desk thumping] They do things for political expediency only. [Desk thumping] They do not stand on one iota of principle. [Desk thumping] Just last week we debated in this Senate the Bail (Amdt.) Bill, the very Bill the then PNM Opposition supported in 2014 when the UNC was in Government. They came here and rejected it and they will reject it in the House next week. Political expediency. My pet peeve is the CCJ. When Basdeo Panday was Prime Minister, he agreed with Mr. Manning to make the CCJ the appellate court of Trinidad and Tobago, so much so that he agreed to place the headquarters in Port of Spain. Look how embarrassing we are as a country. We have sited the headquarters of the CCJ, and it is not our appellate court, because when he lost power and they went into Opposition, they said no CCJ. There is no consistency of policy. All of a sudden, they started to use the phrase, President Guaidó. Sen. Gopee-Scoon: No locus. Sen. The Hon. F. Khan: President Guaidó, you know. We have a United Nations of which we are a member. The United Nations, with all the challenges in Venezuela, recognizes President Maduro. They started to refer to President Guaidó. Where is President Guaidó today? He has not been on international press

UNREVISED 197 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d) news for weeks. One minute they are supporting Venezuelans, one minute they say, “lock them out”. Sen. Ameen: When did we ever say that? Sen. The Hon. F. Khan: Your leader said close the borders. [Crosstalk] The Judges Salaries and Pensions (Amdt.) Bill, 2014, I never thought that I would have lived to say this. I respect Ganga Singh a little bit, but I am reading from the Hansard in 2014. Ganga Singh piloted the Bill in the Senate. He said and I quote: “I intend to read that statement made by the hon. Prime Minister into the record”—and I quote from that statement, Madam President: “It is rare that Government and Opposition ever agree on anything. The Judge Salaries and Pensions (Amdt.) Bill 2013 and the Retiring Allowances (Legislative) (Amdt.) Bill, 2014 was passed in the House with the full support of the Opposition.” That is Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar. The Hansard will see, Ganga Singh, supported this Bill in its entirety. At least, somebody in the UNC still has a conscience. [Desk thumping] I remember in the 2015 campaign—I know the UNC remembers this. You remember Nigel Rojas, “Do right, do right, do right”? That was their theme song, you know. [Crosstalk] Now, their philosophy is, “do wrong, do wrong, do wrong”. Sen. Ameen: What does that have to do with the Bill? [Crosstalk] Sen. The Hon. F. Khan: The Retirement Allowances (Legislative Service) Act, Madam President, politics in Trinidad and Tobago is a complex sociological

UNREVISED 198 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d) issue. The society has a love/hate relationship with politicians. One minute they love you, the next minute they hate you. One minute they exalt you, the next minute they pull you down. It is something we have had to live with for those of us who have been in the politics for an extended period. My own personal high point in politics, I will tell you, is when in the 2002 PNM rally in Eddie Hart, they said, “The candidate for Ortoire/Mayaro, Franklin Khan”, 30,000 people cheered. They said, “That is de man to put down de wuk on Gypsy and to break the 18/18 deadlock”. That I did. Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Yeah man. [Desk thumping] Sen. The Hon. F. Khan: But then there are quiet moments when you realize that as a legislator and as a politician, sometimes your work is not recognized, and it is not easy. Sometimes you may have a hard day, you go to bed in the night and you wonder: What am I doing this for? It is par for the course, I am not complaining. It is the politicians and the people who make public policy, for better or for worse, that have this society where it is today. It is Williams and Capildeo in Marlborough House, with Seukeran and Sinanan, that got our independence. It is Robinson, Manning and Panday who together developed this country to the level where we had gotten into LNG, to manufacturing— George Chambers. They created public policy for this country. Today, our two current leaders, Prime Minister Rowley and Leader of the Opposition, Kamla Persad- Bissessar, will make their own marks. And then, in public life, there are the unsung heroes. I know the PNM unsung heroes, and I am sure the UNC has. Morris Marshall struggled in Laventille for years; Eddie Hart worked with the people of Tunapuna; Eulalie

UNREVISED 199 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d)

James worked with her constituents in Laventille West. Those are the unsung heroes in the national landscape. Brinsley Samaroo, Nariva. So what is so wrong in giving these people a proper pension? Sen. Deonarine and Sen. Deyalsingh said probably now is not the right time, the economy is not doing well. But as Minister Hinds said, when will the right time ever be? We have to find the money, it is not much. Hon. Senator: It is not much now. Sen. The Hon. F. Khan: It is not much people involved, but justice has to be done in Trinidad and Tobago. And we are not serious as a country, you know, Madam President. We like to talk. Why can we not be like Singapore? Same small island, independent in 1964, two years after us. Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Eric Williams were good friends. Madam President, do you know who is the highest paid leader in the world? The Prime Minister of Singapore. I have the pecking order here: fifth, Prime Minister of Australia; fourth, President of the United States; third, President of the Swiss Confederation; second, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong—the lady who was under pressure up to yesterday—and first, the Prime Minister of Singapore. Singapore has a policy where the public service is better paid than the private service. They have built their model without fear of contradiction and they have developed. I am not saying we could ever be like them. We may never be like them, and very likely, we will never be like them. Sen. S. Hosein: Nah, do not say that. Sen. The Hon. F. Khan: But, at some point in time, we have to stand up and say, let us fight for the principle in which guides us all as public officers. The judges’ pension, Sen. Deyalsingh said he supports the Prime Minister,

UNREVISED 200 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d) the President and the Chief Justice. Sen. Deyalsingh, through you, Madam President, the Prime Minister’s pension is his full salary; the President’s pension is a full salary; his Excellency, Anthony Carmona’s pension is his last full salary, so too is Basdeo Panday and Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Judges cannot practise for 10 years after they leave the bench and they leave at 65. So what do you want them to do? Work as waiters in a restaurant from 65 to 75? These are the people who silently suffer in this country, and we put on this veil of self-righteousness as if they are wealthy and deny fellow human beings their just rights. And I urge this Senate to let us get serious and deal with these matters once and for all. The Government will find the money. That is our responsibility as the Executive. I say no more on that. I will spend a couple minutes, Madam President, on the freedom of information. In yesterday’s Sunday Guardian, page 16, the article by Selwyn Cudjoe, very critical of the Government, strangely, but it says and he is right: “Quick access to public information is the lynchpin around which any democracy revolves.” The Freedom of Information Act gives you that right, obviously, subject to certain conditions. Matters that pertain to national security, obviously, would not and cannot be shared. It happens all over the world. The United States, in particular, it has something called “executive authority” where the President will tell you, “Do not testify in front of Congress”. Personal information, tax returns, they cannot go to the freedom of information and ask to see my tax return or anybody’s tax returns and the information is covered by confidentiality agreements.

UNREVISED 201 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d)

And there is a movement in Trinidad now with people knowing these three facts and deliberately coming to get information along those lines, Devant Maharaj. Every day Sen. Mark is asking us, “Ah want de details on the Dragon deal”. “What is the gas price allyuh paying BP coming out ah the Houston meeting?” And we have bent backwards in trying to be a transparent Government, especially in the energy sector which has had a cloud of secrecy for decades. This is the first administration that rolled out the entire energy sector to the national population, so much so, and reading a next article, Sunday Newsday, yesterday, June 16th: “PM: Oil company buffed me” They did not buff him, but they called him to order, because after I gave, in the interest of transparency and accountability to the population, a fairly detailed account of our discussions in The Hague, London and Houston, the company said, “Hey guys, watch how you are moving because these agreements are covered by strict confidentiality clauses.” You walk a thin line that there are miscreants in this country who want to take us down the wrong road. They want to destroy what is good. They want to destroy what has taken us decades to build. They are going to the Privy Council on Dragon, you know. They want to see the term sheet that PDVSA, Shell and NGC signed on Dragon. They want to see the gas price that we negotiated with BP. They want to see all the agreements that are covered by confidentiality, strategic commercial agreements, you know, that the lifeblood of Trinidad depends on, that pays all of our salaries, that gives the Minister of Finance most of his revenue, you are trying to jeopardize that and saying it is in the public interest. The public

UNREVISED 202 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. The Hon. F. Khan cont’d) interest is to preserve our revenue stream in Trinidad and Tobago. That is the dilemma we face, and we will continue to walk that thin line. We will continue to defend the interest of this country, both at a strategic level, at a corporate level, but also never forget the principle on which we operate as a Government and as a party, and what is right is right and what is not right is not right. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Sen. Sean Sobers: Good evening, Madam President. I am very grateful for being given the opportunity to contribute this evening. I know that I come very late in the order of speakers, coming in at number 14, so that I will try my utmost best not to offend any Standing Orders with respect to repetition. I do intend to focus, just as the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries did, specifically with respect to pensions as they are, and FOIAs, and with respect to both, I would want to speak on issues that really and truly have not been touched on before by any other speaker. Madam President, with respect to pensions as it is listed in clause 3 of the amendments—clause 3, clause 4, clause 5, clause 6—I will want to set the stage of the discussion, because as has been said by many other speakers tonight, this particular omnibus piece of legislation has caused a flurry of debate, a flurry of conversation, a tidal storm of narratives by members of the public, which in my humble opinion demonstrates that the public is paying attention. They are aware as to what the Government is doing and many persons, many commentators have formed certain opinions of those activities and have thought it fit to voice them in various forms of media. In particular, an article in the Trinidad Guardian, Thursday, June 13, 2019, a letter to the Editor caught my eye, and it was written by

UNREVISED 203 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) one Linus F. Didier and he begins by saying: “In May of 1986, Ivan Boesky gave the commencement address at the School of Business Administration—University of California—Berkeley. In part of his speech, he said that ‘greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.’” And then he went on to quote one of the most famous novels I think that weare all very quite familiar with, having gone to secondary school, it being part of the compulsory literature syllabus, Animal Farm. He says: “In the novel, Animal Farm by George Orwell, the pigs, who control the government, stated that ‘all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.’ This is a statement on the hypocrisy of governments ‘that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.’” He said many other things in the article, Madam President, but in the interest of time, I will not go into them. I also considered another article, a letter to the editor on the 16th of June, 2019, entitled: “Would Rowley do like the New Zealand PM?” And the article began by saying: “In light of the impending increase for our ‘performing’ parliamentarians, it is worthwhile to know that the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, has just turned down a recommended US$12,000 pay rise. She said it wasn’t acceptable and has moved to freeze MPs’ salaries for a year.” The article went on to say many other things as well. 7.15 p.m.

UNREVISED 204 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d)

Now, I know in particular it has been said by Members of the Government that somewhere along the lines this discussion about pension has been thwarted by some commentators speaking, trying to change it or reformat it to talk about salaries, and they wanted to make it abundantly clear that it was specifically an issue on pensions. Where I stand, I particularly do not have that difficulty. I appreciate that this is a discussion specifically to pensions. And it has been said by many other speakers tonight and today that there are concerns with respect to what the figures are, who would benefit really and truly, what it would cost. These types of commitments that the Government is now asking the country to be binded to if and when the legislation is repealed. But I want to read into the record, Madam President, because it has not been done before during this debate with respect to the type of figures we are likely to be paying, and it comes from the 98th SRC Report. At page 15 of that report it dealt with the President’s salary, a salary of $64,722 and a housing allowancing of $28,000, giving a grand total of $92,270. At pages 18 to 23, it went on to speak about the Judiciary and the CJ’s salary being that of $50,350 with housing of $28,000, a total of $78,350 per month. Justices of Appeal, $42,020 with housing of $24,000, a grand total of $66,020 per month. Puisne judges of the High Court, $37,300, housing at $24,000, a grand total of $61,000 per month; and the Prime Minister’s salary, $59,680 at page 199 of the very said report. The reason I read that into the record, Madam President, is because I think when persons watch the debate, if there is any confusion with respect to what we are discussing when it comes to pension, these are the types of figures that the Government is binding this country to, to pay for persons who

UNREVISED 205 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) would hold these positions. And as distinguished as most, if not all of those persons who hold these offices may be, we have to wonder, if based upon the narrative and the rhetoric being spewed by the Government as it pertains to belt tightening, are we in a position to really and truly pay these emoluments out to these officeholders when that time comes? Madam President, moving on, in terms of the pensions, many things as well during the course of the debate would have been said. I could recall—I believe it would have been the Minister, Fitzgerald Hinds, who would have made some comments with respect to persons being in, you know, really terrible situations, and this was a move by the Government to try to affix or to change those afflicted. But we have to remember, Madam President, when we are considering dealing with pensions, in other parts of the world, if one looks at the United States, many of the officeholders who were once presidents or even vice-presidents, subsequent to demitting office they still have functions that they have to do with respect to the State, state functions, state organizations that they are involved in. And in those cases those individuals are paid pensions requisite to the amount of money that they were making whilst they were holding particular offices. The question would arise now whether or not persons who would demit office in our country would be delegated duties just as if when they were in office to justify the type of pensions that they would be getting, and the answer to that is, no. When we consider housing and personal allowances and making statements that they should be pensionable as opposed to them not being, we wonder what was the real true intention of a pension, and it has not been discussed before today and I wanted to bring it up. When one considers a person reaching a pensionable

UNREVISED 206 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) age, it is expected, humbly, in my considered view, that that person would have gone through certain cycles in life. You would have already taken a mortgage, possibly paid off for your home at the age of 65. You would have been expected to rear children, put them through education, possibly paying off for your second mortgage, and what not. But these duties that you would have had, or expenses that you would have had during the course of your lifetime, it is expected, when you reach your pensionable age, those would be expenses that you would not be responsible for. So the question, really and truly, is asked: Why this amount of money at that particular age? [Desk thumping] I could in fact understand an argument being made for persons who may have certain medical expenses, but should it, really and truly, be equivalent to persons who are involved in normal day-to-day activities who have to treat with normal day-to-day expenses at a time in your life when those expenses may be non-existent to be receiving the same amount of money as someone going through their prime in their life? We also consider, when we talk about pensions, the clause 3(b), with respect to the pension indexation allowing for a protection against inflation, which is not usually a key feature in public or private sector pensions in Trinidad and Tobago, and could in fact be considered arbitrary and discriminatory. The knock-on effect on private and public sectors could trickle down to trade unions as this indexation method could be considered very high as it pertains to the needs of retired persons, and those needs are assumed to be different from those still employed. There is the absence of consideration being given to other key personnel, such as Masters, Registrars, magistrates; the DPP is not going to be brought into

UNREVISED 207 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) this equation, the Solicitor General, the CPCs, PSs, Industrial Court judges, all of— Madam President: Sen. Sobers, while I am appreciating your contribution, I just need to point out to you that you are now moving on to what the Bill is not about, and I would ask you to focus a little more on what the Bill is about. Okay? Sen. S. Sobers: Yes, Madam President. I was just making the point to say that these persons are left out. I appreciate your guidance. So that in considering the persons who are going to be affected, there is a lot of consideration that should have been contemplated when drafting this piece of legislation, and it hearkens back onto what many other speakers would have spoken about earlier today with respect to the lack of consultation on this issue, and the million-dollar question as to why the Government rushed this piece of legislation together and rushed it to the House without pausing to consider the aspects of consultation. As I move on now, Madam President, to the FOIA. Again, I would not detain the House any longer than I think it necessary. A lot has been said about the FOIA with respect to its operation so I would not go into that at all. I think enough speakers would have given their own opinion on the issue and they would have definitely raised certain issues that would bring some degree of clarity to the actual operation of the FOIA for the listening and viewing public. But again, considering the flurry of discussion on the issue, to set the stage with respect to the FOIA, which has not been mentioned by others speakers tonight, I also looked at the Sunday Express, yesterday’s Express, where Ralph Maraj, in his letter to the Editor said: “The suffocating authoritarian intent of the Government therefore remains,

UNREVISED 208 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) confirming its untrustworthiness.” Senior Counsel, Martin Daly, also in the Sunday Express— Madam President: Sen. Sobers, I am very sorry, but you may be quoting different articles about the issue but in essence you are saying the same thing that several speakers have dealt with before. Okay? So I would ask you to please, really, I would like you to come to your points a little faster, and when you have made a point that others have made, move on to different points. Sen. S. Sobers: Yes, please, Mr. President. I was just trying to set the stage with respect to the freedom of information. Other speakers would have spoken to the true intent of the initial legislation by then Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, as well too, and what the FOIA would have meant back then and how true it holds now. I only intend to just touch on with respect to responses based upon certain information that would have been put out. The first is with respect to the Minister, Fitzgerald Hinds, wherein in his contribution he proffered a juxtaposition between the court and public authorities. He indicated that in terms of extensions being gathered, the court extensions could simply be addressed by virtue of writing the court for an extension, and it should have been done the same way with respect to public authorities. But respectfully, Madam President, with respect to an extension of court, as you may very well know being a practising attorney yourself, in terms of relief from sanctions, there is a lot more that has to go into it, such as an affidavit with respect to supporting the application for extension of time. And because it is not so easy with respect to the court, one could understand and appreciate with respect to a public authority, an extension of time for a public authority to respond

UNREVISED 209 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) to an application made by an applicant should not be so flippantly done. As a matter of fact, Madam President, in other jurisdictions that we would have checked and research would have been conducted, when a public authority requires an extension they actually write within a particular prescribed time frame to the applicant indicating that only in circumstances where the information is lodged at another public authority that they would require some degree of an extension of time to facilitate the procuring of that information for the applicant. Both Minister Hinds and Minister Rambharat as well too spoke to the insertion— Hon. Imbert: Point of order, Madam President, 46(5). [Crosstalk] Madam President: All right. Yes, Sen. Sobers, when you are referring to Ministers it really is by their proper designation, so it is the Minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries. Sen. S. Sobers: I am so guided by you, Madam President. So there was a discussion about the insertion of the Attorney General being a fair insertion, and that discussion was based upon the fact that there were instances where decisions would have been taken by public authorities and they lacked proper consultation. I have not heard any speaker, throughout the length and breadth of today’s discussion, speak to the fact that public authorities do have, in most, if not all instances, internal legal entities within the public authorities that would respond and give advice on the information, on the requests that were made. In addition, public authorities also have the benefit of contacting external counsel, which most of them do in any event. As a matter of fact, in some instances they utilize both situations where they would utilize their internal legal department as well as external counsel. So that there were discussions moved by

UNREVISED 210 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d)

Sen. Richards and Sen. Deyalsingh, and others with respect to strengthening the public authority themselves as opposed to rushing to insert the Attorney General into the equation of the entire formula. There was also discussion—I cannot recall if I heard it earlier that there is no casting of aspersions upon the Attorney General or his office. Perception is reality and the fact that he is in fact a political entity, it could have some knock-off effect on a decision made by the Attorney General. There is also the question, Madam President, that has not been raised before as to whether or not now inserting the Attorney General into the process, whether or not the Attorney General’s office has enough resources now to treat with this flurry of information that may come to his office by way of a rejection by the public authority. And then in terms of discussing this issue, the question arose as to whether or not—for example, I know that there was a discussion some time ago with respect to a question that was raised to Sen. The Hon. Le Hunte concerning a company that WASA used with respect to identifying leaks, and it was a company that utilized satellite imagery, say, for example, if that company had a non- disclosure agreement with WASA and an individual, as paranoid as he or she may be, thought that the satellite imagery was being used to spy on citizens in Trinidad and Tobago and wanted information through a freedom of information correspondent as to the processes used by this company, and WASA decided not to give the information, sent it off to the Attorney General’s office and then the Attorney General’s office decided, “Listen, go ahead and give the information, I do not see an issue with it.” That non-disclosure agreement could definitely place WASA in a precarious position wherein this company that utilized the satellite services could in fact turn

UNREVISED 211 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d) around now and sue WASA for breaching that non-disclosure agreement. Are we truly ready to open up these public authorities and entities to further suit? And then there was also the issue that was raised by many in terms of a particular group of lawyers or lawyers on the whole milking the system. Madam President: Sen. Sobers— Sen. S. Sobers: I know, Madam President— Madam President: I know you know, you know. That is plenty “you know”, sorry. I know that, but I am asking you, please, please, there have had so many speakers before you, this matter has been raised so many times, please, try and get some new points. Okay? Sen. S. Sobers: Madam President, my spin on the issue is not to rehash what has been said in response to that particular issue, it is just to bring to light the fact that no lawyer in this country files an FOIA by himself. Lawyers, as we know, we operate under instructions, please, Madam President. So it is because a client has been aggrieved by a particular situation comes to a lawyer, the lawyer gives him advice, and based upon instructions the lawyer files the FOIA. So it is not a lawyer who is just operating out of greed or for some type of benefit, it is based upon instructions, [Desk thumping] and it is a particular paradigm to the entire situation that neither the Law Association nor any other speaker in this honourable Chamber brought about that we as lawyers operate under instructions. So if it is being said by anyone in this Senate that lawyers are milking the State, it is best that those same individuals say that the individuals, who are in fact those who are on record in these matters, that they themselves, the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago are the ones milking the State. And, also, Madam President,

UNREVISED 212 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Sobers cont’d)

Sen. The Hon. Allyson West raised the issue of an uptick in JR and this was in 2015 and 2016, and, humbly, I would just want to say that, I think when there is in fact an uptick in JR it actually is a good thing. It shows that democracy is well and alive and that our citizens are taking advantage [Desk thumping] of a right that they have to them. As I said before at the beginning of my contribution, I really did not intend to offend any Standing Order, I do apologize if I have, but those are my thoughts on the issue. I think the Government, really and truly, should have consulted on this issue, and to rush this legislation without proper consultation, as has been said by many other speakers before me, is an incorrect position. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Sen. Thompson-Ahye. [Desk thumping] Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye: Thank you, Madam President. Sen. Deonarine said that this Bill, its long title was quite a mouthful, I agree with her, and maybe that is the reason that so many mouths have opened and so many voices raised, but not in support of the Bill. And it is not only the mouths that have spoken but hearts have been touched. There has been a lot of emotions, outrage; there have been sympathy, discrimination, a sense of injustice, all of these emotive terms have been used. I have heard the hon. Minister, very quietly, speaking today, I was a bit surprised; I do not know if it was “playing dead to ketch corbeau alive”, and the hon. Minister in the Ministry of Finance always very sincere. As I said before in this Parliament, she almost always catches me, and then I heard the hon. Clarence Rambharat. Now, I think it is very important, the names that we give our children, so

UNREVISED 213 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) when I heard Clarence, and I know the origin is from “Clare” and that is a town and a surname that means bright and clear, I said, yes, he is going to be bring clarity. I am still waiting, you know. I am still waiting. [Desk thumping] And he had a song— Hon. Senator: And he is from Rio Claro. Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye: Yes, he is from Rio Claro. [Crosstalk] He said he had a song, and I have a song too, and my song is, “There are more questions than answers”. But some, I must say, because I say it like I see it, some of the questions have been answered. I was looking forward so much to the wrap-up because I said, “Yes, I am going to get some answers there”, but, you know, some people are very anxious and they could not wait for the wrap-up, so I got a note—I do not keep secrets, I have to tell them—I got a note and, you know— [Interruption] Yes, it is disclosure. “Doh interrupt meh man, time is running.” I remember the first note I got. I was in Common Entrance class and this guy sent me a note and I did not answer the note. I passed Common Entrance and he failed, [Laughter] and the note was to invite me to a magic show and I said to myself, you know, maybe the Minister of Finance is going to work some magic this evening. Now, in respect to clause 1, the amnesty, I think it is welcomed for everybody, except one, so—well, we will leave that there. I have asked, in another Bill, for some assistance for persons who want that assistance but the Minister has said, well, they do not interfere with the operations of Inland Revenue, but for some reason the taxpayers assistance is very much depleted, that department. So everybody is happy, even those people who were the bane of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s existence, successive ones, because they have a way of fleecing

UNREVISED 214 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) people, saying they are helping them and a lot of distress. So we need perhaps to get some of them before the Fraud Squad. So clause 1 is not a problem. Clause 3: “The Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act is amended—” And the trend of most of the arguments on the opposite side to the Ministers is that those things should be retired. But I heard some names this afternoon and, really and truly, people like Eddie Hart, and so on, there are many people who have been in this House who have served the Government, who have served us very well and who today are suffering. Now, you can never please everybody and everybody is not equal in terms of service but we can differentiate, and I clearly remember the irrepressible and unique Prime Minister saying that there were some Members of his Government who sat in Parliament and never opened their mouths, not even to yawn, but that was Mr. Panday’s style in criticizing his people, but it is no doubt that there are many people who are in need but the difficulty is that there are so many others, so many. We got letters from public servants, and I can think of so many who have served and who are living on pensions that are extremely small. What do we do? We have heard, now is not the time; we have heard, now is the time, and perhaps the time is coming. We have had some good words, and they say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, that people have come back with goodies, and billions are to come from good deals struck. Maybe that is the time, we do not know. Clause 5, the issue of the pension and the issue, clause 6, Judges Salaries and Pensions, and I have spoken in this House before about the particular Chief Justice and what he has undergoing when we were talking about the advance

UNREVISED 215 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) of the payments for people who have to wait so long for their gratuity and pension, and that is such a sad story for— Madam President: Senator, if you could just give us one minute. Leader of Government Business. PROCEDURAL MOTION The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries (Sen. The Hon. Franklin Khan): Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, in accordance with Standing Order 14(5), I beg to move that the Senate continue to sit until the completion of the business at hand, inclusive of the matters on the adjournment. Question put and agreed to. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (TAX AMNESTY, PENSIONS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, NATIONAL INSURANCE, CENTRAL BANK COMPANIES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS) BILL, 2019 Madam President: Sen. Thompson-Ahye, you may continue. Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye: I am obliged, Madam President. I was wondering though if there could be a halfway house because there are some judges and so on who have retired a long time ago and I am wondering if we could look at their situation and see if we can cull them out, their situation out from the rest who have more recently retired. Perhaps that might be more palatable because salaries in the last few years have risen. What is the position when a judge retires but not at the age of retirement? And I think here about a situation where a judge left the bench with a number of judgments outstanding. I am not sure what was the

UNREVISED 216 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) situation but is it across the board? We had a situation once where a judge—well, he is dead now—who had left the bench, so I am not sure what is the situation if they are all equal, if they were allowed to retire or resign, what it is? All right? Hon. Imbert: Senator, I could answer. Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye: Sorry? Hon. Imbert: I could answer. Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye: I want all your answers together. “Wrap it up nice fuh meh”. I am sorry, Madam President, through you. Now, the freedom of information, the amendment has aroused quite a bit of concern. Now, my first love is teaching and in teaching I like to tell stories, because I think a picture is worth a thousand words and my stories are word pictures. Freedom of information is problematic. In this particular Bill it is problematic especially because of the number, the wide number, the wide category of agencies that come under public authority. But I want to tell a story, on January 03, 2017, I received a request from Emeritus Professor of Cardiff School of Law, Nigel Lowe. Now, those of you who studied in law school and studied family law, some of you might have got by without doing much of it, would remember Bromley’s Family Law, so Prof. Nigel Lowe co-writes Bromley’s Family Law. He is a consultant for the Permanent Bureau of The Hague Conference and he made a simple request. He wrote to me asking me for statistics from the Central Authority. We ratified and then we in fact enacted legislation called the International Child Abduction Act. We did that in 2008, and that was to bring into force The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

UNREVISED 217 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d)

7.45 p.m. What he asked for was statistics. The 3rd of January I wrote asking for it; I had to go through a third degree: Why, what, where? I was amazed, and this is not the first time I have had to grapple with a public agency to get information which I thought was no secret. What is the secret about how many cases we have? So then I heard, okay we will get it, but I cannot give you. You cannot give it to me, they have to give it straight to him. I do not understand why. Now, in the interim I contacted other—because of the Caribbean education I am in touch with people all around the Caribbean, so I got it from the Bahamas in one day, got it from other countries around the Caribbean. He was so grateful. He said, “I put you in the global report, you know.” In May he wrote me and said, “Hazel, I still do not have that information.” I was absolutely amazed, and he said, “You know what, please tell them I am not asking for the moon”. What is it? I want to say that there is a culture of secrecy in this country, and to deal with it we must try to educate our people, our officials, our employees that a lot of what you think is secret is not at all secret. There is information that can be shared without the country falling. The sky is not going to fall, but we are afraid. So perhaps, again, I make a cry for education and training. When money is short the first thing we cut is training and education, and that is what is going to see us through. The more we train people is the more they will perform efficiently, and the more our country will be able to move forward. So months passed, and he could not get that information. I felt so ashamed because a number of countries reporting and Trinidad and Tobago it was like a state secret. I have heard too many people complain about that, so please, educate

UNREVISED 218 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) people who work in the Government that not everything is a state secret, and tell them do not be afraid, the sky will not fall because sometimes it gets really to the point of absurdity. Now in terms of the freedom of information, as I said before, there are so many authorities, so many components, I counted 12 of them, starting from Parliament right on to even agencies that just receive money from the State, you feel they have to be so very careful. And I know other places where I have sat, we have had problems with how do we dispense this information, because somebody is going to be upset if we say this or we say that. We have, as I said before, there are people who are trained in law within most Government Ministries, trust us. Trust the people who are trained to give good advice. The question is not only a question of separation of powers as far as the Attorney General is concerned, but it may just be creating a bottleneck that the Attorney General would not be able to handle. It is even difficult now to handle what is on the Attorney General’s plate. To add that on to him is going to create even more problems. So have someone perhaps dedicated in one or two Ministries who can handle and assist with requests. Examine them and see if there is any threat to security, and then you could release the information. If it is that there is a threat or if it is that there is some kind of reservation, let it be resolved as far as possible with the legal advisors in the Ministry, because we do not want a situation where it may be thought that the Attorney General is being partisan in terms of when he approves and when he does not approve. So sometimes we have to save enthusiastic people from themselves. In terms of the Central Bank, I recall that when there was the introduction of

UNREVISED 219 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) the Bill there was mention of the lawsuit brought for salaries owed. If that was the impetus, and it said certainly that that was certainly something that was brought here, it means that this could be termed “ad hominem legislation”. So when we look at how do you get the information to answer the lawsuit, if it is a civil case, is there no civil procedure that we can use, discovery, interrogatories, anything that we can use, because how is he to prove his case? How is this case to be proved, you know? So perhaps we ought to look at those things as well. I am almost tempted to the view of the Minister in the Ministry of Finance— I keep saying, you know, she really sounds so sincere—that some of the arguments in terms of the organization and so on, it seems so harmless. It seems as though: What harm is there in knowing how the bank is organized? I am not so sure that it is such a dangerous thing. In terms of the salaries, yes, perhaps we can let them organize their business so they can go along with what they think is best for the organization, but I think that there may be an argument for opening it up. Open up the window a little so that some of the things that the Central Bank wants to keep close to its chest, maybe we can really raise an argument that there is no harm to the independence of the institution by releasing that information. This has been a very difficult piece of legislation, and part of the difficulty is because we have amalgamated so many strange bedfellows. When you bring all of these bedfellows that are strangers to one another, we create a situation where we might have to get a divorce. So we have the defaulters in taxes, we have the judges, we have the Prime Minister, we have the President, we have Central Bank officials. We have so many people coming together that perhaps we ought to consider that there should be a judicial or a legal separation, so that we can deal

UNREVISED 220 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) with the parts that are palatable, and the parts that will really bring the divorce that we may just have to go through the counselling. That is what we have been doing all day, you know, counselling, because before you have a divorce it is very serious, you must have some counselling. So we have been trying to counsel you, all of you, [Laughter] in the hope, not that there would be a reconciliation, but that there may be a very peaceful, amicable separation. I thank you, Madam President. Sen. Sophia Chote SC: Madam President, thank you for the opportunity for speaking at 7.53 tonight. I have heard the reasons for the proposal for the amendment to the law in relation to the Freedom of Information Act, and that is the only aspect of the Bill to which I will speak this evening. Money matters I know little about so I will listen to my betters on those matter. I think we must bring ourselves back to what is important. The Freedom of Information Act was created for the protection of our entrenched rights, our section 4 rights, things like right to life, liberty, equality of treatment by a public authority, enjoyment of property. A lot of the debate which we have heard in this honourable Chamber has been about freedom of press and how it applies to freedom of speech and so on, but there are many other aspects that this piece of legislation must be considered with. The rights in our Constitution, they are entrenched by other pieces of law and protections by the creation of particular institutions. So for example, the Equal Opportunity Commission is one of the ways in which we protect our entrenched rights. The FOIA is one of the ways in which we protect our entrenched rights. What was important about this piece of legislation when it came into effect is that

UNREVISED 221 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Chote SC (cont’d) the legislators made a clear cut of the legislation and the request for this kind of information away from political interference. They said, if you do not like the decision which is coming to you from the Government department, you can either go to the court, which is not part of—I would say the political arrangement as we have it here, or you could go to the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Ombudsman is also constitutionally protected within the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. So it deliberately excises any political officeholder out of the deliberative process. Now, that is how I see it, and I think there was good reason for that. What followed the enactment of the FOIA was that this country spent considerable time and money in training units in Government departments to deal with these applications. So that now when these applications are made, they do go to those departments and are considered. If we say that we are adding another layer to this, which is to say that if the department refuses, it now goes to the AG’s department, the fact of the matter is, we are potentially putting the hon. Attorney General in a position where he may be conflicted simply because if it is that you are seeking information about a situation where you were maliciously prosecuted, falsely imprisoned, shot by the police, this kind of thing, the hon. Attorney General is a party to any proceedings which may be brought against the Commissioner of Police. So you are going to the very person who is going in law to be a party to the proceedings to say, please, could you just give me the information that I have been refused. To me it does not make much sense, and I think that there is a potential for conflict there that we must consider. This piece of legislation has a lot of provisos. There is a lot of what you

UNREVISED 222 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Chote SC (cont’d) cannot get in it when you look at the original Act. And the things that it allows you to get are things which concern your life, your health, your liberty, your work records, promotions, employment and matters like these, very significant to the average person. So I think that any intervening step that we place between the person requesting and the agency required to give, is really making it more cumbersome and unnecessarily so. I cannot see the clear reasoning behind it. It could be the hour of the night. One other concern I have is—and I keep saying this because it seems as though we enter into all these international commitments and we get applauded for it at the time and so on, and then we come here and very little is done about it. And we were part of what was called the “Rio Declaration”, and this I suspect is an area which would be close to the hearts of certain NGOs because it has to do with environmental issues which are becoming more and more important in our daily lives. This is what the declaration said, I think it was Declaration 10. It says that the countries that signed the declaration—and we were one: “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.” They found that out of all of the discussions, there were three fundamental rights, and we agreed to it: “…access to information, access to public participation and access to

UNREVISED 223 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Chote SC (cont’d) justice...” And they pointed out that: “The ‘access rights’ have emerged to be very important in promoting transparent, inclusive and accountable environmental governance.” It helps the public— “…to hold regulators and polluters accountable.” Now, this is one aspect of the operation of the FOIA which has not been discussed, but certainly if you have a polluter who is doing something, you do not want to give him another 30 days to clear up or to try to cover his tracks. So I think that I am not moved, quite frankly, by the reasons advanced for wanting to amend the principal Act. I do not think they seem to make sense to me, and having heard all of the speakers here today, I respectfully say that for the various reasons offered I do think that this particular clause should be excised from the proposed Bill. [Desk thumping] Sen. Anita Haynes: Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to join in this very important debate. I have the privilege of coming in to close the debate for the Opposition Bench tonight, and I want from the onset to thank the Members of my bench for so properly ventilating a number of the issues, as well as the Members of the Independent Bench who I think echoed a lot of what we had to say here today. So, Madam President, because I know it is late, I am going to propose to give you an outline of how I am going to treat with this. I am closing for my Bench today because we anticipated that a lot of reckless comments would come from the Government Bench, and so said, so done. So I am here to correct the record on a

UNREVISED 224 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) number of instances, and I will start with Minister Khan and go through from there. I have two new points to raise and then I will conclude. So that is how I propose to treat with this today. Madam President, Sen. Khan—and you know I have always said that I really appreciate coming after Minister Khan in a debate, because we represent two ends of the political spectrum. As Minister Khan came in today, he gave us the very familiar now tale of politics of the past, as I would call it. I want to say, as I listened to a number of things put on the record and a number of stories, and about the service given by legislators before, I had to reflect a little bit because this morning I was on a morning show, and I came here, I spent all day in Parliament, and I know that we do work hard. But imagine being a young politician coming into this debate and listening to the issues, listening to the issues ventilated in the public. Imagine as a young politician living with a scourge of politics that you did not create, saddled by a burden of people who did things or did not do things or did not serve well, or may not have served as well in the eyes of the population, and coming into this debate knowing that you have chosen this profession with noble intent, desire to serve your nation, knowing that you are going to have to stand here and question whether or not the image of the politician in Trinidad and Tobago is one that justifies any increase. You listen to persons who have been in the system for many, many, many years come here and say things like, imagine living on $10,000 a month, and imagine living in squalor on $10,000 a month, and I will get into some of those details shortly. But you know what really bothered me was Minister Khan’s assertion tonight that the Opposition, and in particular Mrs. Kamla Persad-

UNREVISED 225 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d)

Bissessar, was somehow inconsistent on this issue of pensioners. I will take us to 2014 now, because the Minister read from the Hansard of the Senate in 2014 and ignored a substantial amount of material from 2014. So I will read into the record because I think this ought to be corrected and dealt with directly: “PM stays hand on pension bills” This is the Guardian of Tuesday 24 June, 2014, written by Gail Alexander. The article begins: “Hold it. Controversial legislation to increase retirement benefits for parliamentarians and retired judges will not be approved until this issue is fully ventilated, including deeper scrutiny by...parliamentary committee if necessary, says Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. The PM intervened in this issue yesterday following complaints from some quarters about the legislation which was approved by Government and the Opposition People’s National Movement in the Parliament of June 13.”—this is 2014. So to come here and say that the Opposition is somehow inconsistent on this issue and trying to score political points, and that we would reject this now because in some ways what we are saying is not something that we said before, is so grossly and widely inaccurate I cannot believe that the Government could hold their heads up and say that. [Desk thumping] I really cannot believe it. Time and time again we come here and we highlight the plights of citizens. We talk about the unemployment figures. We talk about persons who have been retrenched. We talk about that the Government of the day remains remarkably disconnected from the plight of the average citizens. [Desk thumping] And in no

UNREVISED 226 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) way when they were putting together this Bill, could they have ever thought that in 2019 anybody from the Opposition was going to come here and say, “Yeah, good time for this pension hike, real good time for this increase”. Then to try to create anything else is a manipulation of the fact, and then the basis of spreading the actual misinformation in this debate. Madam President, I listened as my colleagues from the Government Benches suggested that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was in some way trying to sort out herself— imagine that. Imagine after calling for the clause to be deleted, you would still have the gall to stand here and suggest that. I mean, we have been as clear as day on this issue from the beginning, and if you do not like our position that is your problem. But the fact is the Leader of the Government Bench in the House of Representatives in 2018 stood and said in Parliament—that is Minister Robinson- Regis said, and this is a direct quote from the article of Thursday, December 18th published in the Trinidad and Tobago Newsday by Carla Bridglal: “Camille: only 41 per cent earn below $6,000 a month” You see when we say they are disconnected with the reality of citizens, this is what we mean, that as a Minister in Government, a Minister in the Government that boasts—what was it?—78 per cent of the time since we have been independent you have been in power, that you could stand here and be proud of the fact that only 41 per cent of our citizens earn below $6,000 a month. But come here today and tell us $10,000 a month is an atrocity for some people, but it is only when it is the majority of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Imagine that, Madam President; 41.4 per cent earn less than $6,000 a month. And these are the people, these are the citizens that you are talking to when you

UNREVISED 227 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) say, “Listen, things hard you know things. Things really rough. If you are not getting $10,000 or more a month, you cannot survive in Trinidad”. Imagine that, Madam President. But in the face of their shamelessness, published 23 hours ago in the Trinidad Guardian—23 hours ago—the article is entitled: “Struggle to make ends meet” The article opens with the promised turnaround. The thing we did not know when the Minister of Finance said that in the midyear budget that things were turning around, that it was going to turn around to the select few.

[MR. VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair] A select few, Mr. Vice-President. The article details, and I will not put all of it on the record, but I urge, I really urge the Government, to read this article. It is in the Trinidad Guardian today. Because you know what, Mr. Vice-President? They changed the names of the persons, but it gives the profession, years’ service. I will just read the first one for you. Mr. Vice-President: You gave the name of the article? Sen. A. Haynes: Yes, I gave it: “Struggle to make ends meet”—in the Trinidad Guardian. Name changed, but: “Name: Ingrid King. Profession: Teacher...” —very noble profession. If anybody deserves increases and all that we can do are the teachers, [Desk thumping] because as Sen. Thompson-Ahye said education is what will take our country forward. Fifteen years’ service:

UNREVISED 228 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d)

“South Trinidad. Children: Two, ages 11 and eight. Marital Status: Married: Husband was retrenched from his job at a downstream company which folded following Petrotrin’s closure this 2018. Education: UWI graduate with a BSc in education and a Bachelor of Arts in Geography; and a Post-graduate Diploma in Education. Income: $6,000 a month. Monthly Expenses: $3,000 for groceries; $1,000 for school transport; $1,000 payment on loan to assist her mom with cancer treatment; $800 payment to credit union for home repair loan. Additional Expenses: An average of $500 for electricity every two months; $500 for WASA every three months. Juggling Act: When she has to factor in the utility bills, King often dips into the grocery allocation which means less food in the home. No Luxuries: We do not have cable...just bare necessities. No going to dinner or movies, no going to Chuck-E-Cheese... Those things are just luxuries to us. Sacrifices: Walks to work to save money. Prayer: Asks God daily for kids not to get sick as they cannot afford health- care. Back-Up: Credit union account but tries to leave that for when there is an emergency like in September when she has to buy books, bags and uniforms. Not reassured by Government’s claim that the economic situation is turning around, King said: ‘They are very disconnected from the people on the ground.’”

UNREVISED 229 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d)

[Desk thumping] ‘“I don’t think they actually understand what is going on. I remember when the Minister said the last gas increase was not going to affect the average man, but our taxi fares went up.’” I will stop there, but there is more, and there are a number of people detailed here, real people. You know why I brought this up? Because you are not coming here to ask me to approve this pension hike—not me. You are talking to Ingrid King and all the people detailed in this article who are struggling to make ends meet. You are telling them that after you said from 2015 till the beginning of this year, at the very least, let us be responsible, let us be mature, let us tighten our belts, we could avoid austerity measures, let us do all of these things. You are telling them now is the right time, because if we do not do it now when will really be the right time. I am going to tell you when it would be the right time. When Ingrid does not have to worry about how she is sending her children to school or have to swap food for transport to these things. [Desk thumping] That would probably be when. 8.15 p.m. Mr. Vice-President, when we talk, when we speak here in Parliament it goes on the record forever. So students would look at what we are saying here and you would understand who stood for what, and the Minister of Finance very early on in his contribution stated that they stand for principle, and then proceeded to say the principle was, their principled stance was that they appointed a Commissioner of Police that was once a UNC Minister and Gypsy on NCC. And that is not principles eh, that is basic normal decency. If you know somebody could do a job,

UNREVISED 230 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) let them do the job. That is not principle stance. Now, you see, this patting yourself on the back for basic, basic common decency, amazing, but that is not acting on principle. Acting on principle, Mr. Vice-President, is what the Leader of the Opposition did. Where you looked at it in 2014, you still look at it, the situation now in 2019 and you say, “Listen, until the majority of citizens can benefit from the wealth of this country, a small percentage ought not to benefit more than everybody else”. That is a principled stance, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping] On top of this, Mr. Vice-President, there was an article in the Newsday with the Attorney General putting on the record or stating that he will not apologize for the pension increase because at this time he was stating that even though it affects just a handful of people that now was not the time for us to think about the majority of the population; Attorney General eh. Attorney General who sits in the seat of San Fernando West which was most affected by the closure of Petrotrin or one of the most affected by the closure of Petrotrin, and so we know clearly that he is not thinking about the majority of people, we know that clearly. I wanted to just go back very quickly to the article on where the Prime Minister as she then, Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, rejected this same pension hike in 2014, because the article ends with “PNMites upset too”; the source had been previously quoted. “The People’s National Movement’s move to approve the increases has not sat well within some PNM quarters. PNM activist (PNM Abroad blog) Pearce Robinson yesterday said that Dr. Keith Rowley and Colm Imbert’s moves - and that of Government also - lacked judgment in seeking a ‘massive’ pension

UNREVISED 231 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) increases via the legislation.” I am assuming they still vex now eh at this point. “Robinson made the comment yesterday in reply to questions on the moves by the…”— House as stated before, and he stood outside the Parliament trying to persuade Senators to not approve the increases. No one was outside today but I assume he feels the same way, I am just going to assume that. And in this article one of the few times, Sen. Al-Rawi as he then was, refused to comment because I think he knew then it was not a good idea, but today he will say now is a good time. Mr. Vice-President, now that I have dealt with some of those things, I want to speak to—Minister Khan on the Venezuela issue and I promise very quickly, yes, Minister Khan brought in the Venezuela issue and I promise that I would clarify some things for him because there was some fundamental misunderstanding of basic principles, so I will help here. Close the borders means that we saying stop, we “doh” care about Venezuelans, do not worry about them; that is what close the borders means. You see, that is the kind of myopic thinking that led us to this crisis that we are facing here today. Minister Khan in 2018— Mr. Vice-President: Minister of Energy and Energy Industries. Sen. A. Haynes: Minister of Energy and Energy Industries in 2018 as he addressed the nation stated outright, and then when asked, when questioned said there was no crisis in Venezuela; 2018 was last year, Mr. Vice-President. I do not

UNREVISED 232 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) know if he has since realized that there is crisis in Venezuela, he has not corrected that statement ever, but that is what the Minister said in 2018. Cut to 2019, and you have the registration process, and the Opposition who had been calling from the beginning for the Government to take a responsible move and take a responsible approach to this entire situation since 2016, and it is on the record since 2016, Mr. Vice-President. In response to what we were seeing is this vaille que vaille and ad hoc approach to this thing, the Opposition Leader said, while doing this registration process you ought to take precautions to protect your nation’s borders because every responsible and sovereign state must know who is entering their country. That is basic. But you want to come here and tell us and that we are flip-flopping on the Venezuela issue when this is the Government that refused to vote in favour of humanitarian aid because they still do not believe there is a crisis in Venezuela. [Desk thumping] You are registering “14,000” people and I have to put that in inverted commas because I do not even think they believe that, but you registered 14,000 persons and you have no plan. You came here—I think the Minister in Ministry of Finance said on the NIS clause that we have persons who would be allowed to work for presumably a year. You know why the Minister had to phrase it like that? Because in one year they have no clue what is going to happen, no idea. Right? [Desk thumping] So it has to be that we have people and so we are bringing this clause and they are presumably going to work here for a year, so we are going to make this provision so they would not have to pay NIS. Mind you, the NIS announcement

UNREVISED 233 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) was made on a “vaps” in a post-Cabinet by the Prime Minister who got up and said, “Aye, the Venezuelans not going and pay any NIS because…”—and then come you after with the legislation, still no plan, because they do not understand that a policy requires details, it is important that it is cogent, it is consistent with the things that you have said and that it makes sense. So you get up one morning, visa, you “eh” know the details for the visa, one day it will come, one day it would not come, and then you want to tell us that we are flip-flopping on Venezuela. We have been clear and consistent, Mr. Vice-President, clear and consistent. [Desk thumping] Imagine—so I just wanted to clarify for the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries, one, what a crisis is and, two, what the “close your borders” meant because, you see, when you get into the habit of just reading a headline, you would always fall into that trap, so you must read the details of the article and it would really help you out. And, Mr. Vice-President, I have—I said that I would clarify some things on the record and I have points to raise. So I have my hand the report to the National Insurance Board, the Tenth actuarial valuation of the National Insurance System as of June30, 2016. And this was laid in the Senate on the 19th of March, 2019, and in the House of Representatives on the 22nd of March, 2019. And the only things I am going to read into the record are some of the recommendations and I will tell you why I am doing that. Because this—I am reading it as it relates to why I cannot in any good conscience and faith support any pension hikes at this time, because this as it was laid in Parliament and I will ask the Government outright if there is any intention to accept the recommendations in this report that was laid in

UNREVISED 234 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) both Houses of Parliament? And I ask that because it would have ramifications for the rest of us, you know, those of us who would depend on the system. You know, as I sat here and I listened to Government representatives and over the weekend and for the past week to come here and talk about pensions and who could live how and whatnot. I am representative, Mr. Vice-President, of a generation that barely—we cannot even really fathom pensions because of the system as it stands now, we have no permanent jobs. You have a contract, you get a gratuity, and “you better had and save yuh money”. Right? That is what is coming for you. And you come here and you tell me, you know, people would have earned this and whatnot, but then I read these recommendations, and I think Sen. Deyalsingh raised it, our ageing population and what that means for us. And, you know, Sen. Deyalsingh was saying that, if more people do not come into the system, there would not be people to pay pensions for him. But, Mr. Vice-President, imagine what is going on for us because the system, our growth rate is not as it ought to be. But I want to read recommendation 1 which asks that the contribution rate increases should be scheduled in the short term. So my question is, we could be looking at increase in NIS payments in the short terms if these recommendations are to be accepted. But I want to go to recommendation 3 because this recommendation and I am going to quote from the report directly here. “To preserve the equity in the system, reduction factors for early retirement should be introduced in the pension formula. Today’s pension formula does not take into account that someone taking retirement at age 60 will receive a pension over a longer period, and in many cases will contribute over a shorter period than

UNREVISED 235 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) someone taking retirement at 65.” So what they are asking here is that, if you retire before 65 that your pension should be cut by 6 per cent each year before 65 until you get to the normal retirement age. So is it that the Government is going to accept these recommendations, that for the rest of us, all the rest of the citizens, if you try to retire before 65, you deserve a cut in pension because to preserve the sanctity of the system. But the Prime Minister, and the President deserves to include things like the housing allowances, because then what are we saying? What are we saying to our society? Who is more important than whom?

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair] Madam President, I raise that because a number of clauses in this Bill, persons have called for wider consultation, we have called for the outright removal of some of the clauses and the thing is, the calls for consultation have been dismissed unilaterally by the Government; they do not want to hear that, because the time for consultation in their opinion on this is over. And I wanted to just— why I read out the first paragraph of what Mrs. Persad-Bissessar said, is that she said, before we were to even touch this issue, that there ought to have been consultation and the issues ought to be properly ventilated. So, Madam President, as I conclude, I just want to read into the record, I quote from an address to the nation on Tuesday, December 29th, 2015. This administration will not take our country back into any kind of situation that may lead us to the IMF, but success will require sacrifice and adjustment on the part of all in the national community. The adjustment in spending that is required can be nullified by increases in wages and profits. We need to approach

UNREVISED 236 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) this situation with a level of maturity and openness, and a willingness to compromise in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The Prime Minister as he is, went on to appeal to the labour movement and the business community to approach all discussions with the national interest at the uppermost part of all our minds. And as I close, I want to ask the Government: This principled stance that you took in 2015 about asking everybody in the country to approach the discussions about wages, and I would want to now include pensions here, with interest of the nation as a whole, at their uppermost part of their mind, if that is what you are doing here today. And as the Minister of Finance came back, this is the Minister that brought us zero, zero, zero, remember that? And this is the Minister that told us that zero, zero, zero meant wage restraint, not a wage freeze. So, I want to urge you, Minister, perhaps take a pension restraint right now until you properly ventilate the issues with the population, until you convince them that this is what you deserve as a Minister of Government. And I thank you. Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Minister of Finance. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, let me start off in response of the contribution of Sen. Mark. As the Minister in the Office of the Attorney General pointed out, when Sen. Mark made the statement that nowhere in the Commonwealth is there a provision where the housing allowance is added to the salary for pension purposes, that was incorrect. And I wish to reiterate that this Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service)

UNREVISED 237 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Act in Jamaica is not a colonial relic. The specific amendment made to the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) of Jamaica was made by way of Act No. 38 of 1995 in Jamaica which would have been, from my knowledge of Jamaica, I would think more than 30 years after Jamaica gained Independence from the Queen. So that this particular provision which is in the interpretation section of the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act of Jamaica, which defines the term “salary for the purpose of pension” reads as follows: “for the purposes of this definition, ‘basic salary’ means the emoluments”— including house allowance—“provided in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure…”—of the island. Jamaica is in the Commonwealth, and as I said this was 1995, some 30 years after Jamaica escaped from the colonial master; so that is not a colonial relic. Let me also point out that it is easy to talk about what should or should not be counted for a pension, but if you go around the world, for example, in Australia the salary of a Minister is $29,000 Australian per month or TT $135,000 per month. The basic pension for a Member of Parliament in Australia can get up to 75 per cent of their salary after 18 years of service. We in Trinidad and Tobago we are fixed at 66⅔ after any amount of service, Madam President, but in Australia you can get up to 75 per cent of your salary after 18 years of service, and a Minister—they have an interesting way of dealing with emoluments for parliamentarians, and they do not discriminate between appointed and elected. A Member of Parliament by whatever means the person arrives in the Parliament of Australia gets a basic package of $200,000 Australian per year which in the vicinity of TT $40,000 per year, and we are talking about a backbencher or a

UNREVISED 238 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) person without portfolio. A Minister— Sen. Haynes: Four thousand TT? Hon. C. Imbert: Forty thousand Trinidad and Tobago dollars per month is what a backbencher gets in the Australian Parliament or an Opposition Senator, for example, or an Independent Senator, but they have an interesting ways of dealing with pensions. The Member of Parliament gets $200,000 Australian a year, and that works out at TT $40,000 a month, and they get pension based on that, and a Minister is top top. So as far as they are concerned, they make all legislators equal initially, and then they top it up if you are a Minister, they recognize that you have additional duties as a Minister, and a Minister’s pension in Australia is $103,000 a month because of that system. So, we have to compare apples and apples. Yes, it is true that in Australia the housing allowance is not added, but there is a reason for that. Because the salary is so high, the concept of housing and all the other allowances are already absorbed in their salary. So that, you are not comparing apples and apples. The Australian salary already takes into account all of the needs of the Member of Parliament such as transport, housing and so on, it is incorporated into the number, that is why the number is so high. So that you have to be very, very careful about how you look around the world and try to make comparisons. As I said, in Jamaica because they have a similar system to us where the salary is not that significant in the scheme of things, they add in the housing allowance for the purpose of pension and they have done that for the last 24 years. Let me jump now to New Zealand. I heard Sen. Hosein speak about New Zealand and said that the New Zealand—

UNREVISED 239 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Sen. S. Hosein: You cannot remember who was the speaker? Hon. C. Imbert: Well, it is either you or Sen. Obika, I will get to the point, the both of you sit, Madam President, both of them sit next to each other. [Laughter] Oh no. I am pretty sure it is Sen. Hosein that spoke about it. And the fact of the matter is, as Sen. Franklin Khan said— Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Minister. Hon. C. Imbert: His name plate say “Franklin Khan”, in this House we can say that. Oh I am so sorry it was Sen. Sobers. I apologize, Sen. Hosein. Sen. Sobers made the point that the New Zealand Prime Minister took a wage freeze. It is easy to take a wage freeze when your salary is $175,000 a month, TT $175,000 a month, 175. Sen. Ameen: TT or— Hon. C. Imbert: Madam President, I will speak to you. It seems as though they have problem over there. So it is easy for you to say you will take a wage freeze if you are earning $175,000 a month. And Sen. Khan made the point that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is the seven the highest paid head of government in the world, $175,000 a month. So when one is trying to score points by saying in this country they do not add the housing allowance, you have to look at the salary, $175,000 a month, more than three times what our Prime Minister makes. Now, let me go back to some of the other points made. Let me deal with the Central Bank matter. There has been a lot of misunderstanding with respect to that matter, a lot of misunderstanding. Sen. Hosein put some misinformation into the system— Hon. Senator: Again?

UNREVISED 240 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Hon. C. Imbert:—and he “took basket”, Madam President— Sen. S. Hosein: That is terrible. Hon. C. Imbert:—just like the Leader of the Opposition in the other place “took basket”. I have in my hand the Act to amend the Bank of Jamaica Act, the 2018 Bill that is before a joint select committee. And the Leader of the Opposition in the other place was handed a piece of paper by the Leader of Government Business in that place, and read the scrap of paper, the words that were written on it, that there is a Bill before a joint select committee in Jamaica which has deleted the authority of the Minister to set the terms and conditions of the Governor so that the Minister in Jamaica, the Minister of Finance no longer will be able to set terms and conditions of the Governor of the Central Bank, and Sen. Hosein came and repeated that. I do not know if he had the same scrap of paper that the Leader of the Opposition had. I have the actual Bill. And in clause 6 of the Bill it says: “Section 6A of the principal Act is amended by deleting subsection (3) and substituting therefor the following—” Section 6A was the section that dealt with the fixing of salaries by the Minister. Listen to what it says. This is the Bill before the Joint Select Committee, the famous Bill that removes the authority of the Minister of Finance in Jamaica to set the terms and conditions of the governor. Look at what this Bill actually says: “A person appointed as Governor shall hold office for a term of five years and may be re-appointed, and such appointment shall be on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister…” I do not understand what is going on with the research department in the UNC. It says it changed the clause and reaffirmed the authority of the Minister of

UNREVISED 241 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Finance in Jamaica to set the terms and conditions of employment of the governor. It reaffirmed it, it did not take it out. And let me go now to the Bank of Jamaica Act which is the Central Bank of Jamaica, and I go now to section 47(3) which was not touched. If you go through this Bill that is before that famous Joint Select Committee in Jamaica, it is not law yet, it is just a Bill, it is just a proposal and it is before a joint select committee, but if you go through it, it does not touch section 47 of the Bank of Jamaica Act. And let me read section 47(3) of the Bank of Jamaica Act: “Every officer and servant of the Bank and every auditor of the Bank— (a) shall preserve and aid in preserving secrecy with regard to all matters…” And this is very similar language to our legislation— “…relating to affairs of the Bank that may come to his knowledge in the course of his duties; and (b) shall not communicate any such matter…” This is what we do not have. “to any person other than a person authorized in that behalf by the Minister…”—of Finance. So in Jamaica, Madam President, in the Central Bank Act in Jamaica, Bank of Jamaica Act, every office of that bank cannot communicate anything with respect to the affairs of the bank except if they are authorized to do so by the Minister of Finance. So in Jamaica it is not just to the Minister of Finance that the Governor has to provide information, it is to anyone that the Minister directs that the Governor should provide information to.

UNREVISED 242 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

And, Madam President, when you look at what we are seeking to do—what are we seeking to do? We are simply saying that it is taxpayers’ money that fund the Central Bank, and that is point the Opposition is missing. The Central Bank earns its income in two ways, one, from charging interest on the overdraft in the government account at the bank; that requires no work. What they do every month, they will work out what was the overdraft for every day, they will apply the repo rate because that is the rate they use, it is currently 5 per cent, they will apply that rate, and they will just deduct that sum from the Government’s account at the Central Bank. And from that, the Central Bank gets hundreds of millions of dollars, it requires not work, it requires no intellect, it requires no organization, you just work out what the overdraft interest is for the month, and you take it out the government account and you put it in the Central Bank account, and that is the primary source. The other source of income of the Central Bank is investing the Government’s foreign reserves, the Government’s holdings in foreign currency are invested in equities and other instruments overseas. Those are the two ways that the Central Bank earns money. So it takes taxpayers’ money because the overdraft is funded by the appropriation every year that we come in the annual budget exercise and we appropriate a sum of money for the service of Trinidad and Tobago, and that is what funds the overdraft in the Central Bank. And all they do is they, you have to say they tax it. They take 5 per cent of that per annum and they take it and they use it to fund the bank. And every year the Central Bank will remit to the Government because it is not their money, so by law what they have to do, is after they have paid all of their expenses which will include the maintenance of their

UNREVISED 243 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) facilities, their building and so on, the salaries and wages and allowances of their staff, et cetera, and any other expenses the Central Bank may have, after they pay that, they have to remit what remains to the Government for the benefit of taxpayers of this country. So the money that they get is taxpayers’ money, and the money that they have to give back is taxpayers’ money. So why would anybody argue against the taxpayers of this country having the right to know what is being done with their money that is being provided to the Central Bank by the way of payment of salaries and wages to officers of the bank. 8.45 p.m. I cannot understand why this is such a problem. I also cannot understand how providing information to the Minister of Finance about the organizational structure and the terms and conditions of employment of the staff is interference in the bank. It does not give the Minister the right to do anything. All it does is provides the information to the Minister, and I must tell you, I have in recent times been—I am a bit concerned about the amount of taxpayers’ money that is used to fund the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, and I have a right to be, and I am sure that is what was motivating Sen. Obika when he asked the question of me, what are the salary and allowances of the present Governor of the Central Bank? Not another Governor; the current one. I am sure that is what was motivating Sen. Obika, because he too obviously had a concern. He obviously knew. I think he studies these things. He must have known that it is taxpayers’ money that funds the Central Bank, and therefore in the public interest he was asking me

UNREVISED 244 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

the question. I went to ask the question, and it has been pointed out by a very learned colleague of mine, that the bank may wish to disclose the information, but unfortunately in our Central Bank Act they have these words that appear in the Jamaica Act—sorry, they have words that appear there and words that do not appear there, and let me go and explain what I mean by that. In our Central Bank Act, in the relevant section which is section 56 in our Central Bank Act, the same words that are in the Bank of Jamaica Act, which speaks to persons cannot reveal matters— Sen. Obika: 56(1). Hon. C. Imbert: No, I am dealing with the—Madam President, I am dealing with the Bank of Jamaica Act. In the Bank of Jamaica Act, they use the same words that are in section 56 of our Central Bank Act, that every officer and servant of the bank shall—[Interruption] Madam President, this constant muttering, please. Madam President: Members, please allow the Minister to make his contribution in silence. Minister continue. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you, Madam President. In the Jamaica Act, they add the words that the Minister can authorize disclosure of information. In our Act, those words are not there, and they have the same words in our Act with regard to all matters relating to the affairs of the bank. And I happen to know that the Central Bank has sought and obtained legal advice that that combination of words, “All matters relating to the affairs of the bank” prohibit them from disclosing anything. As I told someone, even how many paper clips they have in

UNREVISED 245 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) the bank because of the word “all”. In Jamaica you have the same word, “all”, but there is another section that says, “They may disclose to the Minister”—or anyone. And, to answer Sen. Deyalsingh, once the information is disclosed to the Minister of Finance, it is then public information because the Minister of Finance is a public authority who falls under the Freedom of Information Act, and the Minister of Finance is not exempt from disclosure of information. So once the Governor of the Central Bank discloses the information to the Minister of Finance, then anybody, Members of this House, Members of the other place or a member of the public can file a Freedom of Information disclosure request and the Minister of Finance will have to disclose the information, so that is why it is put in this way, it provides access for the public, and what it does, it protects the members of the bank from disclosure. It is a very, very narrow provision. It only deals with salaries and organization structure. So it gives the members of the bank the protection they require in terms of credit information, loans, and so on. In the Jamaica thing they have no such protection. They have to disclose everything. We are not asking the Central Bank to disclose matters relating to banking or matters relating to loan financing and so on, just employment and then the public can get it from me. They simply make a request of me and it is not exempt information. Now, Madam President, let me just go to this freedom of information matter. I think I need to explain exactly what motivated the Government in bringing this amendment, and there is a lot of misinformation in the system. A lot of misinformation. Let me give an example of a matter. A case, Vijay Singh v the Ombudsman, a 2016 matter. Mr. Singh was employed at the Ministry of the

UNREVISED 246 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Environment. He alleged he was bypassed for promotion. In March 2015, he wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman outlining his complaint and requesting an investigation. He failed to receive a response, so in January 2016 he submitted a formal request for information from the Ombudsman pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. He wanted his personal file and correspondence between agencies. In February, the Ombudsman refused the request and told Mr. Singh that the Office of the Ombudsman was not a public authority and therefore the Ombudsman was not obliged to provide the information. As a result, a couple months later, Mr. Singh applied for judicial review to challenge the refusal to provide documents and the assertion that the Office of the Ombudsman was not a public authority. The documents were subsequently given to Mr. Singh by the Office of the Ombudsman in November 2016. By then, however, the matter was already in court and the Ombudsman had a case to respond to. In July 2018 the judge held that the Ombudsman is a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, and ordered the Ombudsman to pay Mr. Singh’s costs. Mr. Singh’s attorneys, Ramlogan et al, have submitted a statement of costs for assessment for the period December 2015 to January 2018 in the amount of $1.7 million. So, this is a matter where the documents were actually disclosed and the matter still continued, and the judge awarded costs to the complainant and the complainant’s attorneys have submitted a bill of $1.7 million, Madam President. Madam President, the senior counsel who represented the Ombudsman charged $10,000. So, this is one of the problems that we in the Government— [Interruption] Madam President, I told you they are muttering. I am asking you for

UNREVISED 247 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) your protection. Madam President: Members, those who wish to make comments, you can leave the Chamber, allow the Minister of Finance to complete his winding-up, please. I will not say it a third time. Minister of Finance. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you, Madam President. I need to explain what motivated the Government to try to insert the Attorney General into these matters. If, for example, in this matter the Attorney General had been seized of it before it got into the court then there would be no $1.7 million bill, or there may not have been a $1.7 million bill. But because the Attorney General was not in the process you have this bill for failure to disclose documents that were disclosed. Now, let us deal with the Ravi Maharaj, the matter with respect to Petrotrin. And I would like to correct something that hon. Sen. Deyalsingh said, and I do not ascribe anything bad to Sen. Deyalsingh about this, but there is a lot of misinformation in the system. It was not the Government that refused the freedom of information request. It was Petrotrin. It had nothing to do with the Government, and let me—I am reading from the Privy Council judgment. What happened was that there were certain witness statements that Mr. Balgobin—Mr. Maharaj sorry—Mr. Maharaj wanted certain witness statements that were disclosed in an arbitration proceeding, and Mr. Maharaj asked Petrotrin for them. In the arbitration rules of the London Court of Arbitration there is this statement: “Unless the parties expressly agree in writing to the contrary, the parties undertake as a general principle to keep confidential all awards in their arbitration, together with all materials in the proceedings created for the purpose of the arbitration and all other documents produced by another party in the proceedings

UNREVISED 248 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) not otherwise in the public domain - save and to the extent that disclosure may be required of a party by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right or to enforce or challenge an award in bona fide legal proceedings before a state court or other judicial authority.” So, Petrotrin, not the Government—the Attorney General was not involved—took advice, and Petrotrin chose to not disclose the information because of the confidentiality clause in the London Court of International Arbitration Rules. Mr. Maharaj was not happy so he applied for judicial review, and it went before a judge of the High Court. The High Court judge in Trinidad and Tobago refused Mr. Maharaj’s JR action on the grounds that Petrotrin had not acted unreasonably and irrationally. It then went to the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judge’s decision that Mr. Maharaj’s claim should be dismissed. So here you have a situation, a state enterprise acting on a confidentiality clause in an arbitration proceeding, decides on legal advice not to disclose certain documents. The complainant goes to court, applies for judicial review. The judge at first instance says no, I do not think that these documents should be disclosed. He appeals to the Appeal Court, the Appeal Court says no. I agree with the judge at first instance, these documents should not be disclosed. It then goes to the Privy Council, and what the Privy Council ruled is that the matter should be returned to the Trinidad and Tobago court because the confidentiality proceedings in the London Court of International Arbitration Rules are not absolute. That is what the Privy Council said. But you had the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, the Appeal Court of Trinidad and Tobago, agreeing with Petrotrin in its refusal to

UNREVISED 249 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) disclose the information based on the confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings. The Privy Council thought otherwise. They said you have to balance public interest considerations against the confidentiality rules, and in that case they have returned the matter to Trinidad and Tobago for it to be heard by a judge to determine whether the documents should be disclosed or not. They never said the document should be disclosed. They said Mr. Maharaj has an arguable case for judicial review. That is all they said. So, the cost of all of this is millions. But it is a state enterprise operating on legal advice based on a confidentiality clause and an arbitration provision, which was upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago. So those are the facts inside of there. Now, if the matter had been referred by Petrotrin to the Attorney General, the Attorney General may have received different advice from other attorneys who may have told Petrotrin that you should disclose—[Interruption] Madam President, they are at it again. Madam President: Continue Minister. Hon. C. Imbert: If the Attorney General was in the process, and Petrotrin was required to refer the matter to the Attorney General before they said no, then the Attorney General, acting on other advice, might have told Petrotrin, “Look, this is a borderline case, you have to balance the public interest against the confidentiality rule and on balance you should disclose.” We do not know, but this thing went all the way through the system, High Court, Appeal Court, Privy Council, and it has now come back to Trinidad, and it was Petrotrin that was the actor in all of this. Not the Government. It is a fallacy that it was the Government, and I thought it was necessary for me to put those things on the record.

UNREVISED 250 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

So these are two cases. You have the Ombudsman refusing to provide information because as far as the Ombudsman was concerned, he was not a public authority. A judge subsequently found that he was, there is a bill for $1.7 million. Petrotrin, a state enterprise, decides it would not disclose based on confidentiality rules in arbitration, High Court agree, Appeal Court agree, Privy Council “doh agree”. Millions of dollars in legal costs, Madam President. And it is the taxpayer that has to foot this bill. And what is happening in Trinidad and Tobago, there is a certain group of lawyers who are filing complex freedom of information claims, not simple matters, complex freedom of information claims. Very difficult claims, and as a result of that, on the 31st day—as other speakers have said—the application for JR, for leave to have a JR proceeding is filed. Already made up, they know it is difficult for the statutory authority or the state enterprise; they know it is difficult because it is a very complex thing. The voluminous nature of the request, and this is what motived the Government. It had nothing to do with secrecy. Because at the end of the day the insertion of the Attorney General was to disclose information, not to refuse information, and to save the taxpayers millions of dollars. Millions of dollars. So, I thought it was necessary to say these things. I have listened very carefully to what hon. Senators opposite have had to say, and Sen. Chote in particular. I was listening to Sen. Chote’s contribution, and she raised the point about potential conflict of interest, and the fact that if the Attorney General is in the process there may be a possible conflict of interest situation, where certain documents may come into the knowledge of the Attorney General, and he may find himself conflicted because it may be matters of a

UNREVISED 251 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) criminal nature, which he may have to defend, a case for wrongful imprisonment or something in the future, and therefore he would have advance knowledge of certain personal matters of a person who may be either prosecuted or may be taking action against the State. I listened very, very carefully. And another Senator also mentioned to me the possibility of environmental impact assessment documentation that somebody may have submitted documents to the EMA, for example, and in it there are a number of trade secrets, and someone may ask for a disclosure, the EMA may say no, and then the Attorney General comes in and the Attorney General may get sight of all of these trade secrets and so on, and it may be to the disadvantage of the particular company. So, I have listened very carefully to Senators opposite, and Sen. Chote in particular, I was moved by her contribution, and therefore the Government will be deleting clause 7 from the Bill. [Desk thumping] And the reason why we are deleting it is that we are coming back with a stand-alone review of the Freedom of Information Act. Over the years, as Sen. Richards has pointed out, exemptions have crept in. There is a particular one, the Central Bank amendment, which has caused all this “kankatang” here about this requirement of the Minister to try and get very simple information. That was done for a particular individual. That was done for Mr. Cudjoe. Mr. Cudjoe was appointed to the Central Bank, the Maha Sabha decided that he was not a fit and proper person to be appointed to the Central Bank, they sued the Government. The Government responded at the time by making the Central Bank exempt from freedom of information, and that went through all the courts system costing millions of dollars, and today I have the irony of reading Mr.

UNREVISED 252 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Cudjoe saying that freedom of information is sacrosanct. But we made an amendment to the Central Bank—we made an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to exempt from disclosure the Central Bank, precisely for the said hon. Mr. Cudjoe. So I mean, this is the irony of the whole thing. So that we need to review these exemptions. We need to determine whether the Central Bank should be exempt. Whether only certain things in the Central Bank should be exempt from disclosure. We need to look at all the exemptions that have crept in over the years since 2000 when the original Freedom of Information Act was passed and enacted. And for that reason and for the very cogent arguments of Sen. Chote, we are withdrawing clause 7 from the Bill, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Now, let me look at some of the other points made. I want to go back to the amendments to the Central Bank Act, and I will come to Sen. Thompson-Ahye in a short while. The Minister of Finance appears 69 times in the Central Bank Act— 69 times—and as of now the Minister of Finance can give instructions to the Central Bank on fiscal and monetary policy, on the exchange rate, and a multitude of things, things to do with commercial banking; the Minister of Finance is empowered to give instructions to the Central Bank with which they must comply. So when I hear this talk about the Minister now being given the authority to ask about salaries—being an intervention and making the Central Bank a department of the Ministry of Finance—I do not understand it. Because right now as Minister of Finance I can give the Central Back instruction on a variety of matters that profoundly get into the operations of the bank. I can tell them what fiscal policy to operate. I can tell them which monetary policy. I can talk to them

UNREVISED 253 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) about the exchange rate. The Minister of Finance can dictate to the Central Bank what the exchange rate should be. If there is something that is not more—if that is not operational, what is it? And therefore, I do not understand some of the arguments that have been made. But let me come now to the commentary of, the contribution of Sen. Thompson-Ahye. She asked a number of questions, I took notes, let me see if I can deal with it. What about improvements in pensions to public servants? Madam President, I can tell you in 2009—by the way, how much time do I have? Madam President: You finish at 9.14. Hon. C. Imbert: Okay, I have 10 minutes. I can tell you, in 2009 there were consultants working for the Government and they recommended that Ministers of Government and legislators and public servants, their pensions should be indexed to inflation at the time. The inflation rate at the time was 10 per cent, so that the consultant realized that this would be quite heavy, and therefore they had a cap of 50 per cent of the inflation rate that public service pension should be increased by the inflation rate up to a cap of 50 per cent of the inflation rate. The annual cost of that would have been $500 million in increased expenditure by the Government at the time, in 2009. And it just was not practical. It was not practical. But, as Sen. Thompson-Ahye said, if we are a progressive country, we have to reach there at some point in time. The idea of index linking pensions is something that has already been looked at, and we nearly did it in 2009. But remember oil prices collapsed from $145 to $35. Natural gas prices collapsed from $13 to $2, all in the space of three months. The national budget lost about

UNREVISED 254 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

$30 billion in that year, so that it just was not practical at that time. And successive governments, the 2010 to 2015 Government chose to ignore that report from the consultants that recommended index linking of pensions for everyone. We went through the whole 2010 to 2015 period, and now we have come and we are dealing with a very small group of persons that we believe should be given some form of indexation. Madam President, it is a small group. It is not going to impact the Treasury by $500 million, but we will get to that point. We must as a progressive country. So that is the answer to that question, Sen. Thompson-Ahye, and I like the way you phrase it, that some time, some day when things get better that you would like to see this. I am sure it will happen at some point in time in the future. With respect to separating, I do not think we can. I think complaints of discrimination would arise if we try to separate judges who retired a long time ago from judges who retired recently. But I must tell you that judges—in answer to your next question—do not all get the same pension. It is based on the number of years of service and their salary. So, it is not—if a judge only serves for a year, he would get a much smaller pension than a judge who had served for 30 years and so on, so they do not all get the same pension. You spoke about the culture of secrecy in Trinidad, and you said that the amendment may in fact create a bottleneck, and this is one of the considerations based on what you said and based on what Sen. Chote has said, why we have pulled it. I do not think the only thing we could take out, you said, can we take out parts so that we would not have a divorce, we will have a separation. Well, we are separating out clause 7. The contentious clause 7, freedom of information clause.

UNREVISED 255 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

With respect to the other points made by hon. Senators—Sen. Deonarine, why seven days for information on employment at the bank? Because they should have it. I mean, it is something that they should be able to provide in 24 hours. So the seven days is not cast in stone, it was thought to be a reasonable period. That is something we can discuss at committee stage. What is the information to be used for?—to determine what component of expenditure at the bank is salaries and wages. Simply, if the total expenditure of the bank is say $500 million, I think everybody has a right to know of that 500 million, how much of it goes to salaries and wages. We do it for everything else. We do it for WASA. You hear about wages and salaries at WASA being 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the wage bill— sorry, of the total expenditure. At Petrotrin, wages and salaries were over 50 per cent of the total expenditure, way above industry standard, in all these industries, and you could say Central Bank is an industry, they have standards. And I think the public has a right to know whether the expenditure on wages and salaries at the Central Bank is within international norms. We should know. Why should we not know? Because it is taxpayers’ money they are using to pay their salaries, so I certainly would not use the influence to determine salaries at the bank. I do not have that power, and you know, I heard someone saying in another place, well, the Minister has appointees on the board, so just ask them. I cannot. Because if I ask them they will be in breach of section 56, because they are officers of the bank. So, that is a sort of a trite suggestion. Nobody here made it, but it was made in another place, “go and ask your people on the board”. I cannot because it is a criminal offence to disclose information, and I think I need to make that point. If you disclose under section 56, if you breach it, it is a criminal offence, and

UNREVISED 256 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) certainly that is why the staff of the Central Bank got advice— Madam President: Minister, you have five more minutes. Hon. C. Imbert: Sure—that they should not. Sen. Deonarine, I think you also asked if Ministers get involved in freedom of information requests. We do, the file comes to us. It is too important that if a freedom of information request is asked of the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries, for example, it is going to arrive on the Minister’s desk with recommendations and advice, disclose or not disclose as the case may be, and the Minister will be asked whether he agrees or not agrees, and those things have come to me, and I always seek advice. I do not advise myself. You know, we have internal legal counsel at the Ministry of Finance, and I use external. Whenever I get a freedom of information request that is complex, I go external, and I ask should we disclose or should we not disclose? It does arrive at the Minister, and the Minister does get involved. I am not sure if there is much else, I think I have got everybody. Oh, Sen. Obika quoted some tax expert who said the following: In 2016 the amnesty ran for longer and we did not meet our target. Wrong on both counts. Sen. Obika: No, I cancelled that. Hon. C. Imbert: I know, but you brought it into the House that this expert, you called the name of the auditing firm, said that in 2016 the amnesty was for a longer period and we missed our target of 500 million. And that is the problem we have in Trinidad and Tobago, people are published in the newspapers as experts; in truth and in fact the amnesty in 2016 lasted for two and a half months as compared to our three, and netted 750 million instead of the target of 500. So every single

UNREVISED 257 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) thing in that article was incorrect. Incorrect. And the other point, Madam President, [Interruption] I will try to speak above Sen. Ameen who is trying to interrupt me. The other point is— Sen. Ameen: I am trying to correct you. Hon. Senator: Oh gosh! Madam President: Continue Minister. Hon. C. Imbert: The other point is that that was smack in the middle of the business cycle in 2016, July to September, right in the same period that Sen. Obika tells us, we should not have an amnesty because that is when people are buying goods. Right in that period we collected $750 million rather than the targeted 500. So that the evidence does not support what is said. With respect to the national insurance contributions, there is no way, Sen. Deyalsingh, with the greatest respect, there is no way that we could allow somebody to pay $11—$11—for a single NIS contribution and then get injury benefits for a year. For one year. That is an archaic law. It is an archaic law, that somebody could make one $11 contribution and then get injury benefits for two- thirds of their salary for 52 weeks. That is an archaic law, and it will destroy the National Insurance Fund, if you have a flood of persons coming in, especially persons who are of limited means, coming into the system—a lot of these migrants are already with child, Madam President. You would have seen them in the line, a lot of them are already pregnant, and they come into the system and they have to pay $110, if they at the lowest end, 10 by 11, $110, and then they get maternity pay for 14 weeks and a maternity grant. One must as a government protect Trinidad and Tobago citizens. The NIS

UNREVISED 258 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 The Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) fund is primarily for citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] It is fine to say that we should welcome people, they are citizens of the world, and that is fine, but we have a fund, and let me get to the end. The 2018 annual report of the National Insurance Board which was laid in this Parliament, in both Houses, showed that the fund incurred a deficit in 2018 of $226 million. A deficit. And this is a pattern that has been in that National Insurance Fund for years, and therefore I was just shocked to hear Sen. Ameen say that the NIB is making a profit. It has incurred a deficit of $226 million. So, Madam President, just let me repeat, the Government has decided, based on learned contributions from hon. Senators opposite, especially Senators on the upper bench, to withdraw clause 7, and with that, I commend this Bill to this Senate. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: I beg to move. I beg to move. Hon. C. Imbert: I beg to move. 9.15 p.m. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a second time. Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate. Sen. Obika: Madam President, I wish to stand on Standing Order 42(9) to correct a material part of my speech. Madam President: No, no, Sen. Obika. Sen. Obika: As the hon. Minister misrepresented— Madam President: Sen. Obika, please take your seat. You have lost any opportunity to do that.

UNREVISED 259 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Senate in committee. Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, if I may have your attention at this stage, we have two sets of amendments circulated on behalf of the Minister of Finance and one list of amendments circulated by Sen. Mark. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam Chairman, I have three lists of amendments circulated by the Minister. There is— Mr. Imbert: Can I correct that? Apparently one of them is from the House of Representatives, it is not relevant. I do not know how that reached there. And then we did a revision of the amendments to clauses 4, 5 and 6 and added in an amendment to clause 8, so that is the correct one. And then we have just done— Sen. Mark: That is the 17th, Madam Chair? Madam Chairman: There are two sets of amendments circulated by the Minister of Finance. That list is headed: “List of Amendments to be Moved in the Senate by the Hon. Minister of Finance”. And it seeks to amend four clauses. And then there is another list which seeks to amend one clause. Mr. Imbert: And we will also be amending on the floor— Madam Chairman: No, just a second, Minister. Mr. Imbert: I am so sorry, yeah. Madam Chairman: Those two are dated, June the17th, 2019. Then there is a list of amendments circulated by Sen. Mark. Is everyone in possession of said lists? Hon. Senators: Yes, Ma’am. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Clause 1. Question proposed: That clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, you need to make an amendment

UNREVISED 260 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 here? Mr. Imbert: Do I? [Crosstalk] What amendment do—oh, yes— Sen. S. Hosein: Delete “Freedom of Information”— Mr. Imbert: But that is done at the end, not so, Madam Chairman? Sen. S. Hosein: No, we are doing clause 1. [Madam Chairman confers with the Procedural Clerk] Madam Chairman: So hon. Minister, we will defer clause 1— Mr. Imbert: To the end. Madam Chairman: Yes. [Laughter] Clause 1 deferred. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3. Question proposed: That clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, there is—you have circulated— Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, could I just come in before Sen. Mark comes in? It is up to you. Madam Chairman: No, let me deal with Sen. Mark’s amendment and then I will ask you to—yeah. Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Yeah. Madam Chair, this particular clause, I have—we have made some suggestions on the floor. We have made it very clear that this is not based on equity, it is very discriminatory. We believe also, Madam Chair, that this is a matter for the SRC to address and not us here in the Senate, and on that basis we cannot associate ourselves with this particular clause. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to reiterate the point that Sen. Mark made—

UNREVISED 261 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Madam Chairman: No, there is no need to reiterate the point. Sen. S. Hosein: But I would also want to raise a new issue. Madam Chairman: Yes, because what Sen. Mark is seeking— Sen. S. Hosein: Is to delete. Madam Chairman:—by virtue of his amendment is to delete clause 3. Sen. S. Hosein: Yes. Madam Chairman: He has now presented his argument. Is there something else you wish to— Sen. S. Hosein: Yes please, Madam Chair. If the Government does not accept Sen. Mark’s amendment, I want to ask the Minister whether or not the retired legislators currently, at what date will they be receiving the revised pension? Is it at the five-year anniversary from today when the Bill is passed or is it that the pension would accrue retroactively? Mr. Imbert: Would that not apply to my amendment? Madam Chairman: Yes. So what happens we are working on, we are dealing with the amendment as proposed by Sen. Mark. I will ask the Minister to respond and then that amendment is put to the vote of the committee and if and when that—however that amendment is dealt with, the Minister will then proceed with the substantive clause, okay? Mr. Imbert: You will guide me, Madam Chairman. I do have an amendment to clause 3 which is not circulated. It is a simple amendment. Should I explain it now or wait until we deal with Sen. Mark’s amendment? Madam Chairman: Does it help to clarify anything with respect to Sen. Mark’s deletion? Is it for the interest of the other Members? Mr. Imbert: I will try my best. Okay. One of the points made in the debate by Sen. Mark and he referred to what he said, was that the inclusion of

UNREVISED 262 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 some of these allowances was a colonial relic. And therefore there are some particular words in here which have caused some unnecessary confusion, because very few people if any, get them and that is personal allowance. So I am going to delete that. I am going to propose that “personal allowance and” come out, because nobody really gets it and there was an allegation in the other place that we knew what was in the SRC report and we knew that certain persons like, Prime Minister and so on, might be getting personal allowances and that is why we were doing this, so I am taking that out. With respect to the other points made by Sen. Mark, we do not think this is a colonial relic at all. I have made the point that in other jurisdictions, in other parts of the Commonwealth, and he spoke about that as well, they look at things differently. They combine a whole series of allowances into the salary. So you will find in other jurisdictions the salaries are much higher and they do not have allowance. If you go to Jamaica, for example, you are not going to see a housing allowance, it does not exist, it is blank. I pulled it up, I pulled up what the emoluments of Jamaican MPs, Prime Minister are; there is no housing allowance because it is absorbed into their salary. Other people get entertainment allowance, for example. Our MPs and so on, do not get that. So that you cannot compare apples and apples and we just thought since it is the practice in this part of the world, a fairly low salary and you add on the personal—sorry, the housing allowance, we do not have the practice as in New Zealand, in Australia, in Canada. Canada is also extremely high-salary, where they enhance the basic salary by assuming that you—you know they just simplify it, let us put it that way. They simplify the basic salary paid to a legislator by making it much higher and then they do not give him any allowances. But his pension is based on this much higher salary. So we thought that we want to keep the housing

UNREVISED 263 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 allowance because of that fact. Those are my arguments in response to what Sen. Mark had said. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. I too was going to echo Sen. Mark’s concern about both the personal allowance and the housing allowance and I was wondering if this language might not encapsulate and bridge both gaps. Because it would apply across the board for all the subclause (a)’s, in clause 3: “…in the definition of “salary” by inserting after the word “Tobago”, the words…”—and other allowances which count for pension. Now, that could be whatever it is. Mr. Imbert: It is interesting, it is a novel approach but I do not think it has the certainty that we require at this point in time. Now, this thing is going to evolve, eh. There is absolutely no doubt that persons who have served in the vineyard may not agree with them, may not even like them—like Sen. Mark—who have served for 15/20 years. They should be entitled to a pension. I agree, I totally agree with the point Sen. Mark made. You have other people who served as Independent Senators for three terms. They too should be entitled to a pension. And there is absolutely no doubt we have to fix that and we have to allow persons who are currently not part of the contributory pension scheme, the option to make a contribution to get themselves into the scheme so they too will qualify for a pension. So I see this as a very progressive move and I think pension arrangements will evolve over time. I hope this is a watershed that if the Parliament can agree to this, I think we could see progression in the future and a lot of anomalies within the pension system cured. So I would like to leave it for certainty at salary and housing allowance. That is my response to you, Sen. Vieira. You are saying other

UNREVISED 264 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 allowances that count for pension but what would they be, Sen. Vieira? Sen. Vieira, what would they be? Sen. Vieira: Well, as you said, not everyone gets the same sort of pension. I think fundamentally we agree that we are looking at a salary related scheme, fundamentally, but in some instances it might be housing, in others it might be entertainment, but it would be for the particular emolument. Mr. Imbert: I understand. I understand what you are saying but I do not think we have enough certainty at this point in time. That is just my respectful response to you, Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: It is just that I know that there are some very strong feelings in certain quarters about the housing allowance. Mr. Imbert: I know, but you have to understand that some salaries are very low. I mean, not very, I mean, it is all relative, okay? But the salary of a judge is significantly lower than the salary of a Cabinet Minister, much lower, okay? So you have to understand the balance of these things. They could pay a judge 60,000 a month and give him no allowances whatsoever. And then if you apply the rule as a percentage of salary he would get a much higher pension. This is what is done in other countries. So this is the thinking and I would seek your acquiescence. We will see in due course whether I have persuaded you. Madam Chairman: Sen. Deonarine. Sen. Deonarine: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon. Minister of Finance, I just have one question. What is the estimated annual cost of this? Mr. Imbert: We have not done an exact cost. We have not, because I was asked a question by—I think it was Sen. Hosein, somebody asked me— Sen. Deonarine: Also I did and Sen. Chote. Mr. Imbert: I know, I know, I am coming to that, I am not avoiding your

UNREVISED 265 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 question. I was asked a question as whether this thing would be retroactive, who would it apply to, would persons get it immediately. The way it is worded they are eligible for it on every fifth anniversary of the date that they retired, but it is going forward, it is not going backward. So if someone retired four years ago they will not get the upgrade until next year. If they retired three years ago, similarly they will not get it two years from now. If they retired more than five years ago, they will get it immediately. So it is different for different categories of legislator and therefore it is difficult to quantify. But what I can tell you, it is nowhere close to the hundreds ofmillions of dollars that we were facing when we were looking at index linking for everyone. It is a very small group of people, I will give you an example. There are only two retired Prime Ministers who are alive now, Mr. Panday and Mrs. Bissessar. There is only one President that is alive, that is Mr. Carmona. So that— how many Chief Justices do we have that are alive, two, right, Mr. Sharma, and Mr. Bernard. Mr. Kelsick has died. Sen. Vieira: de la Bastide. Mr. Imbert: de la Bastide, sorry, three. Mr. de la Bastide. So you have three retired Chief Justices, two retired Prime Ministers, one retired President and then in terms of legislators, you have to understand, legislators do not all get the same pension, I want to make this very clear. You have to serve for five years, you get one-sixth; you serve for eight or nine years, you get up to a quarter and then you go to a third, then you go to a half and then it is after 21 years that you get two-thirds. So the complications are complex but I cannot give you a figure but I do not think it is going to be so onerous that it cannot be afforded. Sen. Deonarine: Okay, one more question, Madam Chair. Mr. Imbert: Sure.

UNREVISED 266 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Sen. Deonarine: Do you have a rough estimate then on the number of persons who would be entitled to this at present or within the next fiscal year? Mr. Imbert: I do not have that information. What I would ask you to do, I do not have that information tonight. I would ask you to just, you can pose it to me informally or formally and I will give you the answer. We are not hiding anything, okay. As a Senator you could pose it to me, as I said, informally or formally and I will provide the information. We have not done the calculation because it also depended on what would be the outcome of all of this, exactly what would happen in the Parliament. Madam Chairman: Sen. Obika. Sen. Obika: Thanks, Madam Chair. Hon. Minister, through you, Madam Chair, in terms of the question of how much it costs, one assumes it may not be a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund because it is a contributory pension. So is it that the pension fund is being managed in such a way that there will be income so the total cost of this pension would not necessarily be borne by the State because the fund is managed separately. Mr. Imbert: Not all of it, not all of it, yes. Sen. Obika: Would it be possible to bring, just as we have the actuarial review for the NIS fund, would it be possible to bring some information on that to the Parliament in due course? Mr. Imbert: I could do that, yes. I have no problem with that. In the interest of full disclosure and I do not mean that facetiously either. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Hon. Minister, I raised the matter about the SRC, but also in the context of the consultancy report that we know that they had engaged in on behalf of the SRC and we are getting reports or vibes I should say, or responses,

UNREVISED 267 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 informally, I should say, that a report is on its way and they are dealing with terms and conditions for all office holders, including Members of Parliament, as it relates to pensions, salaries, and other terms and conditions. I do not know if you are aware of this? Mr. Imbert: I have no knowledge of what is in the next SRC report, but I can tell you that I represented the PNM in several meetings with the SRC over the last 25 years. I distinctly remember during the Panday administration, going to speak on behalf of legislators, Mr. Ken Valley came with me, deceased Ken Valley; Mr. Ganga Singh came with me and we asked them about upgrading the pensions and they told us at the time that that is not their primary concern. And then I remember years later, again, strangely enough, under a UNC Government, I then went representing the PNM, Dr. Moonilal represented the UNC, and also Mr. Hamel-Smith who was then the President of the Senate attended, and I do not know if you were there. Sen. Mark: I remember. Mr. Imbert: You remember, okay, and we went there and again they told us that that is not their primary concern and it has never been. And the reason is that pensions are governed by legislation. So they may tell you one thing, but intrinsically they believe that we should legislate pension. So they do not take it seriously. I am talking about a period of 25 years where they have not looked at pension reform for legislators and other office holders within the SRC. Some 25 years. Madam Chairman: So I am going to allow one final question from Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chairman. Minister, just for clarification, a person who is a retired legislator who would have

UNREVISED 268 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 held, let us just say a portfolio of a Minister and then subsequently he probably would not have been a Minister when he retired. On which salary is his pension going to be calculated on? Mr. Imbert: There are all sorts of different approaches. In the public service, if you serve as a Permanent Secretary for three years, preceding your retirement you get your pension calculated on your salary as a Permanent Secretary. In other jurisdictions, other Commonwealth jurisdictions, it is your highest salary ever, whether you came in and came out of government. Others, they take the average of the last three to five years of your salary and pensionable allowances. In our system, which is what has been there for so many years, the pension is calculated on the highest amount that you ever got. So that former Ministers from the previous administration would benefit as well because they would have at some point in time received emoluments of a Minister at that time, okay? So it is the highest emoluments we ever got. That is what we do in this part of the world. Other parts they average it out, okay? Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Question, on amendment, [Mr. C. Imbert] proposed. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, could I have your proposed amendment to clause 3? Mr. Imbert: Yes. Madam Chairman, I am proposing we delete the words “personal allowance and” in 3(a). So it will read: “…the words, ‘inclusive of housing allowance but’;”—that is it. No personal allowance. Question put. Madam Chairman: Clause 3 be amended as proposed by the Minister of Finance as follows, by deleting at 3(a), the words, “personal allowance and”.

UNREVISED 269 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Question agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4. Question proposed: That clause 4 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: We have amendments circulated by Sen. Mark and the Minister of Finance. Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Yeah, Madam Chair, in this particular clause we have made it very clear and we have not had any further clarification on it. How are we going to determine the housing allowance of the President and without any aspersions being cast, Madam Chair. And particularly when we know that whoever is the President, Madam Chair, the final salary goes as full pension, as the person’s pension, and it is tax free. And therefore, to incorporate into that salary a housing allowance, we find it very, very unacceptable and more importantly, again, even though the Minister has indicated that the SRC does not deal with these matters of pension and over the years, I believe something like what we are talking about here in clause 4, these are matters that ought to be put to the SRC as it relates to the President of this country. We cannot support this proposal. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: I would just say with respect to the Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice, none of the incumbents get a housing allowance. I am just making the point. So we were simply seeking to harmonize, they will not benefit from this as far as I can see, because they do not get one. So we were just seeking to harmonize the words. I would not want to complicate it now and say that we will not use the new definition of “salary” for President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice. They just cannot get it. And in the case of the Prime Minister, although we are not dealing with that clause, I am just talking generally, the SRC does not

UNREVISED 270 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 award a housing allowance for the Prime Minister. He cannot get it, okay? Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, through you, to the hon. Minister, because the former President who has now retired and is the only one alive, you remember when the President did not have proper housing he approached the CPO or the SRC through the CPO and the CPO apparently, Madam Chair, was able to make a determination and at that material point in time, I think it was about 28,000 or 29,000 was proposed. So what I am concerned about here— Mr. Imbert: Let help you. The upgrade is to the salary of the incumbent. Are you seeing that, Sen. Mark? If you look at clause 4— Sen. Mark: Yeah. Mr. Imbert:—which we are amending, the upgrade, if you read it carefully— Sen. Mark: Yes. Mr. Imbert: “(1) A person referred to in section 3(1) is eligible on every fifth anniversary of the date he ceased to be President…equivalent to— (a) the salary payable to the incumbent on that date;” Incumbent does not get a housing allowance. So that the person cannot go backwards in time to a time when they are not eligible for the upgrade. You follow what I am saying? So it would have to be—Sen. Vieira, you wanted to say something? Madam Chairman: Minister, yes, I will callon Sen. Vieira. Mr. Imbert: Oh, I am sorry. No, no, that is all right, sorry about that. So it would have to be a very strange situation where another President sometime in the future, decides to claim a housing allowance. Because you are going up to the salary of the incumbent and if the salary of the incumbent does not include a housing allowance then you cannot get it. Okay? So in that particular case

UNREVISED 271 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 persons cannot get it, unless the incumbent also is claiming a housing allowance. Sen. Mark: Madam Chairman— Mr. Imbert: An unlikely situation. Sen. Mark: One final clarification. Hon. Minister, why are we including personal—well, we have excised it, so I know that it is coming out here. But why are we leaving “housing allowance” when we know that individual will not be entitled to it? 9.45 p.m. Mr. Imbert: I want to put a question, Madam Chairman, through you. Your amendment is to delete the whole clause? Sen. Mark: Yes, I am calling it completely out. Mr. Imbert: So, I mean, if you want to take it all out, why are we having this conversation at this point in time? Sen. Mark: No, I am seeking clarification. Mr. Imbert: No, well, let us have it when we come with my amendment. Sen. Mark: Okay, all right. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira? Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. There is a maxim that when Parliament writes laws, every word has meaning. We do not use words willy-nilly or just—we do not really mean what we say. Now, if it is that we are not having “personal allowance”, and the hon. Minister is on record as saying that there is no “housing allowance”, then really there is no need for 4(a). What 4(a) is seeking to amend is the President’s Emolument Act, section 3(1), and what does that say: “Every person who having been elected President ceases at any time after the election to be President, other than under his removal from office…shall be paid an annual pension equivalent to the full amount of the annual salary received

UNREVISED 272 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 by him at the date he ceased to be President.” That is what we are all happy with. There is no personal allowance; there is no housing allowance. I agree with Sen. Mark. This is otiose. Mr. Imbert: Yes, but you see, can we discuss that when we come to my amendment? Because Sen. Mark’s amendment is delete the whole thing, and that is what we are discussing. He is proposing we take out everything, so there is no point in discussing it. We should be discussing it for a matter of processing my amendment because I am trying to resolve an anomaly that arose and we can deal with that anomaly as well. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, you have circulated an amendment to clause 4. So Minister of Finance, would you like to address the— Mr. Imbert: And I would like to also make a request when I am finished. In 2009 we amended the President’s Emoluments Act and that was for a then living President, Mr. Ellis Clarke, who had a very small pension at the time, because he was a victim of the existing pension arrangements. And with bipartisan support, unanimous, we inserted this concept of a reset or a revised pension every sixth anniversary. At that time a clause was inserted to make it not allowable for a person, having exercised an option for a reduced pension, being three-quarters of the full pension and a gratuity, when they got the reset, to revert to the 100 per cent. So that was the mischief we were trying to cure in 2009. Because if you left it alone, somebody who opted for a reduced pension prior to 2009, when they got the benefit of the revised pension, could then say, “I want 100 per cent.” But they would be different to many other people because they took a gratuity and the 75. So that the mischief we were seeking to cure then was that the person would simply get 75 per cent or three-quarters of the revised pension, and it worked. That

UNREVISED 273 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 is what happened with Ellis Clarke; that has happened with Mr. Hassanali’s widow. It worked. There was no problem. It was applied in that way. It was interpreted in that way and they immediately got 75 per cent of the revised pension. Ten years, no problem at all. Now it appears to be a problem. So we do not want to have any acrimony and contention about this, because there have been allegations that a number of retired judges who took the reduced pension, and retired Prime Ministers who took the reduced pension, will not benefit from the provision because it disqualifies them, because it has words in it that could be interpreted two ways. So we have decided, for the avoidance of doubt, to make it crystal clear what we plan to do. So if you look in the amendment, it says, take out the paragraph (b), that is in the existing Bill, and replace it with the following: In section 3A by repealing subsections (1) and (2) and substituting the following subsection: (1) A person referred to in section 3(1)”—and this would be a retired President—“is eligible on every fifth anniversary of the date he ceased to be President for a revised pension equivalent to— (a) a salary payable to the incumbent on that date;”—which is the full pension—“or (b) three-fourths of the salary payable to the incumbent on that date, where he has exercised the option under section 3(2).” So we are making it crystal clear that if you exercise your option for three-quarters, you will get three-quarters of the revised pension. What I would like to ask, Madam Chairman, since it is a fact that the President is afforded accommodation, the Chief Justice is afforded accommodation and the Prime Minister is afforded accommodation, and would not normally

UNREVISED 274 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 receive a housing allowance, I would like to ask that we defer consideration on clauses 4, 5—well, I am not sure if the Chief Justice is in here, eh, because this is where it begins to get complicated. It gets complicated because the Chief Justice seems to be comingled with all the other judges. So it becomes very complicated. And I would just like to seek some advice. I am tending towards leaving it as is, because they are not going to get it, and then we can always fix it later on to make it clear that the housing allowance improvement cannot possibly apply to the CJ, cannot possibly apply to the Prime Minister, cannot possibly apply to the President, but not now. It is just too complicated, especially with respect to the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act. Actually, I have thought about it and I would like to go with it as is for now, but I give an assurance to this Senate that we will cure that anomaly in the future. Okay? Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein, then Sen. Chote. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I do not understand why we are leaving it, the “personal allowance” and the “housing allowance”. We deleted “personal allowance”. Mr. Imbert: We are deleting “personal allowance”. Sen. S. Hosein: We are deleting “personal”. So housing, why are we legislating something that we do not know whether the person would be entitled to, first to begin with? Secondly, you do not know the amount that if, let us just say they become entitled in the future, what that amount will be. And I think it is not responsible for us as a Parliament to legislate something that is not in existence. Mr. Imbert: So what are you recommending? Sen. S. Hosein: That we delete “housing allowance” also. Madam Chairman: Sen. Chote. Sen. Chote SC: I was about to suggest the same thing. I cannot see any

UNREVISED 275 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 point in leaving it. Mr. Imbert: For the President? Sen. Chote SC: Yes, and Prime Minister. Mr. Imbert: Yes, but the judges’ one will get complicated. So you are saying for 4 and 5, take out housing and leave it with the judges for now. I would like to defer consideration then. I need to receive instructions. Madam Chairman: So you want to stand down 4 and 5? Mr. Imbert: Stand down 4 and 5, yeah. Madam Chairman: So clauses 4 and 5 are deferred for further consideration. Clause 4 deferred. Clause 5 deferred. Clause 6. Question proposed: That clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Yes, Madam Chair. Again, under—well, I know that we have maintained our position, Madam Chair, as it relates to these. Now, we know that the retired judges, they need some support, but again, that is a matter—and this is applying to both retired judges and current judges from what we have here in clause 6. Again, it is our view that this is a matter that properly should be referred to a more independent body for adjudication. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: I cannot agree with that. I think Sen. Mark was with me when we went to the SRC, 15—however many years ago it was—not 15, sorry, about seven years ago, when they told us point-blank that they have other priorities. This will never happen. If you leave it up to the SRC to adjudicate on pensions—

UNREVISED 276 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 because these things are all governed by legislation. They told us flat out they do not have the resources. You were right there with me. You would have to amend a series of bits of legislation of persons who fall within the 2,000 or so offices that are under the purview of the SRC. They said so point-blank, seven years ago. They “doh” have time for this and they “doh” have the resources for this. And they told me that 25 years ago. So if you leave this up to the SRC, no change will ever occur. So I cannot agree with Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Well, we disagree on that one. Madam Chair, may I ask the hon. Minister again, these retired judges, as you said earlier, if they would have retired, let us say, four years ago, are you advising us that for those judges one year from now, this particular provision would become applicable to those judges? Mr. Imbert: Again, Madam Chairman, I would ask that we deal with that in my amendment, because Sen. Mark’s amendment is delete everything. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, you have circulated an amendment to clause 6 as well? In paragraph (c), delete the new section 11A and substitute the following new section: “ 11A. A person, including a retired Judge, is Review eligible on every fifth anniversary of the date he ceased to of be a Judge for a revised pension – pension (a) calculated on the basis of the pensionable emoluments payable to the incumbent on that date; or (b) at the rate of three-fourths of the revised pension payable under paragraph (a), where he has exercised the option under section 11(1).”

UNREVISED 277 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Mr. Imbert: It is exactly as we did for the other office holders where we are making it crystal clear that if a retired Judge has exercised the option for a reduced pension of three-fourths of the full pension, that they would be entitled to it. And now to answer Sen. Mark’s question, the law is quite clear. A person referred to—let me go to the one that deals with judges: “A person, including a retired Judge, is eligible on every fifth anniversary of the date he ceased to be a Judge for a revised pension.” It is clear. So it is five years after you cease to be a judge you are entitled to a revised pension, and then you get whatever the existing incumbent’s emoluments are. And also— Sen. Mark: May I ask the hon. Minister— Mr. Imbert: Just hold on, hold on, hold on. I also need to take out the “personal allowance” in clause 6. So we also need to delete the words in 6(a) “personal allowance and”. That has to come out as well, in addition to what we have here. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: I think Sen. Mark was speaking about the language. If you were just to say: A retired Judge is eligible on every fifth anniversary of the date he ceased to be a Judge. It is cleaner; it is clearer and it is exactly what this section is trying to say here, instead of saying “A person, including a retired Judge.” I come back to the canons of construction because it is an important point, because we are taking collective responsibility for this legislation. It says: Every word in an enactment is to be given meaning and where no sensible meaning can be given, it must then be disregarded.

UNREVISED 278 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

This is from Bennion on Statutory Interpretation. Mr. Imbert: Well, I have Macintyre on statutory interpretation next to me. Sen. Vieira: I have great respect for my friend— Mr. Imbert: I am not arguing with you, but I have— Sen. Vieira: And I know Macintyre is going to support us. Mr. Imbert: I have Macintyre on statutory interpretation, and the point he has made is that the person is no longer a judge. They are no longer a judge, so you have to say that. That is what he is telling me. That is why you have that construct of words. You have to say “A person, including a retired judge”. Okay? All right? I have Macintyre on an interpretation here. [Laughter] Madam Chairman: So hon. Senators, the question is that clause 6 be amended as circulated by the Minister of Finance and further amended by deleting at 6(a) the words “personal allowance and”. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7. Question proposed: That clause 7 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: There is an amendment circulated by Sen. Mark. Hon. Senators: Yes, yes. [Desk thumping] Sen. Mark: I think, Madam Chair—[Desk thumping] Madam Chair, through you, I think the masses have spoken. I think the Minister has heard the masses and I have no choice but to hear the masses in myself. So I wish to withdraw my particular clause— Sen. S. Hosein: Let us vote on it. [Crosstalk] Let us vote on it. Let us vote on clause 7. Sen. Mark: No, no. I think the Minister is withdrawing clause—

UNREVISED 279 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Sen. Ameen: No, no, no. Your amendment is to delete clause 7. Madam Chairman: So Sen. Mark has withdrawn his amendment. Minister of Finance? Mr. Imbert: Yes. [Crosstalk] Relax, relax. Hold up. Based on the cogent arguments of Sen. Chote, Sen. Thompson-Ahye, Sen. Deonarine, Sen. Richards and any other Senator that I have left out— Sen. Thompson-Ahye: Good sense has prevailed. [Laughter] Mr. Imbert: Yes. The Government is proposing that we delete clause 7 [Desk thumping] and renumber the other clauses accordingly. Question put. [Crosstalk] Madam Chairman: Members, please, please. Sen. Richards? Sen. Richards: Just to say, through you, thank you, Minister, for listening to the concerns. We appreciate it. Mr. Imbert: Due to the cogent arguments of Sen. Chote, [Laughter] Sen. Richards, Sen. Deonarine, Sen. Thompson-Ahye, and anybody else that I have not named that made a contribution—[Crosstalk] Madam Chairman: Members, can I just please— Sen. Mark:—that we had moved for a deletion. Hon. Senators: Yes. Madam Chairman: I know that there is joy in the air, but there will be more joy in my air if I were allowed to just complete the clauses. Question put and agreed to. Clause 7 deleted. Clause 8. Question proposed: That clause 8 stand part of the Bill. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, we have a very strong position on this matter.

UNREVISED 280 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

We do not support the Government’s policy as it relates to this particular decision to excise or exempt certain categories of persons, especially migrant workers and maybe other temporary workers. And more importantly, Madam Chair, the Minister has not provided to this Senate any evidence of the categories of persons, or category of persons, that the Government intends to excise. But at any rate, we are opposed to undermining the current law that would deny persons the right to contribute to NIS and, at the same time, be entitled to some degree—some amount of benefits consistent with their contributions and in accordance with the NIS and the NIB law. So we reject completely this particular clause. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: There is no way that for transient workers who are here in Trinidad and Tobago for a short time, that their benefits would be consistent with their contributions. That is practically impossible. If someone is only here for a short period of time—and many of the current group of migrants would be earning in the lower scales of the NIS scheme, and you looking at possible contributions of, maybe $15, $20 a week—there is no way that the contribution income that the fund will derive from these persons could possibly counteract the possible benefits that they may claim, and this is why we have done this. And to deal with a matter raised by Sen. Mark, we have an amendment which I guess I will deal with afterwards? Madam Chairman: Yes. Mr. Imbert: Okay. So I have an amendment. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, may I ask the hon. Minister for another clarification on my particular clause? Hon. Minister, you would be aware that this policy is clashing with our international obligations under the International Labour Organization. And I refer specifically to Convention 143 on migrant labour. Even

UNREVISED 281 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 though we have not been a signatory there, but because we are a member of the ILO we are bound by that Convention, and Convention 100 that deals with discrimination in the area of employment and occupation, and Convention 111. Madam Chair, I just bring these matters to the attention of the hon. Minister so that he can be aware that this particular decision that we are about to take is going to clash with our International obligations under the International Labour Organization. I rest my case. Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, the question is— Mr. Imbert: Madam President, I would like to answer that, because he has put some statements into the record which are just not true. Madam Chairman: Minister. Mr. Imbert: It is trite law that international treaties are not binding unless they are incorporated into our domestic laws, and there are several stages in treaty obligations as well. You may have signatory, then you have ratification and then you have incorporation into domestic law. There are numerous ILO obligations, as Sen. Mark has called them, that have no force of law in Trinidad and Tobago and are not binding on any government; were not binding on the previous government; not binding on this Government. It is easy to say these things. It sounds nice, you know, that these are our international obligations, but there is no obligation on the part of Trinidad and Tobago to allow persons who are here for a very short time to access huge benefits. And I want to make the point of one particular benefit. A person only has to make a contribution of $11—$11—because that is the lowest end of the contribution scale, for one week—$11—and then would be eligible for an injury benefit for one year at two-thirds of their salary. So if somebody is getting $5,000 a month—let us use $3,000 as the

UNREVISED 282 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 proportion. Someone would get $3,000 a month for one year. That is $36,000 out of the fund, having contributed $11. There is no way that the fund was ever designed to deal with that. There is no way the fund was designed to deal with somebody who has made 10 contributions, which should be $110 at the lowest level, and then be eligible for medical expenses of $33,000. It will crash the fund. These things sound nice, you know. They sound nice, but it is not practical. I told hon. Senators, the fund was in deficit in 2018 by $226 million, and it is continuing to be in deficit because we have an ageing population, less and less persons are joining the NIS scheme, more and more persons are becoming eligible for benefits. People are living longer and that is why in 2018 the contribution income was $226 million less than the pay-outs from the fund. The NIB is now dipping into its income that it has earned from the fund. And you have heard all the talk that if we do not do something about this, that in 20 years or so, the fund would be completely depleted. I think the Government must—any responsible government must—reserve for itself the ability to look at something holistically and determine on a balance of probability whether one should register transient workers or not. You cannot just say “international obligations”. Those are buzz words. You cannot just say, “We have signed up to treaties.” Those are buzz words. You have to be realistic. If we allow any and everybody who is here for a small period, to access these huge benefits from NIS, then we would be jeopardizing citizens of Trinidad and Tobago who—our first loyalty is to citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. So that, that is why we have come with this amendment. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: And as much as I sympathize with Sen. Mark on this point on humanitarian grounds, the fact is, even in rich progressive countries like Canada

UNREVISED 283 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 and in the States, they are cutting back because you have to be responsible with frugal resources. Madam Chairman: Sen. Richards. Sen. Richards: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I also want to just endorse the perspective of the Minister, because in this situation, from my understanding, it is envisioned to provide a respite for a category of persons who are under strife in their country, and there may be implications for having this sort of arrangement if they are to go back to their country after that envisioned period is ended. So I think it would be opening a kind of Pandora’s Box down the road. And it is not that Trinidad and Tobago has not been humanitarian in its approach to this crisis. Sen. Mark: Madam, I would not make any further interventions after— Sen. Ameen: Madam Chairman— Sen. Mark: Before you speak, please. Sen. Ameen: Sorry. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, it is a false—it is a flawed policy and I do not subscribe to what the Minister has said and I can tell him that even though we have not domesticated our ILO Conventions international legislation, or law, we are obliged and there are consequences. I will say no more. All I can tell you is that the ILO is watching on and we shall report this Government to the ILO on this matter. Madam Chairman: Sen. Ameen. Sen. Ameen: Thank you, Madam President. I just want the Minister to consider that migrants labour is already very cheap and making the NIS payment not compulsory for migrants, it gives the employers a preference to hire migrants as opposed to locals. The Minister mentioned the need for— Madam Chairman: But Senator—

UNREVISED 284 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Sen. Ameen: So my question is— Madam Chairman: Yes. Please ask a question. Sen. Ameen: My question is, Minister: Is there a way, or is there any intention to include in the Orders, perhaps providing a limitation for the benefits that a non-national could receive while still allowing that the non-national to contribute to the fund, so that— Madam Chairman: Sen. Ameen, may I just interrupt you here, please? Because right now we are dealing with Sen. Mark’s amendment which was to delete clause 8. So that is what we are dealing with. The questions that you are asking are not really arising out of Sen. Mark’s proposed amendment. Okay? There will be an opportunity to ask after we deal with the amendment. Okay? Sen. Ameen: Sure. I will appreciate that. Thank you. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, you have proposed an amendment to clause 8 and can you speak to clause 8 and the amendment, please? Mr. Imbert: Yes. This arose from a statement made by Sen. Mark where he was concerned that the Order could affect persons who are already registered with the national insurance scheme, and a government might decide to exempt people who are already in the system and this could create all sorts of problems, both for the fund and for the persons themselves. So we are proposing an amendment that reads as follows: The employment of such category of persons during such period as the President may by Order prescribe, except that an Order under this paragraph shall not affect a person who is registered under subsection (1) prior to the coming into force of the Order. What this means is that everybody in the system now cannot be affected by

UNREVISED 285 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 any order made by the Cabinet. 10.15 p.m. Madam Chairman: Sen. Ameen, you want to raise your question now? Sen. Ameen: Yes. Madam Chairman, it is for the consideration of the Minister to make a provision to allow—in order to even the playing field and to prevent employers having an incentive to employ migrants over locals, to allow non-nationals to contribute to the fund but for them to be entitled to different benefits. Because you indicated that the concern was that a migrant could make a contribution, one contribution of about $11 and then benefit, which is, of course, an extreme case, does not happen all the time. Mr. Imbert: Nothing extreme about that. Sen. Ameen: We will have hundreds or perhaps thousands of contributions going into the fund and not everybody will make a claim. But my concern is not to argue that but to ask if we could have a provision to perhaps make the amount a migrant will be entitled to different to a local if you feel it will be a drain on the system but still allow contributions to be made so that the playing field is even, the cost of labour and the cost to the employer is the same whether he employs a migrant or a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago. The provision as it is, it is an incentive for employers to employ migrants instead of citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Madam Chairman: Minister. Mr. Imbert: The amendment is not designed as an incentive to anyone. The proposal, it is designed to protect the national insurance fund. It would just be too complicated to frame an amendment along the lines that Sen. Ameen has suggested because there are a lot of policy considerations there. Which benefit would you say they are not entitled to? Sickness? Death? Maternity? Injury?

UNREVISED 286 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Invalidity? That is a very complicated policy issue. Very difficult to separate which one you should let them have, which one you should not let them have. So that at this point in time, we wish to give ourselves the flexibility to exempt transient workers from contributions or being part of the fund for a particular period—it is not forever, it is for a period—because you want to protect Trinidad and Tobago contributors to the fund. So I am sorry, I cannot agree to the amendment proposed by Sen. Ameen. Madam Chairman: So hon. Senators, the question is that clause 8 be amended as circulated by the Minister of Finance. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9. Question proposed: That clause 9 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Yes, Madam Chair, we do not believe—and in fact I believe that the hon. Minister has recognized the need to open up the Central Bank and maybe one of the ways of opening up the Central Bank to the kind of information that the hon. Minister is seeking at this time to secure, is to amend or to issue an order or make an amendment to the law that would bring the Central Bank back into the fold of the Freedom of Information Act and at the same time, preserve its autonomy, limited as it may be, its operational independence and no further incursions by the Minister of Finance, whether it is the hon. Minister today or another Minister tomorrow. So I believe that the only—the best way to cure this defect or mischief that the Minister is attempting to address is to amend the Freedom of Information Act to address this matter. Other than that, Madam Chairman, we believe that the

UNREVISED 287 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Minister needs to be protected from the kind of hostility that is emerging, and he can only protect himself by withdrawing this particular provision through its deletion and by amending the Freedom of Information Act to allow him to get that information. So our position is that we do not support this amendment to the Central Bank Act as being proposed by the Minister. And, Madam Chairman, it is highly dangerous. It leaves a lot of possibilities that the Minister may not intend but the mere fact that the Minister is going retroactively for information, it causes a lot of concern. We think that the Minister should allow good sense to prevail and withdraw clause 9 at this time. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. Section 56 is couched in such a clumsy way when it says: “…every director, officer and employee of the Bank shall preserve and aid in preserving secrecy with regard to all matters…” “All matters” means exactly that. I do not think that there is any animosity or conflict between government and the bank. It is just that the way that the law is interpreted there, even if they wanted to share it, they could not because there are penal provisions for breaching this section. In fact, if you look at Part VI, the relations between government and the bank, you will see there are many opportunities for sharing information, agreeing terms mutually: “The bank shall keep the Minister informed of the monetary and banking policy…” The bank is the agent of the Government. So I do not think it was ever intended to exclude what is clearly just an administrative request and so I see nothing sinister with this, I think that is a necessary amendment.

UNREVISED 288 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Mr. Imbert: Thank you very much, Sen. Vieira. Madam Chairman: No, just a second, Minister. Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: Yes, please. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to join issue with Sen. Mark with respect to this amendment. In particular, I have gotten no solid rationale from the Minister with respect to this particular amendment. I also do not accept the argument of the Minister that if the information comes into the Minister’s hand, it will now be subject to an FOIA and that the information can be accessed through an ordinary citizen through an FOIA if the Minister has the information. Because in this particular instance, the public authority is not the Minister, the public authority will be the Central Bank and the Minister would have said this in his wrap up that if the information is given to the Minister, it becomes that of public record and that it can be accessed by an ordinary citizen. So I do not accept that argument by the Minister. I also believe, Madam Chairman, and I stand firmly on this, that we have to preserve the independence of the Central Bank from any political interference, especially by elected Members. And those are the two issues I respectfully raise and submit with respect to clause 9 of this particular Bill. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Somehow I do not understand where Sen. Hosein is coming from. The Freedom of Information Act is clear. Any document or record that is in the possession of a public authority is subject to disclosure, so from the time I request the Central Bank to tell me what the salaries of the officers of the bank are, it becomes a document in my possession and then anybody can ask me for the document. These things are so straightforward, it is not funny. I do not know how Sen. Hosein could put an interpretation on that that documents that I have received—which is what applies to all public authorities, it is documents in their

UNREVISED 289 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 possession. So I have received it from the bank, it is now in my possession and someone can apply for me to disclose it to them as a document in my possession under the Freedom of Information Act. I do not understand why he does not understand that. Sen. Vieira is absolutely right, this is just administrative information. There is nothing sinister in this. This does not allow me to set the terms and conditions of the employees of the bank, it is simply gathering important information that the public has a right to know and they will find out through me. Because once I get it, they can ask me for it, someone in this House can ask me for it, someone in the other place can ask me for it, and now I have no reason not to disclose it. I tried to disclose it to Sen. Obika, he asked the question—and this is what bothers me about the UNC, you know. Which part of the UNC am I speaking to? Sen. Obika asked me a question: “What is the salary of the Governor of the Central Bank”? I tried to get the information, I wrote the Governor of the Central Bank; I said I have been asked this question in the Parliament, I produced the question for the Governor, I said, “this is what Sen. Obika is asking me”. “Could you please provide me with the information?” And he wrote me back, he said he has sought legal advice and he has been advised that section 56 prohibits him from disclosing information to me. So I am sorry, I cannot agree. Madam Chairman: I will now put the question on Sen. Mark’s proposed amendment. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, I believe that you have circulated an amendment to clause 9. Mr. Imbert: An amendment to clause 9? It is just a typographical correction where we are simply changing (6)—sorry, (1) to (6)? We are changing

UNREVISED 290 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 in Part VII, the section 56 is amended in subsection (7), and it says: “A request under subsection (1)…” It should be subsection (6). So I just want to change (1) to (6) in the (7) part of this. Madam Chairman: So hon. Senators, the question is that clause 9 be amended as circulated by the Minister of Finance. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11. Question proposed: That clause 11 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, you have circulated an amendment? Sen. Mark: Yeah, we do not believe that the Minister should be having this kind of flexibility at this time and we do not have any supervision over the Minister on these matters so we do not support this particular provision. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: This provision is in response to statements made by hon. Senators, including Sen. Mark and many others in the society who said there needs to be consultation with the non-profit organizations before you implement the Act. I find it incredible that the UNC asked for this to be postponed for consultation, we have put in an amendment to allow a postponement and they are objecting to it, so I cannot possibly agree with Sen. Mark. This is to allow consultation to take place with NGOs before the requirements for financial accounting are imposed on them. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: And it also works in favour of the NGOs because it gives them a little breathing space and respite.

UNREVISED 291 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Madam Chairman: So hon. Senators, the question is that clause 11 be amended as circulated by Sen. Mark. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Question put and agreed to. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Minister, we have deferred consideration of clauses— Mr. Imbert: What I wanted to do with 4 and 5, I need to get instructions, so if you could suspend maybe just for about 10 minutes, so I could get instructions? Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, the deliberations of the committee will be suspended for 10 minutes. 10.30 p.m.: Committee suspended. 10.44 p.m.: Committee resumed. Clause 4 reintroduced. Madam Chairman: Minister, we are reverting to clause 4 which was stood down. We had dealt with the amendment as proposed by Sen. Mark and now we are dealing with the amendment as proposed by the Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Are we dealing with Sen. Mark’s— Madam Chairman: We had dealt with that already. Mr. Imbert: So we are on which one? 4? Madam Chairman: Clause 4, your amendment. Mr. Imbert: Yeah, I have sought advice, I have consulted but it is a little complicated because in the President’s terms and conditions, there is a reference to a housing allowance in lieu of accommodation and the point was made to me, suppose the President’s residence was destroyed by fire, by earthquake or something, then the President would have to seek accommodation and be entitled

UNREVISED 292 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 to a housing allowance, so for now, I would like to leave it. As I said, I give the Senate the assurance that we will, when we are coming back with the amendment to incorporate Senators without portfolio into the pension scheme, that I will have enough time to look at that but I would like to leave it for now because in the President’s terms, there is a provision for a housing allowance in lieu of accommodation so I would like to leave clause 4 as proposed in this amendment here. Madam Chairman: So you are leaving in the words “personal allowance”? Mr. Imbert: No, take out “personal allowance”. I am sorry, you are very sharp, Madam Chairman. Remove the words “personal allowance and”. That really is a colonial relic, I accept that, that is true. That should go. So in 4, we will take out the words “personal allowance and”, okay, and then make the amendment that I am proposing here to make it clear that a retired President who opted for three-quarters can only get three-quarters of the upgraded pension. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and for the record, we are not in support of this particular clause of the Bill, the both, part (a) and (b). Part (a) being the inclusion of the housing allowance to calculate the pension as the definition of “salary” and secondly, there is no existence of indexation of pension against inflation with respect to any other workers in this country, and I am saying that we are totally against this, especially in this harsh economic time with so many persons who have lost their jobs and the failing economy. Madam Chairman, we cannot in any good faith whatsoever support this particular amendment. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, I do think I gave Sen. Thompson-Ahye the

UNREVISED 293 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 assurance that indexation of other pensions must come when we can afford it. Okay? Must come. Madam Chairman: So hon. Senators, the question is that clause 4 be amended as circulated by the Minister of Finance and further amended at 4(a) by deleting the words “personal allowance and”. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5. Question proposed: That clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, you have circulated an amendment? Sen. Mark: Yeah, Madam Chair, again this is even worse than what we have just dealt with. The Prime Minister, as the hon. Minister has intimated, does not receive a housing allowance. There is no provision whatsoever in the SRC report delineating or designating any amount for housing. The Prime Minister is provided with full accommodation and paid for by the taxpayers. So it is really completely out of line, it is totally inexplicable for us to include a provision for housing. We remove “personal allowance” as well as “housing allowance” for this particular officeholder. We removed personal allowance, as well as housing allowance for this particular office holder. We do not believe that those things should be included. 10.50 p.m. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: The fact is, Madam Chairman, the Prime Minister's emoluments, as they currently exist are anomalous. Other high office holders—the President, who is higher than the Prime Minister; the Chief Justice, who is just a little bit below—they get fully furnished accommodation or a housing allowance in

UNREVISED 294 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 lieu. I made the point that you could have the destruction of the residence of any one of these three people by some natural disaster. It could be a fire. It could be an earthquake. And, therefore, the person would have to seek alternative accommodation and get the housing allowance in lieu. It is clearly an oversight. If the SRC in its wisdom over all the many, many years had looked at the fact that there is a President's House and had decided that there may be a time when President's House is not available and, therefore, they would provide a housing allowance in lieu, and similarly for the Chief Justice, who is entitled to super-grade quarters. Again, they have looked at that and said there may be a time when a Chief Justice is unable to access state housing and, therefore, they have a housing allowance in lieu. It is clearly an oversight with respect to the Prime Minister. He does not get it now. But who knows, it may be an option in the future, in lieu of state accommodations. Who knows? I do not know. So, therefore, I would like to leave it as is. The person will not get it at this point in time. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam Chairman, it is irresponsible for us to include a benefit that does not exist in law. Madam Chairman, for the President, when you look at the SRC Report, you see that there is a $28,000 housing allowance. For judges, the same. For the Chief Justice, 28; puisne judge, 24. But for the Prime Minister, there is no value of a housing allowance. How can you then include housing allowance as part of the salary? It is totally unacceptable. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein, though, I think we are right now dealing with Sen. Mark's— Sen. S. Hosein: Yes, please. Madam Chairman:—amendment. Sen. Mark's proposed amendment is to delete the clause in its entirety.

UNREVISED 295 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Sen. S. Hosein: Yes, please, Madam Chairman. I am saying that I want it to be deleted entirely, because we are not agreeing to any increase for the Prime Minister's pension whatsoever. And especially based on this ground where the salary definition is used to calculate the pension. Personal allowance is gone and we are asking for the housing allowance to also be deleted, and I stand firmly on this ground, because again I say— Madam Chairman: No, well— Sen. S. Hosein:—it is an obscene clause in this entire Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein, please. Please, please accept my guidance as we move through the committee stage. Okay? Minister of Finance, do you have anything else to add? Mr. Imbert: Yes I do. I do. In the other place, several UNC MPs asked me to make sure that retired Prime Ministers, of which the only two who have retired are UNC, benefit from these provisions. So I do not know which section of the UNC I am supposed to listen to. Sen. S. Hosein: Madam Chairman, I do not know if that is true. Because I looked at the entire committee stage and I do not think that is true whatsoever. This is not any self-serving House for anybody to confer any benefit upon themselves, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: It is just to correct the record. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: Yes, please. Madam Chairman: Okay. I will now put the question on the amendment as proposed by Sen. Mark. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived.

UNREVISED 296 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, do you need to speak further on your proposed amendment? Mr. Imbert: Yes, Madam Chairman. I was actually accused by UNC MPs of victimizing the former two retired UNC Prime Ministers by not ensuring that they would get these benefits. I was accused by Opposition MP for Oropouche East of being malicious and victimizing Mrs. Persad-Bissessar and Mr. Panday by not affording them the improved pension benefits. I just want to put that on the record. And what we are going to do here is take out the personal allowance. As I said, it is clearly an oversight because, in the same way the President is given housing in lieu, the Chief Justice is given housing in lieu, and it obviously contemplates a situation where the official residence of the Chief Justice and the official residence of the President are not available and the person has to seek their own accommodation and therefore they get a housing allowance in lieu. That could easily happen to the Prime Minister as well. As a fact, I remember when the current residence of the Prime Minister was being constructed. They had demolished the old one, and then deceased Mr. Manning had to seek alternative accommodation at that time. And that was an anomaly, and we in fact had to have a Cabinet decision. I was a Member of the Cabinet, so I can speak with authority, that when the old Prime Minister's residence was demolished, Mr. Manning had to seek alternative accommodation and we had to sit as a Cabinet and make arrangements for that, because it did not exist—that situation where that residence was demolished and there was no residence of the Prime Minister—did not exist in the SRC recommendations and, therefore, we as a Cabinet had to make a Cabinet decision to provide the kind of financial support as was required for Mr. Manning at that time. And he was out of the residence in St.

UNREVISED 297 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Ann's, the old residence, for over six months. So I can speak from experience. It is clearly an oversight, because there will be times when these state official residences are not available. So I would like to keep it as is. Madam President: Sen Hosein? Sen. S. Hosein: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And for the record, in the other place, an amendment was moved by the Leader of the Opposition to delete this entire clause. So it is not entirely correct for the Minister of Finance to come and say that there was victimization. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to— Mr. Imbert: I did not say that. Sen. S. Hosein:—delete this particular clause that dealt with the Prime Minister's Pensions Act amendment. For the record, we do not support this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, I need to respond to that. Sen. S. Hosein: I gave you your time. I did not interrupt. Madam Chairman, when you look at this, this is also again an amendment with respect to indexation, and we cannot agree with this amendment for the reasons stated before. It is quite misleading what the Minister is saying, Madam Chairman, with respect to this, and we believe again this is a very obscene amendment and clause with regard to our economic situation. And for the record, we will not be supporting this particular clause. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. [Crosstalk] Sen. Mark: Yeah, Madam Chair— Madam Chairman: No. Please. Members, we are almost—we are nearing the end of our deliberations. I would ask Members to please hold it together, and please let me be able to hear what is being put forward. Okay? Sen. Mark.

UNREVISED 298 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Sen. Mark: Yeah, Madam Chair, I think the hon. Minister would agree with me that nowhere in the law, and nowhere in any report, is there a provision of housing allowance for an incumbent Prime Minister. If it is that the Minister is suggesting that the incumbent needs to be—that particular allowance needs to be looked at, then this matter should be referred to the SRC for deliberation because they do deal with housing allowances, as reflected in their report. But for us as legislators to be speculative on a matter of what may take place in the future, which currently does not exist in law or in a report, I think it is highly irresponsible. And, therefore, Madam President, I cannot and we will not be able to support any such proposal for inclusion of a housing allowance, as well as what my colleague said earlier about indexation. Madam Chairman: Sen. Ameen. Sen. Ameen: Thank you. Madam Chairman, I just want to join in agreement. The example given by the Minister with former Prime Minister Patrick Manning—at the time he was a sitting Prime Minister—this is not an instance of a retired Prime Minister. So, that does not strengthen your argument. But Madam, Chairman, the other offices that are being considered, the Chief Justice and the President, there is a housing allowance already in place, and the Opposition has indicated that we cannot support something that is based upon a non-existent provision. Madam Chairman: Okay, I think—yes, Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: I just want to reiterate the public record will show that Opposition MP Roodal Moonilal accused me of victimizing UNC retired Prime Ministers and demanded that I fixed. And in fact this amendment we are on right now, this one, they demanded, and the Opposition Leader made the point that there will be retired Prime Ministers who took the reduced pension, and she wanted to

UNREVISED 299 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17 make sure that we were not going to victimize a retired Prime Minister who took that option by not incorporating an amendment of this nature. And this here, this amendment, to make it crystal clear, that the retired Prime Minister will get the three-fourths of the upgraded pension was actually in response to something the Leader of the Opposition UNC, requested of me. Question, on amendment, [Mr. C. Imbert] put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 reintroduced. Mr. Imbert: We have to take out the words—in recognition of the Government's agreement—who listened to the Independent Senators. [Crosstalk] Well, I did. That is who I listened to. They made very good arguments. They were not political. They were intellectual and they made sense. Okay? So I listened to the Independent Senators. And in recognition of the very powerful arguments of the Independent Senators, I wish to amend the title of the Bill to delete the words “Freedom of Information”. Gone. Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, the— Sen. S. Hosein: Madam Chair, may I? Just for the record, I would just like to recognize every single stakeholder, every single NGO, every single citizen, Opposition— Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein, Sen. Hosein— Sen. S. Hosein: Opposition MPs and parliamentarians. Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein, Sen. Hosein. Sen. S. Hosein: For the record, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman: No, Sen. Hosein, no. Sen. S. Hosein:—who expressed concern.

UNREVISED 300 Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Madam Chairman: No, Sen. Hosein. No, Sen. Hosein. Not at this stage, please. Okay? Sen. S. Hosein: I was just responding to the Minister— Madam Chairman: Sen. Hosein, please. Hon. Members, the question is that clause 1 be amended by deleting the words “Freedomof Information”. Mr. Imbert: And the long title too. That is not clause 1, the actual long title itself. Madam Chairman: That would be consequential amendments. Mr. Imbert: I do not need to say that? Madam Chairman: No. Mr. Imbert: Okay, fine. Madam Chairman: That is my understanding. Mr. Imbert: It is okay. I defer. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to: That the Bill be reported to the Senate. Senate resumed. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much, Madam President. I wish to report that a Bill entitled the Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019, was considered in committee of the whole and approved with amendments. I also wish to report that the title of the Bill was amended, since we took out “Freedom of Information”, to read as follows: An Act to provide for a tax amnesty in relation to certain revenue laws and

UNREVISED 301 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019 to amend the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act, Chap. 2:03;the President's Emoluments Act, Chap. 2:50; the Prime Minister's Pensions Act, Chap. 2:51; the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act, Chap. 6:02; the National Insurance Act, Chap. 32:01; the Central Bank Act, Chap. 79:02; the Companies Act, Chap. 81:01; and the Non-Profit Organisations Act, 2019 (Act No. 7 of 2019). I now beg to move that the Senate agree with the committee's report, Standing Order 69(1). Question put and agreed to. Bill reported, with amendment. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. Sen. Mark: We want a division, Ma'am. The Senate divided: Ayes 20 Noes 6 AYES Khan, Hon. F. Gopee-Scoon, Hon. P. Rambharat, Hon. C. Sinanan, Hon. R. Moses, Hon. D. Hosein, Hon. K. West, Hon. A. Le Hunte, Hon. R. Henry, Dr. L. Singh, A. De Freitas, N.

UNREVISED 302 Miscellaneous Provisions (Tax 2019.06.17 Amnesty, Pensions, Freedom of Information, National Insurance, Central Bank, Companies and Non-Profit Organisations) Bill, 2019

Cummings, F. Young, N. Inniss, W. Borris, H. Richards, P. Chote SC, Ms. S. Vieira, A. Thompson-Ahye, Mrs. H. Phillips, Ms. Z. NOES Mark, W. Haynes, Ms. A. Ameen, Ms. K. Hosein, S. Obika, T. Sobers, S. The following Senators abstained: Dr. V. Deyalsingh, Ms. A. Deonarine and Ms. C. Seepersad.

Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read the third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries (Sen. The Hon. Franklin Khan): Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I beg to move that this

UNREVISED 303 Adjournment (cont’d) 2019.06.17

Senate do now adjourn to Monday, the 24th of June, 2019, at 1.30 p.m. We will be dealing with two Bills on that day, a Bill to amend the Petroleum Act and Petroleum Production Levy and Subsidy Act, and a Bill to amend the Firearms Act. Madam President: Hon. Senators, before I put the question on the adjournment, leave has been granted for two matters to be raised. Sen. Mark. Tobago House of Assembly (Investigation into Cost Overruns) Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you. Madam President, the first matter I want to address deals with the need for an appropriate investigation for determining the causes and holding persons to account for the numerous cost overruns on recent capital projects under the Tobago House of Assembly. Madam President, there is an absence of accountability in the Tobago House of Assembly as it relates to capital projects. What we have witnessed is a situation where major projects have been undertaken by the Tobago House of Assembly and there appears to be little concern for the effective management of these projects, resulting in what can only be described as obscene cost overruns on some of the projects that I would like to identify this evening, tonight. Madam President, I draw to your attention the Shaw Park Complex. This project has an amount spent in excess of the original estimate amounting to $900 million. That is a rough estimate of the cost overrun for one project, Shaw Park Complex. And, Madam President, it is business as usual in Tobago, under the Tobago House of Assembly. No one has been held accountable. No one has been held responsible for this huge cost overrun. In the case of the Victor Bruce Financial Complex, which was built some time ago, the estimated cost overrun was close to $100 million. In the case of the

UNREVISED 304 Tobago House of Assembly 2019.06.17 (Investigation into Cost Overruns Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Scarborough Library, Madam President, another project undertaken by the Tobago House of Assembly, the cost overrun is estimated or has been estimated at over $200 million. The Charlotteville Fishing Facility, the excess amount of money spent, when compared to the original estimate, is some $7 million. And when it comes to the Scarborough Hospital, Madam President, the cost overrun that we have is close to $700 million. So, Madam President, when we look at just—we look at the hospital laundry, there is another cost overrun in excess of $10 million.

[MR. VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair] Mr. Vice-President, we are talking about just two, four, six projects and we have already a cost overrun of close to $2 billion. This is a substantial cost overrun. It is a substantial amount of money. And, Mr. Vice-President, there has been no accountability in Tobago for these huge cost overruns. And do you know what we understand is going to take place? This Government has now given the THA the all-clear to go and raise money on the open market, in light of all that I have outlined here, Mr. Vice-President. So there is need for accountability in the Tobago House of Assembly. Mr. Vice-President, I have been advised that as we speak, contracts are being issued to selected persons without any advertisement, no tendering or invitation to tender. And that has to do, Mr. Vice-President, with agricultural access roads, repair to bridges. It is who you know in Tobago and if you belong to the PNM you get a contract without tender. 11.20 p.m. Mr. Vice-President, that cannot be right. There is need for more—there is

UNREVISED 305 Tobago House of Assembly 2019.06.17 (Investigation into Cost Overruns Sen. Mark (cont’d) need for accountability in that place called the Tobago House of Assembly. [Desk thumping] And the people of Tobago are communicating with us because they are fed-up with what is taking place in that particular island, [Desk thumping] and they want the UNC to speak on their behalf, because the people who represent Tobago in the Parliament are silent on these cost overruns, So we have to take up the battle for the people of Tobago. Mr. Vice-President, I believe the time has come for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to launch a criminal forensic audit into the finances of the Tobago House of Assembly. [Desk thumping] We cannot continue how we are going, Mr. Vice-President, we need to take action. The people need to know how their moneys are being spent, who is accountable, who is responsible, and therefore I bring to the attention of this honourable Senate tonight part one of a scandal in Tobago and we are calling on the Government, the Minister of Finance to take action, and the first stage is for us— Mr. Vice-President: Senator, you have one more minute. Sen. W. Mark: One minute, Sir. The first stage is for us to call and demand that we have a criminal, forensic audit into the Tobago House of Assembly as it relates to these huge cost overruns taking place. Mr. Vice-President, thank you very much. The Minister in the Ministry of Finance (Sen. The Hon. Allyson West): Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. The Motion as published talks about the failure of the Government to launch appropriate investigations for determining the causes and holding persons to account for the numerous cost overruns on recent capital projects under the THA. A wider net you cannot find, there is no specificity in the Motion itself as to what capital project we are talking about, what overruns there

UNREVISED 306 Tobago House of Assembly 2019.06.17 (Investigation into Cost Overruns Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d)

were, if any, and the basis for determining that they were overruns. So this Motion as crafted, reminds me of a very popular song by an even more popular Caribbean artiste called Robert Nestor Marley, “I throw meh corn, but I eh call no fowl.” So you just throw things out there with no specificity and waiting to see who will stick their neck out to eat corn so that that neck is exposed. Mr. Vice-President, on the last occasion when we dealt with Motions, fortunately we missed the last occasion, but the one before that. There was a Motion on the THA which was equally vague, and I had indicated to Sen. Mark at that time, that based on the fact that the Tobago House of Assembly is a semi-autonomous body, responsible for preparing its own accounts, responsible for its own policy on finance, responsible for and complying with its obligation to file annual returns and financial returns and they are up to date in those filings, that there was an avenue through the Parliament, joint select committee process to interrogate the Tobago House of Assembly in a manner that can deal with all the minutia that he is concerned with. If on the other hand, Sen. Mark wishes to ask, raise his questions through this House, through this forum, he needs to give the Government some specificity to allow us to do the research and to respond to these questions in a responsible manner. I thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping] Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning of an Audit) Sen. Wade Mark: [Desk thumping] Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. The other matter I would like to bring to your attention and to this honourable Senate’s attention, is the need for the Government to commission an audit to determine whether the $37 million being spent on Virgin Atlantic Airlines and British

UNREVISED 307 Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning 2019.06.17 Of an Audit Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Airways for increasing tourism in Tobago is achieving its objective. Mr. Vice-President, the taxpayers of this country, in an effort to lure tourists from Europe to Tobago, has been buying what is called “airlift”, essentially. And what has happened, Mr. Vice-President, is that as it relates to Virgin Airlines, this airline flies passengers, tourists to Tobago, but every year the Tobago House of Assembly pays to the Virgin Airlines owners, $21 million. In addition, Mr. Vice-President, the taxpayers of Trinidad and Tobago pay to British Airways, some $16 million on an annual basis to transport tourists from Europe, more so London, into Tobago. Mr. Vice-President, over the last three years, we have spent a total of $122 million between those two airlines: Virgin Airlines and British Airways. And as I said, Mr. Vice-President, the bulk of the money is to buy airlifts. The question, Mr. Vice-President, is this: Are we getting value for our money? This is why, Mr. Vice-President, we need to get from the Government whether they have done an audit to determine the $122 million that have been expended on these two airlines in the past three years to increase tourism in Tobago. What has been the results? What are we achieving? Mr. Vice-President, are we paying moneys to these airlines and we are not getting, for instance, the appropriate numbers of tourists? This is why I have raised this matter because there is no data, I do not have any data available to me and to the people of this country. So that we can understand whether this expenditure of taxpayers’ money is worthy of being continued, Mr. Vice-President, and this is why I am calling on the Minister in the Ministry of Finance to commission an audit to determine whether this $122 million every year for the past three years, $122 million have been spent. And I am asking the hon. Minister in the Ministry of Finance to explain to this Parliament and to the

UNREVISED 308 Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning 2019.06.17 Of an Audit Sen. Mark (cont’d) taxpayers, what value have we gotten in return? What have been the returns in terms of foreign exchange? In terms of revenue generation? If we are putting out $122 million in three years, how is that generating returns? What kind of returns are we generating? So, Mr. Vice-President, I have raised this matter on the expenditure that we are committed to paying and making to virgin Airlines and to British Airways and call on the hon. Minister and the Government to account, to tell us whether the moneys that we are expending to increase tourism in Tobago is achieving its goal, is achieving its objective. If it is, Mr. Vice-President, I am happy for the people of Tobago and for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. But we need to get data, we need to get information and in the absence of information and data, I am forced to bring this matter to the Parliament so that the Minister of Finance can account to the taxpayers for this expenditure and to tell us what revenues we are getting in return for this expenditure as well as the kind of foreign exchange that this country is earning as a result of this investment. These are the areas, Mr. Vice-President, I wish to bring to the attention of this honourable Senate and to seek answers from the Minister in the Ministry of Finance on this investment in tourism by the people of Tobago and by the people Trinidad and Tobago. It is taxpayers’ money; we need answers and we need the answers today. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping] The Minister in the Ministry of Finance (Sen. The Hon. Allyson West): [Desk thumping] Thank you again, Mr. Vice-President. The United Kingdom market is the largest single market source for visitor arrivals to Tobago accounting for half of all international arrivals for the past 5 years. According to the data from the Research Unit at the Division of Tourism arrivals from the UK accounted for

UNREVISED 309 Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning 2019.06.17 Of an Audit Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d)

48 per cent and 47 per cent for 2016 and 2017 respectively. Currently, the market is served directly by three airlines service providers, namely Thomas Cook, Virgin Atlantic and British Airways. Thomas Cook is a winter charter and operates a once weekly flight out of Manchester in the north of England. The flight is shared with Barbados where Tobago is the second stop on the route. The service runs from November to March and lands14 per cent from arrivals from the UK market. British Airways currently operates a twice weekly flight from London Gatwick and Tobago. The flights are shared with Antigua. During the winter the flights operate on Mondays and Fridays and in the summer on Tuesdays and Fridays. British Airways also operates five flights per week between London and Port of Spain which are shared with Saint Lucia. Visitor arrivals to Tobago and the British Airways service was above $20,000 back in 2008 but declined steadily to approximately $8,000 in 2013. However, arrivals from the UK and the British Airways service have been growing annually consistently from 2014 up to the end of last year. The historic performance of the flight has always been heavily influenced by the level of funding primarily and to a lesser extent by the frequency of service. So that the lowest performing intervals would have had one flight per week and shorter seasonal rotations with commensurate lower levels of funding. The growth from 2014 has been fueled by increased funding and marketing and a constant year-round twice weekly service. Virgin Atlantic runs a year-round service between the United Kingdom and Tobago this fight has been in operation from May2003 and has contributed approximately 5,900 passengers at its peak in 2016. The service is now twice

UNREVISED 310 Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning 2019.06.17 Of an Audit Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d) weekly in the winter months from November to mid-April and reduces to once weekly from mid-April to October annually. All flights are shared with Saint Lucia where Tobago is the second stop on the route. Virgin Atlantic has a seating capacity of 266 and has been serving Tobago for more than 10 years. However, this service was cancelled by the airline back in April2014 when Monarch commenced operations. The flight was reintroduced in March 2015 and has remained to date. There is no significant difference in the airlines seat pricing between the two carriers. Both airlines are termed “legacy carriers” in the marketplace and serve the destination with a triple range of seating capacity. In addition both operators provide shared service with other destinations where Tobago is the second stop on the route. The arrival times from the source market are similar and so are the relative departure times from Tobago allowing for an easy comparison from an operational perspective, both airlines serve passengers through their respective affiliate tour operators. As a result, neither destination possesses an advantage over another other than the dynamics of demand. However, the Tobago House of Assembly has decided to maintain their regime of subsidization of the two primary airlift providers as has existed from 2014 for the following reasons: 1. A new strategic thrust has been engaged by the THA towards the transformation of tourism in Tobago. The new direction has comprised the establishment of the Tobago Tourism Agency Limited. The development of a roadmap for growth, the launch of a new brand and marketing strategy and the allocation of an increase budget to fund marketing and product development initiatives commencing 2018/19.

UNREVISED 311 Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning 2019.06.17 Of an Audit Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d)

2. The United Kingdom market is the largest market for international visitor arrivals to Tobago and any disruption with airlift in that market can potentially have an adverse impact on the performance of the sector with significant implications. 3. With the new direction of tourism promotion, the THA intends over time to reduce the destination’s reliance on subsidization of international flights. 4. Growth in the tourism depends critically on accessibility of Tobago from international markets, increases in investment by internationally recognized brands and confidence in the destination to deliver on good value for money. Any attrition at this time would undermine those key variables and with negative consequences. 5. The current composition of the accommodation stock and the demand that it commands is not significantly strong to avert subsidization of airlift. This has been the case with Tobago for many years in the past and until we create a much stronger demand which we are working towards there will be a necessity for subsidization on some level. Taking the above factors into consideration, the THA recognizes the necessity to maintain the status quo with regard to the subsidization of airlift on British Airways and Virgin Atlantic and continue to work diligently towards growing the demand for the destination of those markets. Mr. Vice-President, I will just close by reminding this House and the public at large that if the Members of the Opposition had not chased away Tobago’s best chance of increasing the profile of Tobago in the tourism world by chasing away Sandals, we may not have had to continue paying the cost that we have to pay to bring airlift into Tobago and I thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping]

UNREVISED 312 Tourism in Tobago (Commissioning 2019.06.17 Of an Audit Sen. The Hon. A. West (cont’d)

Mr. Vice-President: Hon. Senators, before I put the question. I now invite Senators to bring greetings on the occasion of the Labour Day celebrations to be held on Wednesday 19th June, 2019. Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries. Labour Day Greetings The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat): Mr. Vice-President, thank you for the opportunity for me to recognize the celebration of Labour Day in Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Vice-President, it is normally a time when we recognize our trade unions, our trade union leaders and workers across the country in recognition of Labour Day. But, Mr. Vice President, in the context of the Bill that was just passed in particular the Bill that seeks to treat with former legislators, I want to use the opportunity to recognize the contributions of trade union leaders in this Parliament. Going back to the Legislative Council of 1956 to ’61, we saw the entry of Alexander Chamberlain Alexis, AC Alexis, by one vote out of La Brea into the Legislative Council, he was joined by Bhadase Sagan Maraj, the All Trinidad Trade Union leader and by the celebrated APT James, who came via Tobago through southwest into the Legislative Council. 1961 to 1966 we see the entrance of Nathaniel Crichlow to be followed by the militant John Rojas from the OWTU, who fought Texaco and made headlines in that time and thereafter Carl Tull and Vernon Glean who in my mind were inseparable. Carl Tull always seen in his dark shades, Glean alongside him, both members of the Trinidad and Tobago Labour Congress. In the 1971 to ’76 Parliament, we had Nuevo Diaz also from All Trinidad Trade Union and James Manswell, the legend from the Public Services Association. ’76 will, of course, bring in the ULF and a series of trade union

UNREVISED 313 Labour Day Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) leaders in that group, of course, Basdeo Panday would go on to be Prime Minister we had Ramesh Lutchmedial and Paul Harrison from ACAWU. We had Raffique Shah from Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers’ Association, Boodram Jattan whose brother Sam Jattan is also a well-known Chutney singer, but Boodram in his right from Longdenville was a trade unionist. Through the PNM, Mahadeo Jagmohan, Mr. Vice-President, served in both on the government side and in the opposition later on. He was the labour relations officer of our party and had a distinguished career as a trade unionist and, of course, we all know Jarrette Narine who was my predecessor in the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries but rose to that position as a daily-paid worker in the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, Horticulture Division and later one of the NUGFW representatives, representing the horticulture branch in the Ministry. Sam Maharaj from the General Secretary of All Trinidad General Workers Trade Union, would serve in the Parliament and also go on to serve in the court. We have Michael Annisette from SWWTU, and our own Rennie Dumas who was a representative of the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers’ Association. And in more recent times, Mr. Vice-President, as I close in the current Parliament, but before that in the past Parliament, Vincent Cabrera in the Bank and Industrial Workers’ Trade Union, who is now serving on the Industrial Court. And then the current Parliament, Mr. Vice-President, we have our illustrious friend, Sen. Wade Mark. On our side and one of the few female trade unionists who have served in this Parliament, our own Jennifer Baptiste-Primus and in the other place Mr.Indarsingh, former President of the All Trinidad Trade Union and Dr.Moonilal, former Education Officer of the All Trinidad Trade Union. Mr. Vice-President, I am reminded, sometimes I forget, of our own Anthony Garcia,

UNREVISED 314 Labour Day Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) former President of the TTUTA, Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association. I just thought, Mr. Vice-President, we should use the opportunity and, of course, I forgot Mr. Mc Leod who made history as part of that ’76 to ’81 team representing OWTU. So, Mr. Vice-President, it is a good opportunity on Labour Day to recognize the contribution of our trade union leaders, our trade unions and our workers, but in particular to recognize their contribution in the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago going back to the Legislative Council right up to today’s Parliament. I thank you very much. [Desk thumping] Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, may I join with my colleague in recording on this 82nd Anniversary of the founding of the modern trade union movement. May I join with my colleagues in extending solidary greetings to the workers, the trade unions and the general working class in our nation. Mr. Vice-President, today 82 years ago on June19th workers in the oilfields led by Tubal Uriah “Buzz” Butler initiated a series of riots and strikes. This, of course, led to far-reaching social, industrial and political consequences in this country and indeed other parts of the region. Abject poverty, unimaginable levels of exploitation, oppression, dehumanization, triggered widespread unrest and strikes in the oilfields, in the railways, on the sugar estates among other sectors in our society during that particular period. As we fast forward to our modern era in Trinidad and Tobago today, collective bargaining is literally under assault in this country. The right to join and form trade unions is also under attack and today, Mr. Vice-President, less than 20 per cent of the organized work force belongs to trade unions.

UNREVISED 315 Labour Day Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

Mr. Vice-President, workers’ rights were fought for and defended by the heroes of the labour struggle and the founding fathers of the modern trade union movement such as Uriah Butler, Adrian Cola Rienzi, Captain Arthur Cipriani, Elma Francois, just to mention a few, who all struggled to advance the living and working conditions of our people. Today as we celebrate the 82nd Anniversary of the founding of the modern trade union movement our economy continues to totter, we continue to experience rising levels of unemployment and under-employment. The cost of living continues to grow, we experience increasing inequality in income and wealth in our country. Not to mention, Mr. Vice-President, the absence of safety and security for our people because of the growth in this crime and violent environment that are a part of today. The Government has continued to brutalize the working class and the ordinary people. We have witnessed the closure of Petrotrin, TSTT and several other important State organizations and enterprises. But the struggle continues and therefore, Mr. Vice-President, on the occasion of the 82nd Anniversary of the modern trade union movement, we in the United National Congress wish to extend to all trade unions all members of the working class, all working people, a militant and a powerful Labour Day 2019. We wish to take the opportunity to extend to you, Mr. Vice-President, and to your family and to the staff of this Parliament and to the officers of the Parliament a wonderful, a powerful, a peaceful Labour Day 2019. In closing, I want to wish all my colleagues, a powerful, a wonderful, a peaceful, a happy, a reflective, a positive, a progressive Labour Day 2019. And as we would say, Mr. Vice-President, in the labour movement, “Long live the trade union movement, long live the labour movement, long live the working class of our country”. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping].

UNREVISED 316 Labour Day Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. Mark (cont’d)

11.50 p.m. Sen. Paul Richards: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, as I join my colleagues, just to give some history. Labour Day celebrations in Trinidad and Tobago was declared an annual national holiday in 1973, celebrated on June 19th. It is the anniversary of the day of the Butler Oilfield Riots which took place in 1937. Prior to this time, there were ongoing tensions between workers and employers in many sectors in society. These were characterized by situations of worker abuse and the payment for labour, racism, economic depression and considerable falls in the standards of living of what were described as the working class. Between 1934 and 1937, workers became more influenced by a need for change, resulting in strikes and riots on the sugar plantations and the oilfields, and in September 1937, the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union, also became the first registered trade union in the country, representing the rights of those in the petroleum industry. The social unrest then extended throughout the Caribbean and gave rise to several prominent labour leaders in Trinidad and Tobago, such as the well-known Tubal Uriah Buzz Butler, Captain Andrew Cipriani, George Weekes, Albert Maria Gomes, Adrian Cola Rienzi, Elma Francois and CLR James. During a labour dispute on Port of Spain wharfs in November 1919, Captain Arthur Cipriani called on workers to withhold their labour which resulted in their first important industrial strike in Trinidad and Tobago. George Weekes, another well-known trade unionist, possessed a powerful political leadership style which moved people toward a confidence to stand for what was just and right. He gave them a vision thatplanted seeds of liberation to move beyond salaries and working conditions, along the road to self, world view,

UNREVISED 317 Labour Day Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. Richards (cont’d)

economics and governance. Albert Maria Gomes became a city councillor and legislator who fought for social and political justice for the people of Trinidad. He was also a supporter of the literary and visual arts. In 1931, he founded a magazine called The Beacon which provided a forum for well-known figures such as CLR James, which led to the recognition of excellent literary works in later years from writers, such as Earl Lovelace, Merle Hodge and many others from Trinidad and Tobago. Adrian Cola Rienzi served as the Mayor of San Fernando in November of 1939 and administered the borough for three consecutive terms until November 1942. He was a member of the Franchise Committee which was appointed in 1941 and strongly advocated universal adult suffrage. St. Vincent born Elma Francois became a founding member of the National Unemployed Movement and its more radical successor, the Negro Welfare Cultural and Social Association to which she devoted the rest of her life, regarded as one of the most celebrated thinkers of Trinidad and Tobago and the whole Commonwealth Caribbean. CLR James was against colonialism and against racial prejudice in all its forms. He began to formulate his thoughts on the just and classless society. Apart from his contributions to politics, his passion for poetry and literature rewarded him with the nation’s highest decoration then, the Trinity Cross. And then we come to, of course, Tubal Uriah Buzz Butler, a Grenadian immigrant who worked in the oilfield, was instrumental in the development of the labour union movement which emphasized the importance of collective unionism in treating workers’ discontent and the abuses they faced by employers. Butler was awarded the nation’s highest honour, the then Trinity Cross, as the country’s main highway has been renamed in his honour. Today, a statue of Butler stands at

UNREVISED 318 Labour Day Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. Richards (cont’d) the Fyzabad Junction also known as Charlie King Junction, the place was police attempted to arrest him on June 19th, the day of the historic riots in 1937. The labour struggle and movement in Trinidad and Tobago is a shining example of how a divided society, at one point, can be forced or can find common ground. It is an example of how we can only make progress as a nation by uniting on what is in the best interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. It harkens back to an old Sparrow song. I know many of my colleagues quoted songs earlier on: “Indians and Negros unite”—I am not going to put the melody to it at all— “we have won the battle call human rights”. On this occasion, we pay tribute to the leaders, the workers and those who have sacrificed blood, sweat and tears on the road to nationhood, because as our national motto describes, the only way we could move forward is by: “Together with aspire, together we achieve”. On behalf of these nine Independent Benches, it is my honour to bring tribute and say, a happy, fruitful and productive Labour Day celebrations, 2019. Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping] Mr. Vice-President: Hon. Senators, I too wish to bring greetings on the celebration of Labour Day, a time in our nation’s history that commemorates the struggle for simply as I can put it, a better life. As we commemorate the triumphs of those who led and bled for the struggle, let us renew our commitment to the rights that they fought for as we advance to a society where discipline, tolerance and production can result in the access to a better life for all. Happy Labour Day. [Desk thumping] Corpus Christi Greetings Mr. Vice-President: I now invite Senators to bring greetings on the

UNREVISED 319 Corpus Christi Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. The Hon. R. Le Hunte (cont’d) occasion of Corpus Christi to be held on Thursday, June 20, 2019. The Minister of Public Utilities. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Public Utilities (Sen. The Hon. Robert Le Hunte): Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Mr. Vice-President, I am pleased to bring greetings from the Government Bench on the occasion of Corpus Christi. Mr. Vice-President, Corpus Christi is the feast when the Catholic community and some members of the Christian community celebrate the true presence, not just the symbolic presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic, also known as Holy Communion. As Christians, we believe that what we receive in Holy Communion is the Body of Christ. The cup, or more accurately what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the Blood of Christ. By these, the bread and wine, Jesus Christ wanted to entrust us with his body and blood which he shed for the forgiveness of our sins. With his body and blood within us, the Church challenges us to be authentic witnesses of Jesus Christ. Madam President, as an authentic witness—Mr. Vice-President, sorry— some of the applicable virtues we are called upon to embody and try to adopt in our daily live centre around the breaking down of egos and hidden agendas and being more forgiving and generous to others so that we could be one with each other and build stronger communities. On behalf of the Members of the Government Bench, I extend warmest greetings on the occasion of Corpus Christi, and may we all continue to strive to be a little bit more Christ like in our daily lives. I thank you. [Desk thumping] Sen. Anita Haynes: It is my honour, Mr. Vice-President, to extend greetings to the Roman Catholic community and, indeed, the nation at large on the occasion of Corpus Christi. I also wish to recognize other Christian communities that commemorate the most holy observance of the Body of Christ. On this day,

UNREVISED 320 Corpus Christi Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. Haynes (cont’d) we celebrate the Eucharistic covenant and that those of us who practise the Catholic faith enter into with Jesus Christ. The Eucharistic is a symbol of Christ’s perpetual selfless love, a love of mercy and sacrifice and a love of service to others. On this day, we are called to renew our commitment to the covenant, a total offering of our lives in love to God. Let us remember a love of God is a love of service. We are reminded of our worldly mission to live godly lives, lives guided by love and to encourage others to do the same by our example. In Trinidad and Tobago, this love for our fellow man is evident in our ability to live in peace together, regardless of our various religious beliefs, cultural practices or ethic identities. Corpus Christi is also a day on which we reflect on renewals, particularly, new life. It reminds us that in every new day, there is a chance to make a different decision and chart a new and better course forward. It is a common practice in Trinidad and Tobago to plant fruit-bearing trees on this day as a nod to new life and sources that sustain life. It is fitting that Corpus Christi marks the beginning of our rainy season here in Trinidad and Tobago. As we begin our new seasons, whether it be at work, school or on a matter of personal development, let us endeavour to make the best out of it. It is my hope, and indeed the hope of the United National Congress that the spirit of renewal extends beyond the church and throughout our daily lives. May the love of service to one another be replenished and renewed on this Corpus Christi, and may God bless our nation. I thank you. [Desk thumping] Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye: It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, but it is not bread. It looks like wine, it tastes like wine, but it is not wine; transubstantiation, the miracle of the Holy Eucharistic, Corpus et Sanguis Christi. On Maundy Thursday, this sacrament of the Holy Eucharistic was instituted, but it

UNREVISED 321 Corpus Christi Greetings 2019.06.17 Sen. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d) was a sad time. It was, indeed, his last supper, the last supper and we knew that the next day it would be the crucifixion. So this sacrament was not celebrated, instituted with pomp and ceremony and happiness, but we needed a time when we will commemorate this great feast. So, we have this holy feast, Corpus Christi, where we celebrate with the pomp and ceremony where we venerate this holy feast. In Trinidad and Tobago, we walk in procession, carrying the Holy Body and Blood of Christ in the Monstrance. [Crosstalk] And I do not expect to hear people talking now, because they should know better. As we walk in solemn procession, we say our prayers. There are some other traditions. Some do not throw corn, but they plant corn and peas. We celebrate the transformation of the body and blood of Christ from the bread and wine that it was. And as we transform our lives, we ask that we should be less human and more divine. We have both natures. We remember that we are the branches and he is the vine and, indeed, divine. On behalf of the Independent Bench, I bring greetings to all of you and to all Trinidad and Tobago for a happy holy feast, and not just transformation of the Christians and the Catholics, but the entire society. We are called to be much more than we are. Thank you. [Desk thumping] Mr. Vice-President: Hon. Senators, I too wish to bring greetings on the occasion and observance of Corpus Christi. It is a liturgical celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection that emphasizes the joy of the institution of the Eucharistic. It is interesting to note that the occasion of Corpus Christi is unique in several ways. Through a vision, it was born from the mind of an Augustinian nun by name of St. Juliana, who subsequently became desirous of having a feast within the church devoted specifically to the honour of the Holy Eucharistic. Despite this desire, it was not acted upon for 20 years, and I can only presume, like so many of

UNREVISED 322 Corpus Christi Greetings 2019.06.17 Mr. Vice-President (cont’d) us today, it was due to the fear of following one’s dreams. Nonetheless, once she acted upon her dream, its inception occurred in the 13th Century AD and after more than a few unfortunate setbacks, it became widely celebrated throughout the entire church in the 14th Century AD. The motivation behind the dream, besides unwavering faith, was a feeling by St. Juliana that Holy Week was often seen as a time of great sorrow and repentance and the Eucharistic should be a time of rejoicing. As I reflect on the history of the celebration, I cannot help but take away the following lesson: A dream or a vision acted upon has the potential to surpass or extend beyond the life of its creator to the greater good of all. To the Christian community, I wish a merry celebration and a happy Corpus Christi. [Desk thumping] Question put and agreed to. Senate adjourned accordingly. Adjourned at 12.06 a.m.

UNREVISED