1 Papers Laid 2021.06.21

SENATE Monday, June 21, 2021 The Senate met at 10.00 a.m. PRAYERS

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair] PAPERS LAID 1. Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process) Order, 2021. [The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat)] 2. Report of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago to the High Court Pursuant to Section 44E(7) of the Central Bank Act Chap 79:02 (As Amended) for the quarter ended March 31, 2021. [Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat] URGENT QUESTION Gavi Alliance Report (Government’s Response) Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you very much, Madam President. To the hon. Minister of Health: Given a recent report from the Gavi Alliance outlining Trinidad and Tobago’s ineligibility to qualify for the $500 million worth of vaccines being donated by the United States to developing countries, can the Minister advise as to the Government’s response to this information? The Minister of Health (Hon. Terrence Deyalsingh): Thank you very much, Madam President, and good morning to you and good morning to Members of this august Chamber. The matter raised is actively being discussed amongst the following parties: the White House, PAHO, CARPHA, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Foreign and Caricom Affairs. Thank you very much.

UNREVISED 2 Urgent Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sen. Mark: Can I can ask the hon. Minister if for some reason we become ineligible for accessing this $500 million worth of vaccine being donated by the United States, can the Minister advise how will this impact, if at all, on the Government’s vaccine roll-out programme? Hon. T. Deyalsingh: Madam President, it is premature to accept Sen. Mark’s assertion. It is being actively pursued, let us wait for the fruit to be ripened out of those discussions. Specifically also, this Government has had many irons in the fire and it is for that reason we have imported into the country 200,000 doses of Sinopharm last week, we also have another 300,000 coming in in July. So our bilateral talks are paying rich dividends and that is the way the Government has been acting since day one, to procure vaccines approved by WHO either through COVAX, bilaterally, the African medicine council or any other platform. Sen. Mark: Can I also ask through Madam President to the hon. Minister, to what extent can you share with this honourable Senate any particular time frame for these very critical discussions that are currently being undertaken by the interest groups that you have identified? Is there any time frame for their conclusion as it relates to the various discussions that are currently taking place? Can you share with us? Hon. T. Deyalsingh: It will be premature of me to give a time frame but I am advised in speaking with parties this morning, the matter is under active, active consideration by all five parties. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat): Madam President, there are four questions on notice for response today. The Government will answer three of those questions. We are respectfully asking for a deferral of two weeks for the response to Question No. 119 to the hon.

UNREVISED 3 Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Prime Minister. Sen. Mark: Madam President, there are five questions on this Order Paper, I think the Minister referred to four so could he tell us which questions he is seeking to defer? Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: My apologies, Madam President. The Government will respond to four of the five: three posed to the Minister of National Security and one posed to the hon. Minister of Trade and Industry and the fifth posed to the hon. Prime Minister, we are respectfully asking for a deferral of two weeks. Thank you. Madam President: So Question 119 is deferred for two weeks. Sen. Mark. The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sen. Wade Mark: Community Recovery Committee (Submission of Final Report) 119. In light of the disappointment expressed by residents of East Port-of-Spain over the failure of the Community Recovery Committee to provide meaningful and concrete proposals, can the hon. Prime Minster advise as to when will the Committee’s final report be submitted to the Cabinet? Question, by leave, deferred. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Immigration Officers (Cluster Spread of COVID-19 Virus) 112. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of National Security: Given that twenty-three (23) Immigration Officers have contracted the COVID-19 virus and the implications for cluster spread among travellers, officers and airport personnel, can the Minister indicate whether an

UNREVISED 4 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

investigation has commenced to determine the source of the spread of the virus among these Officers? The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat): Thank you very much, Madam President. The Ministry of National Security was informed by the representatives of the Ministry of Health that 13 Immigration Officers had tested positive for COVID-19. Any investigation to determine the source of the spread of the virus among these officers falls within the remit of the Ministry of Health. As you know, the Ministry of Health, as part of its COVID-19 protocols, conducts tracing to determine and minimize the level of exposure to the community. It should be noted that all public health protocols, including appropriate quarantine arrangements and identification of primary and secondary contacts were followed in this matter. I thank you. Sen. Mark: Madam President, can the Minister indicate what measures have been taken by this Ministry to avoid a repetition of this spread of the virus that impacted or affected as he claimed some 13 members of staff? Madam President: Sen. Mark, that question does not arise. Sen. Mark: Madam President, may I go on to the next question? Madam President: Yes. Sen. Mark: Is that the one to trade? Madam President: Yes. Agostini Limited (Acquisition of Pharmaceutical Companies) 118. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of Trade and Industry: Given that Agostini Limited, which already owns Smith Robertson & Company Limited, is in the process of acquiring two other well established pharmaceutical companies, can the Minister indicate the following:

UNREVISED 5 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

(i) how is the Government ensuring that said acquisitions do not lead to a monopoly; and (ii) what if any measures are being put in place to safeguard against said company being able to arbitrarily increase the price of pharmaceuticals? The Minister of Trade and Industry (Sen. The Hon. Paula Gopee-Scoon): Thank you very much, Madam President. The Trinidad and Tobago Fair Trading Commission is an independent statutory agency established pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 2006 and as such the Ministry of Trade and Industry and no other department of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago plays any role in the decisions taken by the Commission in the exercise of its functions. The Fair Trading Act creates an institutional framework for the enforcement of competition policy in Trinidad and Tobago and addresses major issues including the abuse of monopoly power, anti-competitive mergers, anti-competitive agreements and the enforcement of the relevant clauses or enforcement measures. It should be noted that this particular transaction was an acquisition by Smith Robertson & Company Limited of two companies, only one which is involved in pharmaceuticals. Oscar Francois Limited is a pharmaceutical company, while Intersol Limited is a manufacturer of personal care products, therefore, the premise of the question is wrong. In addition, it should be noted that this acquisition was completed on 30 April, 2021. As to part (ii) of the question, other safeguard measures, as it relates to concerns of arbitrary price increases due to the merger, the TTFTC is empowered under section 7 of the Fair Trading Act to investigate any such allegations to determine if this is as a result of abuse of monopoly power or other anti- competitive means. Further, the TTFTC will continue to be vigilant for anti- competitive activities in the wider health care and pharmaceutical industry. The

UNREVISED 6 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Government remains concerned about any potential increase in the price of products including pharmaceuticals and accordingly the Ministry of Trade and Industry will continue to actively pursue measures to safeguard the well-being of consumers of pharmaceutical products. To demonstrate this, in 2020, the Ministry of Trade and Industry sought the approval of the Caricom Council for Trade and Economic Development, COTED, for the suspension of the CET for 3,300 pharmaceutical products and this suspension of the CET to zero per cent was approved on over 2,800 pharmaceutical products which include penicillin, antibiotics, et cetera, and this was effective for the period of April 21, 2020 to April 30, 2021. And this measure was critical to ensuring that key essential pharmaceutical products remained available and affordable to consumers throughout Trinidad and Tobago. And when this suspension expired, the Cabinet subsequently approved and Trinidad and Tobago received approval from Caricom for the suspension of the CET on a list of 3,074 pharmaceutical products for the period May 01, 2021 to April 30, 2022. Furthermore, in an attempt to ensure transparency in the pharmaceutical industry, the Consumer Affairs Division of the Ministry of Trade and Industry is currently developing a mechanism to monitoring and publish prices of the main essential pharmaceutical products in Trinidad and Tobago on a quarterly basis and this initiative will commence in July 2021. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Yeah. Madam President, can the Minister indicate whether the Government is prepared to share the findings or recommendations that would have informed the Trinidad and Tobago fair competition commission to approve this particular merger, or buyout I should say, Madam President, of these two companies, one as the Minister said is engaged directly in the importation?

UNREVISED 7 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam President: Minister. Sen. The Hon. P. Gopee-Scoon: Thank you, Madam President. As I had said before, no Government department is involving in the activities of the Trinidad and Tobago Fair Trading Commission, it is an independent statutory agency and therefore I cannot answer to that. Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Can I ask the Minister whether she is aware that decisions taken by this independent Commission is in fact made public particularly when it directly affects the public interest? Can the Minister indicate to this honourable Senate whether there is transparency in the operations of this Fair Trading Commission? Madam President: I would not allow that question. Sen. Mark: Madam President, is the Minister aware that since the development of the purchase by this company called Agostini of Smith Robertson which is Oscar Francois as well Intersol, particularly Oscar Francois, there has been some element of price gouging? Is the Minister aware of this? Madam President: Minister. Sen. The Hon. P. Gopee-Scoon: Thank you very much. I am not aware that there are any elements of price gouging within the pharmaceutical industry but if it is there, I can let you know that the Fair Trading Commission is set up to continue their activities post the merger so that I can tell you that they will investigate and they will challenge any anti-competitive activities such as unjustified exclusionary conduct by dominant firms and monopolies especially as it relates to the domestic pharmaceutical industry and their interest of consumers. So that I know that their activity will continue post the merger and they will be looking at elements of price gouging and so on which they are properly set up to do. In addition to which, the Ministry of consumer affairs has also announced

UNREVISED 8 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21 that in July, it will introduce a new programme where they would be monitoring the prices of particular items, the pharmaceutical items that the consumers tend to buy and these will be monitored in the same way that we do supermarket prices, hardware prices and they would also be published online. So this activity begins in July of this year and again, it is to ensure that the consumers are aware of where possibly they can get which items, the ones most often purchased at which enterprises. Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Madam President, can the Minister indicate to this honourable House whether the Government has a—can I recast that? Can the Minister indicate whether there exists a government policy as it relates to the active takeover by companies of other companies that may harm the public good? Is there a government policy aimed at addressing this particular development? Madam President: Sen. Mark, that question is not allowed. Sen. Mark: Can the Minister please— Madam President: No, Sen. Mark, you have exhausted your supplemental questions. [Interruption] Yes. Sen. Seepersad. European Union Humanitarian Assistance (Government’s Collaboration) 161. Sen. Charisse Seepersad asked the hon. Minister of National Security: Given May 2021 reports that the European Union (EU) has approved humanitarian assistance totalling US $3.3M for the protection, education and health of Venezuelan migrants living in a group of countries, including Trinidad and Tobago, can the Minister advise as to the following: (i) whether Government has been collaborating with the EU to access this funding;

UNREVISED 9 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

(ii) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, what humanitarian assistance projects will be implemented using said funding; and (iii) what is the timeframe for implementation of said projects identified at (ii)? The Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Dr. Amery Browne): Thank you, Madam President. On behalf of the hon. Minister of National Security, I am pleased to share the response. While the European Union announced via press release dated May 17, 2021, that the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid department approved funds in the amount of €2.7 million or approximately US $3.3 million for the protection, education and health of Venezuelan refugees and migrant children in Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Peru, it should be noted that those funds are not intended to be disbursed as humanitarian assistance grants to governments of the named countries. I repeat, those funds are not intended to be disbursed as humanitarian assistance grants to governments of the named countries but rather to fund the United Nations’ administered projects until March 31, 2022, with the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, UNICEF, as the implementing partner. Accordingly, parts (ii) and (iii) of the question do not arise. Madam President: Next question, Sen. Seepersad. Inter-Agency Coordination Platform (Adoption of Strategies) 162. Sen. Charisse Seepersad asked the hon. Minister of National Security: In light of reports that the 2021 plan of the Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for refugees and migrants from Venezuela details action that will be taken, can the Minister advise whether Government has adopted any new

UNREVISED 10 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

strategies to address Venezuelan migrant issues in collaboration with the said Coordination Platform? The Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Dr. Amery Browne): Thank you, Madam President. I am pleased to present the response on behalf of the Minister of National Security. The Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela, R4V, response for Venezuelans was established pursuant to the request by the UN Security General to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, and the International Organization for Migration on April 12, 2018. R4V is a United Nations framework led by the UNHCR and IOM which provides a multiagency mechanism for a regionally coordinated response to the mass migration of Venezuelans. It aims to address the protection, assistance and integration needs of refugees and migrants from Venezuela in affected Latin American and Caribbean States. It focuses on regional strategy and country specific support, information management, communications such as messaging and reporting, and resource mobilization. The Government in collaboration with the R4V platform continues to manage the migration of Venezuelans as initiated in June 2019. This management includes the following strategies: 1 The operationalization of the Migrant Registration Framework, MRF, that provided humanitarian consideration and international protection to registered Venezuelans in the amount of 16,523; 2 The second schedule visa regime which required Venezuelan migrants to be granted visas prior to entering Trinidad and Tobago; and 3 The extension of the Migrant Registration Framework in March 2021 for Venezuelans for an additional six months which allowed for the

UNREVISED 11 Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.06.21

continued legal regularization and international protection for registered Venezuelans. Due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, no additional strategies have been implemented under this framework. Madam President: Sen. Seepersad. Sen. Seepersad: Thank you, Madam President. Hon. Minister, what is the Government doing to address the education needs of school-age children of the migrants and refugees living in Trinidad and Tobago? Madam President: Minister. Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne: Madam President, that is an extremely broad question that is best posed to the Minister of Education. What I can indicate at this stage is that the Government is considering the holistic challenge posed by migration including migrants from Venezuela at this time. Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Thank you, Madam President. May I ask the hon. Minister whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to bring or to address legislation dealing with the migrant issue in the Republic of T&T? Can the Minister share with us whether the Government is giving active consideration in formulating legislation to regulate the inflow of migrants into this country, be they Venezuelans or be they Colombians? Can he share with us? Madam President: Sen. Mark, I would not allow that question. Sen. Seepersad. Sen. Seepersad: Thank you, Madam President. Hon. Minister, what steps is the Government taking to incorporate migrants and refugees into the tax system, give them access to things like permits to start their own businesses, access to financial systems, et cetera, in Trinidad and Tobago? Madam President: Sen. Seepersad, I would not allow that question.

UNREVISED 12 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21

GAMBLING (GAMING AND BETTING) CONTROL BILL, 2021 [Second Day] Order read for resuming adjourned debate on question [June 18, 2021]: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question again proposed. Madam President: So far, there have been 11 contributions made to this Bill, including that of the Mover of the Motion. Sen. Lyder. Sen. Damian Lyder: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for the opportunity today to contribute to the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill, 2021. And from the onset, let me make it clear to this honourable House that like the Government and the Independent Bench and many of the stakeholders that stand to gain or lose as a result of the passing of this Bill, let me put on the record that the United National Congress is in support of regulating this industry of gambling. But, Madam President, like anything else, we believe that regulations should be balanced and should be fair and should benefit all stakeholders: the Government, the casinos, the gaming lounges and by extension, the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. And once again, Madam President, we are called here to debate a Bill that seems to be, in my humble opinion, draconian in nature and is lacking clarity in a number of points. The Government failed to demonstrate how the additional revenue will be raised from this Bill and how the Bill itself amounts to over- regulation via over-legislation of this particular sector. Madam President, the very first red flag for me is how the Government in its nature brought this Bill and the speed at which they brought this Bill literally railroading it through the Senate. The Government gave the Opposition and the Independent Benches a mere five days and then a couple of us on the weekend got

UNREVISED 13 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) a couple more. In fact, it was Sen. Paul Richards who stood up here on Friday and indicated that a Bill of this nature and gravity, 80 pages in length, so many different points, Madam President, we would have thought that we would have had more time to study something, a Bill like this that will indeed impact many citizens and many stakeholders in this industry. Madam President, the second red flag that came up for me is when it arose like “ah phoenix in de sun” when the Minister of Finance came here and his very first utterance was that this Bill does not impact the bars and gaming lounges because bars and gaming lounges fall under the Liquor Licences Act. “So bars doh have tuh worry, they doh have tuh worry, everything a’right, everything irie.” Madam President, because I know to myself that this Government has proven so far that at my time here to bring legislation to this Senate like “ah hurricane”. And as the old adage goes “ah hurricane doh fall on one man house”, it decimates everything in its way. So this caused me, Madam President, when I saw this red flag, I had to look a little closer into this Bill. And it was on Friday evening that my colleague Sen. Rambhajan clearly and decisively identified various shortfalls and lacunas associated with this Bill. My Senator colleague touched lightly on a point that I intend to expand a lot on today and, Madam President, namely that it is absolutely no certainty with respect to the legal position governing the use of licensing of roulette machines specifically as it relates to bars and gaming lounges. This is the point I want to deal with today, Madam President. Madam President, the hon. Minister of Finance sought to counter the Opposition’s exposition of this grey area in the Bill by asserting that the provisions for the roulette machine is contained in the provision of the Liquor Licences Act. In fact, the Minister said that the Bill before us has nothing to do with the

UNREVISED 14 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) amendment of gaming machines—sorry, amendment of amusement gaming machines and nothing to do with the bars. So, Madam President, if this unqualified statement by the hon. Minister Imbert is indeed true, in light of the obvious glaring deficiencies and gaps within the framework of this Bill that I intend to highlight that the hon. Minister of Finance must task himself with remedying these deficiencies in order to ensure that there is clarity in the law, if indeed it is true that amusement machines are not affected by this Bill in bars and gaming lounges, then the Minister must amend this Bill to make provision that it is clear and certain to us all. Then the bars can rest easy, the gaming lounges can rest easy. So let us look at some of the deficiencies that I mentioned which are demonstrated when we look at the following provisions. When we look at clause 3(1) of the Bill, it defines “gaming establishment” as a gaming lounge. The same section then goes on to define “gaming lounge” as premises licensed under the Liquor Licences Act to accommodate for amusement machines. So that is very clear and good. “We going good so far.” 10.30 a.m. The Minister of Finance stated everything perfect, business as usual. But then, Madam President, we look further and we see the term “amusement machines” is then defined by section 3(2) of the Bill as a single-person terminal device. Let me repeat that, 3(2) of the Bill, it describes the amusement machines as a single-person terminal device. Let me state clearly for the benefit of everyone here today. Currently and approximately for the last 10 years, bar owners have opted to operate multi-person roulette table machines. These machines would come in numbers of eight--seater and 12-seater.- Madam President, this is not what a single terminal device machine is. And if it is indeed so, then I would ask for the Minister of Finance and the hon. Attorney General to clarify this in the Bill.

UNREVISED 15 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d)

Furthermore, Madam President, these machines are high-income earners for this bar industry. These machines are not single-person terminal devices, and, therefore, they cannot fall within the definition of amusement machines under clause 3(2) of the Bill and I will tell you why. Because when we look further in clause 3(3) of the Bill, it then provides: “(3) A device that— (a) is used to play casino games…”—or—“software; or (b) has a multi player station, linked to a random or other central game outcome...” —is not an amusement machine for the purpose of the Act. Let me stress the word “not” here. I put it in bold. It is clearly stated there. Therefore, this section, Madam President, together with all the previously mentioned, clearly work in combination to exclude roulette machines in the definition of amusement machines from the scope of this Bill. Madam President, let us consider the Minister of Finance's statement, the statement that the provision of amusement machines is made in the Liquor Licences Act. This is what his statement was, basically, in piloting the Bill to rest easy, the bars and the lounges. First of all, Madam President, the term “roulette machine” does not appear in the Liquor Licences Act. However, the term “amusement game” appears with respect to the licensing provisions under 20A and the taxation provisions under section 20B and 20C. So Madam President, section 20A simply provides the premises licensed under the Act may host amusement games where there are no more than 20 amusement games operating at any given time, Madam President. Madam President, the definition of amusement games is then provided under section 20C(5), which states that for the purpose of this section amusement game has the meaning assigned to it by section 10 in another

UNREVISED 16 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d)

Act; in the Gambling and Betting Act. Section 10(2) of the Gambling and Betting Act states that: “For the purposes of this section, ‘amusement game’ means…” and I will quote it here: “electromechanical game or device set in operation wholly or partly by the insertion of money or moneys’ worth and so constructed as to return to the person inserting their money or moneys’ worth’ in certain circumstances, money or moneys’ worth to the maximum pay out per game of five thousand dollars per game.” The roulette machine used in the bar industry does in fact qualify under this definition. So we can see that the licence to host these games is provided under the Liquor Licences Act. But, Madam President, hosting a game is not equivalent to having the machine on the premises, operating the machine, owning the machine or any other consideration with the machine. So where are the provisions to be found, Madam President? Certainly not in the Bill that we are debating here today. The Bill clearly makes no provisions for the machines of the roulette machine type. So herein lies the issue, Madam President, an issue that can in fact impact thousands of bar owners, 2,000 in fact, and thousands of workers in the industry. The Government would have us come here piecing together three separate pieces of legislation in order to determine the regime applicable to roulette machines. And even then, all the necessary provisions are not contained in those various pieces of law. Madam President, this is uncertainty and it is uncertainty that is clearly not acceptable at this time. It is unacceptable, Madam President, because it creates anxiety for the more than 2,000 bar owners who have these roulette machines

UNREVISED 17 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) supplementing their income. It creates anxiety, Madam President, because many of these bars, having been closed for over a year, have been struggling to survive; no form of income, no ability to pay their rent. No ability to pay salaries, sending home workers. This anxiety keeps these bar owners awake at night. This is why we have a bar owner stepping out and coming into the Senate to speak about this, Madam President. So we demand a level of clarity. Maybe it, as the Minister of Finance says, does not affect the bars; and if so, great. I would have spent good time here today seeking the clarity, Madam President, because this is the anxiety that more than 3,000 bars that exist today, where 360 bars, according to the coalition of bar and restaurants, 360 have exited the industry and many more will go in months to come. The famous Nari's Bar up for sale, who would have thought, in Barataria? Who would have thought that, Madam President? Madam President, let me tell you what else, that other anxieties come from this lack of clarity. When we look specifically, when one considers the broad powers, given under the Bill, to the enforcement officers and the authorized officers to enter the premises, seize machines, seize money, conduct investigations under this Act, the greater that risk, persons will fall victim to having their machines seized from possibly not having the requisite licence. Madam President, what about the fact that there could be unscrupulous officers who may take advantage of this lack of clarity to literally exploit some of these bar owners today? It happens. Madam President, let me declare to this House, multi-player roulette machines account for more than 50 per cent of the income of some of these bars. And when we think about the increased drinking/driving charges, associated fines, people are now seeking to go to their neighborhood bar, those in the rural areas, some in communities, going to their bars to have a beverage, enjoy with some

UNREVISED 18 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) friends, play a game or two, drink responsibly, not drive, Madam President. Many of these people who the Minister of Finance said, I think if I remember he said they were unscrupulous; these people who come to play in the machines. I did not realize my uncle was unscrupulous or that my friends living in the rural areas were unscrupulous. Madam President, if certainty, relative to these licence regime and specific to these machines, is not provided within this Act, the bar owners who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in machines or rely heavily on the income from these machines, Madam President, stand to suffer losses. Losses would be incurred either through sanctions from the offences that these officers may take advantage, because of your lack of clarity, or some will even opt to pull their machines out, so as not to risk breaching a law, Madam President. Madam President, these are losses that are greater than simply closing one's bar. If the Government does not bring clarity to the situation, if the Government is trying to veil the outlawing of these machines by bringing uncertainty and confusion, if the Government fails to clarify, to tell this country, to tell the 12,000-plus bars in this country that the roulette machines qualify under amusement machines, be clear it qualifies under amusement machines, as set out in the Liquor Licences Act, if the Government decides not to do that today, the Government is sending a clear message to the 2,000 bars and more stakeholders, bar owners, gaming houses in this country, that this roulette machine is outlawed. So the Government must come clean today. Madam President, and there are implications now. If the Government comes and says they are outlawed today, I will say there are implications, especially to these 2,000 bars and all the extended businesses that depend on the business from these bars. There will be substantial losses to bar owners, unemployment to

UNREVISED 19 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) indirect workers in the industry and mostly, Madam President, to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Because, Madam President, I sat and I listened to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, where the Minister indicated by bringing regulation to the industry, the Government will garner increased revenues. I say, Madam President, today, that I agree with the Minister. Regulating will bring increased revenues. However, I would wonder if the hon. Minister of Trade and Industry is aware that by outlawing these machines—if the Minister is aware that in Schedule 5 these roulette machines contribute $120,000 per year to the Government coffers. And that is 2,000 bars. So the Government stands to lose a potential $250 million. And if the Government is not currently collecting this $250 million, well that is where they should the revenue, especially in light of when we see that the Minister of Finance came to this Senate a week ago and indicated that we had a shortfall of $2.5 billion in revenue. This $250 million will just simply add to that burden, Madam President, because these roulette machines account for 80 per cent of the gaming in these bars. Madam President, whereas the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Finance indicated that this Bill targeted increased revenues, there is an immediate loss of $250 million. Let us get that on the table one time. Madam President, the Minister of Finance threatens to increase the shortfall in revenue of 250 million but not clarifying to us today where we are going to get this from. With 2,000 bars, it is estimated that approximately 50 per cent of these bars could close as a result of outlawing these machines, because they would be unable to sustain paying their large rentals, staff and would have to downsize as a result. So what would this mean to the economy? What would this mean to the economy? So I come down to the final part of my contribution, Madam President. Madam President, this means that more than 10,000 workers that work in these

UNREVISED 20 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) bars, gaming lounges, that their jobs are at risk. Ten thousand persons are potentially going on the breadline. We saw 10,000 persons going on the breadline indirectly and directly in Petrotrin, but they are semi-skilled and skilled workers. This industry is made up mainly of unskilled workers, single mothers, who would have a hard time finding a job anywhere else. So this is the risk, Madam President. Madam President, when you close these 1,000 bars, potentially 1,000 bars or more, who does this affect? Not just the bar owner and the workers, plumbers, electricians, persons who service refrigerators, maintenance staff, the burger man, the oyster man, the gyro man. They all lose revenue. The bar owner would have made these profits potentially— Madam President: Sen. Lyder, I really have to caution you at this stage. You have been speaking at length on one particular issue and it is getting a little repetitive now. So I need you to bring in something new. Sen. D. Lyder: Thank you for your guidance, Madam President and I think, you know, the reason why I went so long and hard on this Madam President, is because of the amount of people this affects today, the entire industry. Because when I listened to the Minister of Trade and Industry speak about revenues, that is a whole different point than the roulette machine now. She speaks about revenues. I want to indicate some of the biggest revenue losses that are going to come here today, so I could respond to the hon. Minister of Trade and Industry, some of the biggest losses, Madam President. When you look at the industry that supplies alcohol, beverages, food, to these establishments. Madam President, I took the time to look into this and speak to these industry leaders. And it is estimated that more than $2 billion of revenue is derived from this industry that can now be affected by outlawing this machine. So in the end what does that mean, Madam President? In the end what does it mean? Loss of revenue from VAT, loss of Green

UNREVISED 21 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d)

Fund, business levy, loss of corporation tax. Companies like Carib Brewery and Angostura pay their taxes to the State, Madam President. So there will be a loss of contribution. And, Madam President, where are we going to get this revenue? Where is it going to be returned? These people from these communities are not going to go to Ariapita Avenue and Movie Towne to go and gamble in the big casinos that are now regulated under this Bill. So what happens? Revenue will go back to the streets, to the “whe-whe” man, to illegal dice man, illegal gambling, which contributes nothing to the Government in terms of revenue. This Bill does not build the industry. This Bill shifts the patrons from the organized regulated roulette machine in bars to the street corner, by the casa man to play “wappie” and “whe- whe”. So, Madam President, as I bring my contribution to a close, I hope that I have spoken quite clearly in the request for the Minister of Finance to clarify this to the bar owners. I call on the Government today, in the committee stage, as well as in the Minister’s wrap up, to clarify the uncertainty. I call on the Minister of Finance to come clean to the nation. Be clear to the more than 2,000 bar owners. Be clear to the more than 10,000 workers in the industry who, if were not under lockdown today, may have been standing outside the Red House peacefully protesting, begging and clamouring for clarity here today, Madam President. They would be calling for the Government to clarify. So I call on them to clarify today. Leave no stone unturned when you are talking about thousands of persons’ lives and livelihoods. The United National Congress, I will end as I opened, is not against regulating the industry. We are against weeding out the elements of money laundering and terrorist financing, Madam President. We are all for that. How

UNREVISED 22 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lyder (cont’d) many of these game lounges and bar owners have been arrested for terrorist financing or charged? How many of them convicted? How many? We are all for generating fair revenue for Trinidad and Tobago and the key word being fair and balanced, Madam President. In the words of my colleague, Sen. Rambhajan last week, and I loved her example, she said the scales of lady justice are balanced on left and right. So we are looking today for the balance, not for the destruction of an industry, through over-legislating and overregulating. And with those few words, Madam President, I thank you. Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye: Thank you, Madam President. I was getting ready to come to the Senate last Friday morning. I had decided I was not talking on this voluminous Bill, given such short notice and pressing demands. Suddenly an image of a pleasant visage floated before my mind’s eye. The smile was unforgettable, the twinkle in the eyes unmistakable. The voice, when it came, was chiding yet gentle: "So why yuh not talking on dis Bill? You remember our talk in the dining room about your family member at whose home I used to stay when I came from Mayaro? We spoke about how he always had a racing programme in his pocket. You yourself said you visited him once on Nelson Street where he was staying with all those elderly Chinee men who gambled day and night. Dey gamble money, business, their homes and any and everything. One was reputed to have gambled away his wife. You must speak. The Senate is supposed to be a voice of reason, the advisory Chamber. It is hardly ever referred to as the Upper House now because of the ego of the elected who resent that nomenclature. They say they were elected and you all were selected. But vox populi is not all always vox dei and may very well be vox diaboli. The voice of people, not the voice of God, maybe de voice of de devil. But

UNREVISED 23 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d) the Senate is the Upper House where behaviour must be like Caesar's wife, above reproach, though pronouncements make me wonder if judgment thou art fled to brutish beast and men have lost their reason. I am turning in my grave." I responded: “Ah hear yuh, Sen. Khan. Ah will speak. Rest in peace." Gambling has been part of Trinidad and Tobago's culture from time immemorial. As a child, I used to hear whispering about “wappie” and “whe-whe”. People would be talking about bussing de mark. Sometimes I would be asked: “What yuh dream? What yuh dream?” To this day, I do not know what number is parson man, jammette, dead man. I went Boxing Day races once in my life. It was the time of Mentone and Young Turnabout. I date myself. Gambling was not only a man's game and not only for the middle-aged or elderly, everybody playing. Racing pools and betting shops were filled. Even some high office holders and the clergy became disciples. Many years ago I was representing a woman in a maintenance case in Tunapuna Magistrates’ Court. The husband complained to the magistrate the woman was spending his money on Play Whe instead of the children. The magistrate asked her if that was true. She replied: “Your Honour, dat money dat man does gih me tuh mind dem four chirren so small, it does hurt meh head trying tuh see how tuh spend it. Ah does have tuh play ah mark tuh try tuh grow de money.” The magistrate granted the order. Family members were shocked when on the way to the graveside after her husband's funeral an elderly cousin of ours ordered the driver to stop the vehicle so she could run out and play a mark. Gambling is out of control. And governments are now trying to control gambling in a variety of ways. And different governments use different strategies. In the Bahamas where I used to live, I could take my visitors to the casino on

UNREVISED 24 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

Paradise Island but I could not play there. Once you are a citizen or had a work permit you, you could not gamble in the casinos. But it had the illegal Web shops where people would go. They are now legal and they could go and gamble on American lotteries. But Bahamians still cannot gamble in the casinos. Our laws do not discriminate in that way. The Trinidad and Tobago Government, the National Lotteries Control Board, was instituted to cash in on widespread gambling and open the gateway to runaway gambling. It is now seeing the pitfalls and the gateway to illegal activity and is seeking by this Bill to control this industry. The explanatory note of the Bill states that: “The Bill seeks to provide for the establishment of Gambling (Gaming and Betting Control…for the purpose of regulating the gaming and betting sectors which are, both on a global and national level, vulnerable to infiltration by money launderers and terrorist financing.” And: “It is expected that the Commission will establish a licensing framework which will aid in minimising the potential for money laundering and terrorist financing due to the stringent criteria”—in the Bill that they will have to meet—“in order to obtain a licence to work in the gaming and betting sectors. It is recognised that these sectors have the potential to contribute meaningfully and positively to the national economy, if regulated effectively, by creating employment, not only in the sector but in other downstream sectors…creating greater tax revenues.” When you look at clause 4 which gives the objects of the Bill, you see it says: “…to— (a) protect minors and other vulnerable persons from being harmed

UNREVISED 25 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

exploited by gambling; (b) ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair, open and responsible manner; (c) prevent gambling from being a source of crime, being associated with crime or being used to support crime; (d) ensure compliance with written laws for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing in line with the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations; (e) ensure consumer protection; (f) provide for the collection of taxes; and (g) contribute to the economy by creating employment.” Now the Bill's explanatory note speaks to money laundering and terrorist financing, which seems to be its raison d'être. But when you look at the object, the first one that is put on the table is to protect children and vulnerable persons from exploitation, crime and corruption. And corruption is in fact—and crime, No. 4 on the list. And it ends interestingly with creating employment. Now I wonder why the Bill would put children first and in front, when that was not its focus. Then I thought perhaps it was a similar ploy that sometimes a mother would use, when she is in imminent dangr of being hit by her husband. She sometimes would put the child in front of her to deflect the anger, thinking he would think twice before injuring the child. So maybe, just maybe, the hon. Attorney General was thinking that if he showed how the Bill would benefit children, we would be less likely to oppose the Bill. As for the last object, creating employment, I spoke to a casino employee last night. She shared, they had not been working since April 29th. She said that her employer used to give had them foodstuff but could no longer do so. A fellow

UNREVISED 26 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d) employee was in tears she said. She had no money to pay her rent and was scared of having to go on the streets, and a colleague had an offer from a man to perform services for a sum of money and she was considering it. So my source told me: "Look, I told her, please hold on to your dignity." She shared with me that the boss had said if this Bill becomes law, he could not pay those taxes and would have to fire some of them. Those he kept would have to multitask, as their casino was not prosperous. And she reminded me that most of the employees are single women. So there is a lot of fear of what could happen. Maybe it is not being properly explained to them, but nevertheless they are quite concerned. Clause 5(1) creates a body corporate called the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Commission, which is to be managed by a board appointed by the President for the purpose of exercising such powers and duty that are conferred upon it by the Act and any other written law. Now, the qualifications for board membership are: work and experience in the gambling industry or a field relating to law, finance, information technology, management, social work or law enforcement. And the Bill also gives reason for disqualification:  the person has operated a gambling establishment prior to the coming into force of the Act;  the person holds a licence issued under the Act;  the person intends to apply for a licence pursuant to the provision of the Act, or has a financial interest in it but does not operate a gambling establishment or holds a position on the board and has made application for a licence under this Act, in which case there will be automatic disqualification. Clause 5(6) gives reason for removal of the board member as becoming a person of

UNREVISED 27 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d) unsound mind, becoming bankrupt, unable or unfit or unwilling to perform functions, absent from three consecutive meetings of the board, without leave of the board, or without reasonable cause, guilty of misconduct in relation to his duties as a member, or is sentenced to imprisonment or is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere. Madam President, when one examines the qualifications for gaming board appointments in other jurisdiction one finds criteria such as certain office holders must be a member of the board. Section 3 of the Betting and Gaming Act of Barbados stipulates in the first Schedule of their Act that the Controller of Customs, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the Solicitor General shall be members of the board, together with five other persons appointed by the Minister. When you look at Belize’s Gaming Control Act, it stipulates that the members of the Gaming Control Board shall be a representative of the Ministry of Economic Development, a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, a representative of the Ministry of Tourism, the Financial Secretary or its representative, a member of the Lotteries Committee established under the Lotteries Control Board, two members appointed by the Minister in his discretion, a representative of the Ministry of National Security, a representative of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and the Minister shall appoint one of the members. When you look at the Bahamas Board, under section 6 of the Gaming Act, which talks about disqualification for appointment as member or employee of the board, it says that the following persons shall be disqualified from being appointed, acting or continue to act as members or employees of the board: Anyone who at any time has been convicted of an offence under this Act or any similar law;

UNREVISED 28 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d) anyone who at any time and at any place had been convicted of theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, bribery or corruption, or any offence of which dishonesty is an element; anyone who is subject to any legal disability including but not limited to mental incapacity or insolvency; anyone who was at any time been removed from any office of trust as a result of misconduct or dishonesty; or anyone who, whether personally or through his spouse, family member or associate, has or acquires a direct or an indirect financial interest in any gaming business or establishment or has any interest in any business or enterprise that may conflict or interfere with the proper performance of his duties as a member or an employee of the board, or in any licence issued under this Act. So I am submitting that our provisions are too wide open and some guidance could be given in respect of who can become members of the board, so that it will be directly related to the character of the person and—or the office of the person or both. 11.00 a.m. Now, clause 59 is a very interesting provision, which it proves extremely difficult, I would think, to police. It grants exemptions to gaming carried out as entertainment where: “the whole proceeds…after deducting……expenses are applied to purposes other than private gain; and…” These include bazaars, fairs, dinner, dances, church harvest, I would say, I would add, in the et cetera. And I would say in my various incarnations as a girl guide, a teacher, a parishioner, I have worked at some of these events, and I have witnessed some questionable behaviours. There is a saying that, “God helps those who help themselves”. And all I want to say, is that some creative do-gooders give new meaning to that saying, “God helps those who help themselves.” Good luck with

UNREVISED 29 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d) policing this provision. “Father, ah taking de bunch board, plenty donations, plenty blanks.” Clause 64 establishes the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fun. I am very interested in this clause. Perhaps, that should be called the “conscience fund.” “The Rehabilitation Fund is established to assist non-governmental organisations and other groups working with vulnerable persons and their families suffering the effects of gambling addiction and other forms of harm or exploitation associated with gambling.” And— “The Development Fund is established...... two and one half per cent and five per cent of the monies collected from gaming and betting, respectively.” Dr. Gerder Reith of the University of Glasgow with the Scottish Centre for Social Research, in their final report on their “Research on the Social Impact of Gambling” revealed: “Claims that casinos create significant wealth, new jobs and regenerate local economies; or that they create massive social problems through increases in problem gambling and crime tend to be exaggerated.” They found: “The evidence base shows that casinos are neither as beneficial as supporters claim, nor as damaging as opponents fear. Problem gambling is defined as behaviour that is out of control and that disrupts personal, family, financial and employment relations...” And we know a lot about that. So: “It is linked to financial problems such as debt and bankruptcy, divorce, lost

UNREVISED 30 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

productivity, crime (such as theft and fraud), depression and suicide. It is estimated that between 0.6% – 0.8% of the adult population in Britain are problem gamblers (between 275,000 and 370,000 people). The percentages of the population are similar for Scotland.” Then you have the “Risk Factors and Disadvantaged group”: “…who experience poverty, unemployment, dependence on welfare, and low levels of education and household income are most likely to suffer the adverse consequences of increased gambling.” And: “Within these groups…” You have the: “…male, single and under thirty-five years of age…” —being most represented and they: “…are also more likely to be at risk from developing problems with their gambling. In addition, problem gamblers are more likely than non-problem players to have heavy and/or problematic consumption of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.” They seem to go together somehow. And they: “...spend more money on gambling…” Individuals from these groups: “…in absolute terms, they do spend a higher proportion of their incomes than wealthier players.” So, in terms of the proportion of the income they spend more although wealthy players may spend more in terms of amount. The: “Availability and convenience are strongly associated with problem gambling.”

UNREVISED 31 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

So you have: “Electronic gaming machines…located outside casinos… widely dispersed throughout the community in bars, hotels and clubs can encourage impulsive gambling and are associated with the highest rates of problem gambling worldwide.” So where you place the machines? “At the other end of the scale, casinos tend to require deliberate effort, in terms of planning and travelling to a venue, which discourages impulsive play. Convenience is therefore a crucial regulatory issue (particularly when combined with the absence of public awareness activities), which has implications for the location of casinos.” Now: “Casino Gambling …around 3% of the British adult population gamble in casinos…” They found and: “…5% – 8% are considered problem gamblers (i.e. less than a quarter of one per cent…)”—They—“…have higher levels of income and education than other gamblers...” And of course, when you go to the casino you see how the people are dressed and obviously they are not at the lower end of the scale. So they come from a higher social class and: “They are the least popular form for...the lowest social class. Individuals on lower incomes and with lower levels of education are less likely to visit casinos than the general population, although when they do, they tend to experience more problems with their playing. In Britain, there are two distinct groups who experience problems with

UNREVISED 32 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

casino gambling: single, retired males aged over forty, especially those who are of Chinese ethnicity, and single unemployed males under thirty.” And we see in Trinidad and Tobago a lot of these casinos and so on are in fact run by the Chinese. So when the Chinese came in the society doing the construction some of them left, they went back and said, “What a wonderful place Trinidad is, come and bring your casinos here.” And: “These individuals also have higher levels of tobacco and alcohol consumption. Research has found that proximity to casinos increases rates of problem gambling in the local population...” So it is how near it is to your home, all of these things. “They do not appear to increase per capita crime, although total crime in a neighbourhood may increase. This seems to be an effect of population growth: casinos tend to attract large numbers of visitors to an area, and casino jurisdictions can also experience population growth, increasing overall numbers of people in an area who can commit or fall victim to crime.” And: “This effect appears to be concentrated on specific types of crime, such as burglary, and does not seem to affect violent crime and most street crimes. Fear of crime does not appear to increase in communities that introduce casinos, and may actually decrease due to the presence of casinos’ own security measures and the development of rundown areas.” Now, the: “Casinos are distinguished by a range of factors, including size and geographical location, which can result in very different impacts. Large

UNREVISED 33 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

‘resort’ casinos are often located away from major population centres…” Like in the Bahamas you have—to drive over to the biggest one you have to go over into Paradise Island, and that is not in the centre of the city which is Nassau. So: “…it makes them attractive to tourist and smaller casinos...” —as the one in which the girl I spoke to last night works: “...is more in the suburban environment and they offer fewer facilities with less potential for attracting tourist. The social costs of casinos tend to be exported to the areas where the gamblers who play them live. This means that ‘resort’ and rural casinos tend to be associated with the lowest social costs relative to economic benefits, since the majority of their customers come from out with the immediate area…urban or suburban casinos tend to draw large numbers of local residents to them, meaning that social costs remain within the community.” Now: “Longitudinal studies from Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. have found that the prevalence of problem gambling has remained stable or declined over time despite the introduction of casinos and other forms of gambling. This has been attributed to the provision of public awareness campaigns and treatment services, as well as processes of adaptation whereby communities adjust to the presence of gambling around them. Prevention and Treatment The provision of public health information and specialised treatment services targeted towards ‘at risk’ groups can help to combat the potential negative effects of increased casino gambling. Public health approaches that focus on the prevention of problem behaviour

UNREVISED 34 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

in the general population can save costs in the long term, since, across a range of behavioural disorders, severe problem gambling is one of the most difficult and expensive to treat. Raising awareness is particularly important in Scotland.” —and I dare say in Trinidad and Tobago. “...many individuals are simply not aware of the risks gambling can pose, nor are they aware of the availability of services to treat it. For example, less than half of the population have ever heard of Gamblers Anonymous, and only one in five problem gamblers has ever sought help for their difficulties.” I do not know if we have any “Gamblers Anonymous” here. I certainly have heard about Alcoholics Anonymous; I have heard about drug treatment programmes. I do not know if it exists. If it is, it is a well-kept secret. A 2014 study— Madam President: Sen. Thompson-Ahye, if I could just point out to you that you are giving a lot of information about gambling, but I need for you as you have been doing earlier in your contribution, to tie in the information with the Bill itself. Okay? Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye: Thank you, Madam President. Australian Gambling Research Centre, concludes that: “Problem gambling represents a significant public health problem...” —and laments the fact that: “...research on...gambling harm-minimisation measures lag behind other fields...” And a 2020 study statement from the House of Lords, “Gambling Harm Time for Action”, state that:

UNREVISED 35 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Thompson Ahye (cont’d)

“…for each problem gambler, six other people… are harmed by the breakup of families, crime, loss of employment, loss of homes and, ultimately, loss of life…” It says: “One third of a million…”—of the population—“…are gamblers…” —and—“…one problem gambler commits suicide every day.” Now, we have no statistics for suicide here. Madam President, I recall a murder/suicide in Mount Lambert. Through his gambling addiction the man lost his business he had inherited from his parents, killed his wife and himself. It is a house that you pass everyday once you are going into Mount Lambert area or up the Priority. So I say these and give these examples to show that the 2½ per cent of this Bill, what it proposes for rehabilitation of problem gambling is mere tokenism and I am proposing that no less because of the problems as associated with problem gamblers, no less than 10 per cent should be allocated, and part of that must go toward research so we know what the problems are so we can address them. One of the things that the London study said is that when you have a suicide that it should be recorded if that suicide arose out of a gambling addiction so that we would know what is happening with gambling and how we can best address them. So I think that this particular provision dealing with the money for rehabilitation, the 2½ per cent is a matter that certainly should be addressed, looked at and see what we can do because we are destroying not just the gambler, but as I showed in one of the studies, his family is affected and the community. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs. [Desk thumping]

UNREVISED 36 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne

The Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Dr. Amery Browne: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which in my view, and as all debates in this Chamber, is supposed to be about a clash of ideas and how we can better improve the legislative framework in the interest of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Clash of ideas, philosophies, options, alternatives, approaches. And, Madam President, I want to indicate that in my humble view a number of Independent Senators have already in this debate given some very good examples of exactly that and not for the first time. Sen. Thompson-Ahye just added to that distinguished record. So it is not about how good you look, or how much money, or what is your educational background, but the value and power of your ideas, your philosophy. And in that spirit, Madam President, I also listened closely not just to the Independents, but also to the contributors from the UNC Bench, the Opposition Bench. And I listened as I always do particularly closely to the contribution of Sen. Mark who is not the, by any means, the least experienced Senator in this Chamber. He is highly experienced, highly qualified, and brings a number of attributes that are quite admirable to this Senate. I listened closely to that Senator, Madam President, and it appeared to me, it appeared to me that one of the fundamental pillars of his contribution was basically, we do not need this. This is superfluous bureaucracy that will have a negative effect on the very sector that we are looking to regulate and manage. That seemed to be the underlying premise, Madam President, and if he wishes to rise and correct my understanding of his premise, he is free to do so at this time. I would give way. He seemed to be presenting—I listened closely—that there is adequate regulation inherent in the current licensing arrangement for application

UNREVISED 37 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) and response, to request for licence from operators. And that this entire approach by the Government is just about bureaucracy and damaging businesses in Trinidad and Tobago. And, Madam President, it is my view that such a philosophical approach to this debate is either—well, let me be as kind as I can—is an extremely naive approach and can be considered quite dangerous given the very important imperatives that are before this Chamber. Madam President, I also listened closely to Sen. Lyder who at times would present himself as an advocate of the business sector or some kind of apostle of small businesses in Trinidad and Tobago. And Sen. Lyder said that in his view the Bill was “rushed like a tornado”. I believe “tornado” was the word. It was some sort of weather event he used, “rushed like a tornado”. And I asked myself, does the Senator understand the definition of a tornado? Because when you look at the history of this Government’s approach to regulating this industry, a tornado does not develop in six years. When you recognize that the United National Congress attempted in their dying moments to bring legislative measures to regulate this very industry, and failed, and you look at that history, you are not talking about the tornado today. And when you look at the passage through a joint select committee in which the other Benches participated including his own Bench—I am not sure where he was at the time—then you are not describing a tornado, you are not describing a thief in the night, you are not describing an overnight sensation, you are not describing a flash in the pan, Madam President, through you to Sen. Lyder. You may be describing something else. So I thought that analogy was completely misplaced and not in keeping with the actual history of this legislation. Madam President, well, I addressed a little bit of the history. Sen. Lyder also

UNREVISED 38 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) laid a strong characterization that this Bill is draconian. And this is not the first time the Opposition Bench has approached comprehensive legislation with that sort of stamp in their hand, ready to slam on the table draconian, draconian, draconian. And one would wonder what kind of legislation, given the powerful negative interest that the law-abiding confront in this country, what measures would they consider non-draconian? And I would want to get some very clear examples from them. So he characterized the Bill as draconian. And, Madam President, the only world in which I would respectfully view the measures proposed in this Bill as draconian, is a world in which, well, all casinos are innocent businesses. It is a world in which organized crime does not exist, and does not thrive in an unregulated gambling environment as occurs all over this planet on which we exist. The only world in which those arguments would make sense is a world in which a drug dealer cannot walk into a casino and place a big bet, big bets on a Roulette game, or on Blackjack, or on Texas Hold’em, or on Omaha, or any of the other games that occur in this environment and spend $500,000, $800,000 in a night of activity and then cash in chips for about two thirds of that. So you expend $500,000 in dirty money and you walk out with $300,000 or $200,000 or $100,000 in clean money because it came from what appears to be a legitimate exercise. So a world in which those activities do not occur is a good world in which those arguments can be safely made. But, Madam President, I do not believe that is this world. I do not believe that that describes the environment in Trinidad and Tobago. And significant evidence has already been presented. I would give a little bit of the global context in which this legislation must be deemed critical and important for the advancement of the law-abiding interest in Trinidad and Tobago.

UNREVISED 39 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d)

And, Madam President, without such regulation, without such control, without the activities of this Commission, who really suffers? Who really suffers? And Madam President, I would make the point, we all do, we all do. Including the employee in the casino, the supervisor, the pit boss, the humble worker and his family, because he would want a government that takes measures—a Parliament that takes measures—to ensure that his activities, his livelihood, is in support of the law-abiding. He would appreciate that. These measures are in support of gamblers as well because the other person—I spoke about the drug dealer betting at the Texas Hold’em game. The other person sitting at that table could be unwitting participant in the current environment in illegal activity, and not minor illegal activity, and that is the problem. That is when we have a naive approach to these discussions. We might feel you are talking about petty crime. Madam President, what we are seeking to control here is linked to the global issues, to potential terrorism, to money laundering, to organized crime, to the Mafia. I do not know if the word has been used as yet but let me put it on the Hansard record, to the Mafia. And again, I would give some examples of a lack of proper regulation and the implications to a country. So, Madam President, it should be clear I have a very different philosophical approach to this matter than the Members of the Opposition that have spoken thus far. And there have been some good suggestions. I acknowledge that forthrightly, some good suggestions on some of the details of the Bill. But my address here is focused again on negating some of what I see as either a naive or dangerous attempt to hypnotize the population to feel that this is somehow unnecessary or somehow superfluous bureaucracy designed to destroy business as opposed to improve the business environment, and the living environment in Trinidad and

UNREVISED 40 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d)

Tobago. So I was talking about some of the people who suffer in an unregulated environment, those who are killed and exploited by that drug dealer who makes the bet. Those people also suffer and struggle. The Financial Intelligence Task Force, the DEA, the Anti-Terrorism Task Force, all of these agencies continuously say that it is those opportunities for money laundering, for washing dirty money and walking out with clean money that presents a herculean task for their very basic duties. All the agencies fighting these monsters that I am referring to. And, Madam President, I just want to address something else. Sen. Mohan may have given his maiden contribution, and I will be as kind as possible in that regard, but it appeared to me, again, this is my interpretation, that he may have discarded some of his notes, he may have discarded some of his notes as irrelevant based on the presentation by the Minister of Finance, where he made crystal clear that the bar owners and operators are not targeted by the provisions in this Bill. He made that crystal clear. So, Sen. Mohan I think may have been prepared along a certain line and was affected by the reality as presented by the Minister of Finance. Well, it appears in addition, that Sen. Lyder was of a very different disposition because instead of Sen. Mohan who I understand has a strong background in assisting and participating in those types of legitimate businesses, Sen. Lyder came with that same approach pretending that the Minister of Finance did not clarify the parameter, and made an entire case that bar operators are going to be affected and went on, and on, and on, appealing to the sympathies of the listeners who may not understand that what he was doing, what that Senator was doing, Madam President, was creating a straw argument and then proceeded to attack that [Technical difficulties] in objection to this legislation, is objection to it in support of small business.

UNREVISED 41 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d)

And, Madam President, I want to confront that premise again frontally. Because these small businesses, these bars and all of the oyster man and the other persons that I have heard being referred to, are also protected by gambling control laws, all of us, all citizens, businesses at every level. Because, Madam President, I do not want us to hide from the elephant in the room, and that is organized crime, which is like a hydra that affects every citizen. And the reality is the playing field currently is not level and I thought the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General made that quite clear in their presentations. The playing field is not level. And, Madam President, in an unregulated or under-regulated environment as currently exists, the organized criminals can easily open up a large sport bar in the neighbourhood and swallow up the small bars readily in an unregulated environment, and I could give examples around the world where such things have happened. So a proper legislative framework protects all and that is the objective of this legislation. Even the bar, the bar owner who might have been terrorized by some of the offerings on the Opposition Bench should realize that he and his family are actually safer, his business is actually safer and being protected by a proper and robust legislative framework, and a working commission, a functional commission that this Government is seeking to implement via this Bill. And I think I heard a question, I think it was a rhetorical question, Madam President, from Sen. Lyder, “Well, how many gaming operators have been arrested for these crimes?” And he put that question on the record because I think the answer he is expecting, or the answer he delivered, is few or none. 11.30 a.m. So the—again, a very false premise. So, these gaming operators have not been arrested and therefore, what? Does that mean robust regulation and control is

UNREVISED 42 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) unimportant or irrelevant? Or does that mean that in the absence of control in the absence of a gaming control commission, in the absence of proper regulation, it is difficult for law enforcement operatives to bring to justice, those who they may be well aware, have been operating outside of the law, and contributing to others who are operating outside of the law. So I think in that way, we can fully unmask the potential of that rhetorical question. And I would say such a question is actually in support of the Government’s approach when asking well, how many gaming operators have been arrested for crimes thus far? Madam President, I just wanted in—I mean, I do not know how much more time I have. But just to give a few examples in the international—sorry? Madam President: So you actually finish at 11.43, so you have 13 minutes left. Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne: Thank you most kindly, Madam President, just a few examples of the international perspective in terms of the rationale for the Government’s approach, and the justification for a gaming commission, gambling commission to bring proper regulation to a sector which is woefully under- regulated at this point. So again, I am confronting squarely Sen. Mark’s premise in his response to the mover of this Bill—in response to the Minister of Finance. Madam President, one international example I could give comes from the Australian strategic policy initiative, and why do I go to Australia? It is a lovely country but I go there because Australia is an example of a country that has struggled, struggled with the powerful hand of organized crime within its casino and gambling environment. And that covers online as well as offline, the Australian society has struggled with that, and some say it is because of their proximity to South East Asia and all of the connections with some of those powerful networks, that they have come under a lot of pressure. And on February 24, 2021, the Australian strategic policy initiative stated that much of the money

UNREVISED 43 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) laundering in Australia is being used—guess where? In casinos—is being used in casinos with links to human trafficking, narcotics, and wildlife smuggling. And I want you Madam President, to think about those three areas. And think about if those are foreign to our local experience, or very much part of our local experience; human trafficking, narcotics and wildlife smuggling. What does that have to do with this Bill? The answer, it has everything to do with this Bill and the Government’s approach. Another example, the UK’s Environmental Investigation Agency— Environmental Investigation Agency in the United Kingdom has declared that: “…the power of casinos in a country is a good indicator of the extent of”— its—“money-laundering and serious crime networks…” Now, that is a heavy statement and I do not want to be associated with any view that all casinos are operated by criminals because that is not so. I have had family members who worked in casinos, who have worked in the industry, and they have provided as far as they were concerned and aware, honourable labour for their honest day’s pay. So, that is not my approach but I am just sharing some of the views that indicate that in an unregulated or under-regulated environment, the very industry that we are seeking to regulate that is under examination today, the power of some in that industry can be a measure of the strength of serious crime networks in a country. Let us leave that at the UK. A third example, Madam President, last year a Global News investigation in British Columbia looked at British Columbia’s casinos and uncovered evidence of sexual slavery—again, every time I use these phrases, Madam President, I would want Senators to think whether those attributes are foreign to us, or relevant us— sexual slavery, child abuse and corruption. There was also corruption of political parties linked to the industry. Women with gambling debts in another country,

UNREVISED 44 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) were being trafficked into British Columbia. Relevant to us? Women in another country with gambling debts were being trafficked into British Columbia and forced into sex work, Madam President. Children in—we are not talking about Papua—well, I do not want to give any example, we are not talking about a developing country somewhere in the middle of the Pacific or far away from us. We are talking about British Columbia, a developed country—a part of a developed country. Children in British Columbia had been thrown into the trunk of a car and warned at gunpoint that their father owed CAD $300,000. Again, the link—and, Madam President, I would want Members of the Opposition to dwell a little bit on the link between heavy casino debts, the incurrence of heavy casino debts and bizarre kidnappings, and murders and other unusual crimes. And again, I ask, does this sound familiar? Does this sound like the kind of activity, the stigmata of a sector of a society in which the operations of these—some of these businesses, these industries are under-regulated, require control, require a commission to properly examine, to properly issue a range of licences, to properly monitor and evaluate, to properly regulate? And, Madam President, the last example I want to give on this international tornado, a whirlwind tour, would be Las Vegas; Las Vegas. And I take you back to the early years before its—you know, the modern era of Las Vegas as it were. And everyone knows, especially those who are fans of popular film and so on, the history of Las Vegas cannot be separated from the history of the mob in the United States of America. And in the years before proper regulation of the gambling industry in that city, the mobsters had a field day, literally. And it was mainly the Italian mobsters and the Jewish mobsters and the names are famous: Al Capone, Frank Costello, Lucky Luciano, Benjamin Siegel. What I was—what struck me, there was even a link, Madam President, to trade unions, to labour movements, as a

UNREVISED 45 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) major source of funding of the mob through these casinos. I thought that was quite interesting. And I looked at the activities of the Teamsters’ Central States Pension Fund. Teamsters, well, I would not get into those details because I do not have time. But that pension fund, the money would—via that pension fund, the money of innocent hard-working Americans was being used in an unregulated and uncontrolled environment to fund activities that were killing and destroying innocent hard-working Americans. So, in this way without these measures, you find good citizens, noble citizens, including the workers the Opposition claims they are trying to protect, are actually working against themselves. And that is what we must avoid, Madam President. Madam President: Minister, you have five more minutes. Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne: Thank you. So, in the Las Vegas example, back in the days where there was not sufficient regulation, where the gaming commission did not exist, you had the money of innocent hard-working Americans being used to kill and destroy innocent hard-working Americans. And the same in Atlantic City, where the unregulated power of the casinos spread and affected everything, including law enforcement and the Judiciary. Again, I want to make it pellucidly clear, Madam President, this is not putting a blanket over all casinos, all operators, all workers, all pit bosses, all supervisors, many of whom are innocent hard-working individuals seeking to contribute to their families and to society. I cast no aspersions on them but what I am indicating is in the absence of proper control, proper regulation, and robust law, such as we are debating today, their efforts can be feeding into the hydra, the monster of organized crime which puts me at risk, which puts my children at risk and I will do my part, along with my colleagues to ensure that avenues for that type

UNREVISED 46 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. Dr. A. Browne (cont’d) of operation are constricted and closed off. That is the reason we have gathered here today. And I will not get into the spill-off with the other businesses. Again, once you have an uneven playing field, such as exists currently, you are going to get a spillover into everything. The pawn shops, the jewellery stores, the restaurants, the hotels, the performers, and artistes even. And there is a long list of how corruption can spread even in the restaurants, even the banks will be protected by proper control. And there are other examples, we could go to Sicily and Italy, et cetera. All of which, they are speaking to us today, Madam President, and their voices telling us a proper gaming control commission and legislation is essential in the modern age. So, Madam President, I will conclude. I do not want to run out of time, again today. All countries on this planet, the real planet, have a responsibility to robustly control and manage casino and gambling operation. It is not an option, it is essential. Sen. Mark’s premise that there is already enough regulation is ludicrous, it is preposterous and it is also absurd. And to Senator—finally, to Sen. Lyder and any like-minded Opposition Senator, I want to say this. The oyster man, the doubles man and his wife, the bar owner and his children, the taxpayer walking down the street or sitting in their house right now, the casino worker, the policeman, the policeman, the courthouse clerk, the courthouse clerk, the children of Trinidad and Tobago, are all protected by this legislation which does not hurt them, it is helping them and all of us. I thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Sen. John. Sen. Jearlean John: Thank you, hon. Madam President, for the opportunity to join this debate. In piloting this Bill, the hon. Minister of Finance stated that the current

UNREVISED 47 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) framework within which the private members’ club operates is not geared towards realizing as a country, the true potential of the gaming sector as a significant source of government revenue. So, Madam President, from the onset, we are very clear about the objective. And I must say based on the remarks, the contribution of the very previous speaker, the hon. Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs, that the Opposition is opposed to regulations. Madam President, nothing can be further from the truth. Every Member of the Opposition so far, has underscored has emphasized, they have confirmed that we are not adverse to the regulations or to a robust regulatory framework at all. It is clear that the gaming and betting industry must be regulated, must be brought out of the shadows. The UNC however, is concerned about the broad brush of criminality placed on everybody operating in the sector; that cannot be true. Obviously, there probably will be room for malfeasance given the nature of the industry but it cannot be that a lot of our young, single mothers and the majority of persons who are largely unskilled, who find their way into these organizations seeking decent and honest employment— you know, it is nice when you went to university and so on. But there are people who are looking for opportunities to look after themselves, they want to wean themselves from off the Treasury as they were told. And therefore, I really want to emphasize that regulations, robust regulations, that is not the issue. If something does not make sense or there is a duplication, then it is the duty of the Opposition to point that out to the Government, Madam President. In looking at this Bill, there was not a lot of statistics to work with, and the hon. Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs also made the point that this is a global industry, it attracts people from all over. And the growth, meaning that it has been fueled by the fact that it is—there is a certain level of acceptance for gambling it appears now, in the general—in the public space. And it is seen as a

UNREVISED 48 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) form of recreation which promises substantial economic benefits and on the Government side, tax revenues. For the communities in which they operate, they have the opportunity of jobs or downstream sort of opportunities where people can on the supply side, provide supplies to these establishments. So, there is no question that legalized gambling brings some level of benefit into some communities, just as there is no question that problem gambling has imposed economic and social cost. And this is an important question, Madam President, from a public policy perspective in terms of what is the cost, which is larger and by how much? I mean the question I think has not been answered so far, because we have little with which to work, a lot of it is hypothesizing. So, Madam President, in the absence of credible statistics from the Government side, the global market, it appears—and this is from some document calling itself the Global Gambling Market Report, 2021, Research and Markets. It says the global gambling market is expected to grow from 465.76 billion in 2020 to 516.03. And I am sure that Trinidad and Tobago is a part of that global growth, the hon. Minister of Finance did make the point that indeed this market was growing but there was no way the Government has not been able to collect taxes from the various institutions, or what is being paid into the Government coffers is woefully—it falls short, falls far short of expectation. So, Madam President, in the explanatory note to this Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill, it says: “…for the purpose of regulating the gaming and betting sectors which are, both on a global and national level, vulnerable to infiltration by money launderers and terrorist financing.” And no one will want this kind of scourge in their country, so again, I repudiate what is being said on the other side.

UNREVISED 49 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d)

In Part II, clause 5 of the Bill, Madam President, it establishes a body corporate be known as the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Commission. And this will be managed by a board, and it goes on to say how they are going to be engaged, et cetera, and for how long. Madam President, this is a new corporate entity coming into being to oversee this area where every Member of the Government side has said is really a demon, it is demonic, it is a scourge and maybe they are correct because they are in governance and they know what they see and what they hear. But, Madam President, what I am asking: What happens after the member of the Commission’s term has expired? Are they free to be engaged by a casino in any capacity? Or will it be prudent to insert a cooling off period, because in looking at the Bill before us, I am seeing where there is a barrier towards the persons who can enter, who can be appointed as members of the board, maybe even as employees of the Commission, but what happens after the eight- year period or the two-year period, or whatever period for which they are engaged. Is there a cooling off period? Because these—or are these persons free to just go and pick up appointments in these same organizations, going with a lot of knowledge in terms of what—remember the documentation will be very deep and broad and expansive in terms of the requirements for accessing these licences. So, when someone’s term has expired from the board, what happens then? Because as the hon. Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs, he mentioned Las Vegas in his statements. I will say as regard to Las Vegas, there is a famous quote, what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. And there is also Pitbull, a famous musician saying, and “what happens in Miami never happened”. So what I am trying to find out from the hon. Minister of Finance is what happens to these board members, what are the mechanisms to be put in place to prevent someone who would have been privy to the inner workings of the Commission, would have been

UNREVISED 50 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) exposed to the trade secrets and extensive trade practices of the various casinos, based on these regulatory requirements. What happens when they leave? Clause 18 of the Bill, it talks about the funds of the Commission and it is the funds will consist of, based on the Bill, appropriated such amounts as may be appropriated by Parliament. Now, again, is this Commission going to be a burden on the State? Because, yes, there are fees, monies to be collected from the various— with respect to licences, levies, fees, et cetera. You see, if it is we had the proper surveys done and the statistics, then we would have known what contribution based on probability, one would have known what contribution, the existing industry, and then one would have had to discount for what happens during—what has happened during COVID. Who is going to reopen? You know, in the hon. Minister West’s contribution, she spoke about them looking flush and prosperous with the big buildings. But, Madam President, I do not think that big buildings are an indication of wealth or prosperity, it could be that they are renting these big spaces or they have large mortgages, we do not know because we do not have the details before us. So, as I said, where is the projection of the potential tax earnings? All that we are doing so far is just projecting, the hon. Minister West would have said there is the probability that these businesses will earn a net profit of 25 per cent, discount the 30 per cent or 35 per cent for corporate taxes. The hon. Minister is—well, speculating at best that the profit figure with respect to the entire industry is about $1.12 billion which is counter to what the hon. Minister of Finance is saying, I think he is proposing $500 million. So, we are not sure what really is the value of this sector, right? So, I said whilst it is not necessarily in dispute, the responsible thing would have been for the Minister of Finance to have come to this Parliament with the proper projection and

UNREVISED 51 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) proper estimates, so that really and truly, we would have had something substantial with which to work with. Madam President, Part III, “The Licensing Regime”. Now, another one of my colleagues said it was draconian, but really, some of the—in terms of what is being asked of simple, humble people, in terms of some of these fees, it is not only maybe the so-called fat cat casino owners but the employees who would have to find all of these fees. These folks, you know, we have to—many times when one asks a question as it regards operationalizing a piece of legislation, one is told we are legislators, we are drafters, but after it leaves here, it goes somewhere, someone has to take it and operationalize it. And if it does not make sense, it takes a long time and remember, this is a brand new organization and the Minister of Finance is saying there is the probability and potential for large tax payments into the corporation sole and we want that money and we want the money now. But if it is one is not ready, how will one then have the mechanism to maximize whatever this piece of legislation, should it be passed, is telling us. So, I am saying, Madam President, in coming to the Parliament with a Bill there must be reasonableness and practicability. Can these folks, the people, the employees, the various—what do you call it—segments or categories, are they in a position to pay these large fees, particularly after they have been home for the last 15 months or so? I think one of our colleagues on the Independent Bench, Sen. Ahye would have spoken about someone she knew, saying they have no money at this time, and I think that is the general sentiment. So, Madam President, one is asking, you know, by stating that an objective of the Bill is to address money laundering and tax evasion, and if this Bill is, in addressing these issues, well, I say fine. However, the measures are quite stringent, again, I reiterate when it comes to persons who work in this sector. And very often,

UNREVISED 52 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) you know, they are single mothers, single fathers, and people who really have a hard time getting by. I am not saying we do not have to enforce, but certainly we have to ask ourselves, where are they going to get this money to continue with employment in this sector? So, Madam President, so as I tried to go along, we come on to—I was talking about the licensing regime, the “Gaming Operator’s Licence”, “Betting Operator’s Licence”, “Gaming Owner’s Licence”. So, again, so as the Minister considers how persons in the industry who have been placed on the breadline for many months, how will they be able to afford this? Madam President, in clause 4—sorry, clause 38(e) of the Bill, the conditions of licence where, as a condition to this licence the owner has to: “consent to— (i) the entry of authorised…” —a category of persons attached to the Commission called: “…authorised officers and enforcement officers…” And in so doing, they have to allow them to enter their premises, to show up and just enter. So, in fact, that is one of the queries that the UNC had and I think this is where the hon. Attorney General continues to use the proportionality argument to bypass the special majority requirement. So, in Senate last week, Madam President, you know, the hon. Attorney General justified the removal by the fact that of the consent precondition to enter the premises, that, “It is okay, I am going to do a simple majority and ask, let the officer show up as a condition of this licence, they must be allowed to enter”. But that cannot be fair; that alone cannot possibly justify not subjecting this significant piece of law which infringes the rights to property, privacy, et cetera, to the highest rigors of parliamentary approval.

UNREVISED 53 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d)

So, we are asking why we would have taken off the guardrails just so this person, these particular officers can try to enter. Because right there, there will be an issue because the owner of the casino can deny entry, and what happens then? The officers will have to show themselves up to the court to seek a warrant to enter. It means therefore, if there was any malfeasance, it gives an opportunity for the casino to correct it. So, I think this is counterproductive, right, Madam? Now, in light of the fact that there is gambling and betting industry already in effect, I have a question with this same, I think, clause 38. There is a particular clause and I will get to it shortly, where I think it is 53(3) or 53(1) where I had a question as I was reading—because the Bill is a little bit clumsy—what is going to happen to the persons who are already operating in this sector? And I saw where the new persons—no, in 53(3), sorry, they can continue to operate whilst their licences are being reviewed. Now, that is good and all well and good. What happens then, again, a condition of the licence is that you have to pay your taxes, your taxes have to be up to date but that is the new people coming in. What about the folks who are already operating? Is it that they too will be given some kind of a grace period to bring their taxes up to date, given what the hon. Minister of Finance would have said prior, that persons are not honouring that commitment? And, Madam President, for that there are laws already in place to treat with people who are not paying their taxes, so that is not—not paying your taxes, or paying your taxes is not dependent on this Bill coming into law at all, right. Madam President, clause 56: “The Commission shall have the power to designate any machine…” And I think that was persecuted, was spoken about by my colleague prior to me, but I think, Senator—I want to join Sen. Rambhajan, when she said if this Bill does

UNREVISED 54 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) not apply to bars and amusement machines, there should be an insertion of a clause to make that absolutely clear because the present definition in the Bill is confusing and unclear on this issue. 12.00 noon Madam President, in clause 65—sorry, 65(1): “The Minister shall appoint a committee to be known as ‘the Rehabilitation and Development Funds Committee.’” Now, that is lovely because there is something called “pathological gambling”, which is this addiction to gambling. But what one will—sorry. It is a compulsive gambling disorder or a gambling disorder, an impulse control disorder. What ones wants to know—and in the Bill, it is defined what percentage will go to the Rehabilitation Fund and what will go to the Development Fund. Of course, without the data, one does not know. It is just a percentage or has—one does not have a sense of what that would look like. But in terms of the management of this fund, particularly, the Rehabilitation Fund—because persons who find themselves with this gambling disorder really are in serious trouble. And, very recently, Mr. Garth St. Clair, co-founder of a radio talk show, “Eye on Dependency”, he said—it was stated in the, I think, our newspaper. So, news written Rachael Espinet, Friday 30 April, 2021, where he said: “Gambling addiction is real, is a cause for concern and in some cases, can have negative social effects similar to that of cocaine addiction.” So, he said: “While the body is not being poisoned by addictive substances, when it comes to gambling addiction, a person’s financial health, mental health and family/relationships health can be adversely affected.” So, I think that is something we really have to look at and this Rehabilitation Fund

UNREVISED 55 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) is a serious—it is a very important part of this Bill, but the management of it, to ensure that it really can help the people who will be in need of that support, I think we are very concerned about that. Madam President, it is not only the casinos or hybrid bars where you have these gaming machines. I am told that there are some shops that in keeping—who use the same—what you call it? The marks—if you call them marks—as the NLCB’s numbers when they come down at noon and 6.00 in the afternoon. You can go to some particular grocery—and they are very prevalent—and you can call for a tin of sardine and a pack of rice, and that is your mark there, and maybe sometimes you are walking along the pavement and you will see something on a cardboard, 34:1, and that really is an invitation to come in. They play for high stakes than the legal NLCB games. Madam President, this is something also that has to be brought out of the shadow because what—I have heard numbers of leakage of 2.5 billion or to over 3 billion with this. And I think this is a very, very serious issue and one that we cannot turn our backs on. So, I then move to clause 85, where the Minister sets up where, in fact, I think that is where you have the “Administrative Fines”, clause 85(1). It states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act the Commission may, with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, issue to any person who, there is reasonable cause to believe, has committed an offence referred to in Schedule 6…” So, I think where the term “draconian” was used, was with respect to the fines and the jail terms that accompany these fines. You will find like $10 million and 10 years, and so on. But now in this clause 85 and Schedule 6, they are saying that there is something called an “administrative fee” which is sort of a discount, Madam President, which I find a little bit startling because the Minister sets up a

UNREVISED 56 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d) process, to me, of judge and jury, but no due process. It moves directly from the Commission having reasonable cause to believe an offence has been committed to offering the party an opportunity to pay a fine in lieu of prosecution. This clause needs to be amended to include a right to be heard. Because what is happening here, Madam President, you have under the law or when should the Bill become law, you have what the fines are, should there be a conviction, et cetera, but then you have this thing like a discount. You know, it is a sort of discount where they are going to tell you instead of going through that criminal proceeding and probably you may be found guilty, because obviously it will be either an enforcement officer or one of the authorized officer who probably would have brought some kind of action, would have triggered some action, based on what they would have found in the operation of this casino. How is it now that one is going to offer this? Make this offer of an administrative fee at a deep, what I would call, a discount? You know, it means, therefore, this person will most likely pay the fine, perhaps not because they think they are guilty, but it may be less tedious than running the risk of a delayed persecution or a conviction that can affect chances of renewal or, you know, this could, perhaps, be a place and a space for malfeasance that, you know, someone will say, “You know, I have seen something but I will give you a chance and what have you”, you know. I think this part of the Bill needs a relook, quite frankly, because it opens the door for a lot of what the Government is saying they want to close the door on, you know. And, as you know, there is a reason Las Vegas on the strip is called “Sin City”. We do not want it to be sin Trinidad and Tobago. So, Madam President— and we, of course, have not seen the regulations, because they are not ready. So even should this Bill be approved in this honourable House, one does not know when, you know, the regulations are going to be put in place.

UNREVISED 57 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. John (cont’d)

So, Madam President, the Government, in the middle of a poorly managed pandemic and at a time when this particular industry has been shut down for over 15 months, you know, has brought this Bill, and really which is a good time? I suppose there is probably never a good time but it means that the gambling commission has to be set up, regulations have to be passed. However, considering the massive economic losses this industry has suffered, has the Government considered, in lieu, of an immediate tax burden, some form of incentive or tax alleviation in the short term for this industry or even, as I had said before, the employees who will attract these large licensing fee, if there is going to be a grace period for payments of the various personal licence? And, again, it is not that one is against regulations at all, it is just that we want to ensure that when we do something, you know, we do it right and the people who are most affected, those who are most vulnerable, they are not going to feel the brunt of the burden of our work here. Madam President, I thank you. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Sen. Deyalsingh. Sen. Dr. Varma Deyalsingh: Madam President, thank you for allowing me to present today in this Bill which, you know, caused me some great concerns when I had to deliberate on this. You see, Madam, I must declare my engrained bias. I am against gambling but I also want to quote, Madam President, the words of former Prime Minister, Mr. Patrick Manning—the late Mr. Patrick Manning, in 2006, where he said he wanted to regulate the gaming industry, saying: “…global research findings have proven that the gaming industry destroys the financial security of families, affects the stability of marriages, encourages deviant behaviour among children, undermines work ethics, causes increases in crime, including money laundering, and gives rise to problem gamblers.”

UNREVISED 58 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d)

Madam President, I could not agree more with the former Prime Minister. You see, I too have a problem giving support to any Bill which can cause all this social distress that he mentioned. And I also see this Bill could also create a nation of young gamblers. So we have to be very cautious with this. Madam, I would like to just quote an article from the Guardian newspaper—Geisha Kowlessar, the accomplished business journalist in the Guardian. And the article was on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 where she said—it is captioned: “Casinos mushroom despite four years of uncertainty”, and the industry still waits regularization. In 2007, she quoted that Mr. Manning also threatened to shut down the industry, claiming of the breakdown in family values, et cetera. And he also asked why the Government had failed to use the state of emergency—that is the other Government that came into power—the People’s Partnership Government—to crack down on members club. So, you see, even then, Mr. Manning thought it was such an important, you know—such an important topic, such an important social ill, that he was willing to say, yes, let us use that state of emergency also. So, the overall picture I got from this article, Madam, was the fact that, yes, there is a breakdown in values, productivity, also the fact they could have used a state of emergency to assist in this effect, and also the bad side of gambling. You see, Madam, I have personal experience with this. I have a patient from Aranguez who I treated. She came to me one day and she say, “Doc, I need help for my husband, he is drinking.” He used to go in the rum shops and from the rum shop now, he met a girl from the Dominican Republic. It led to an affair. The girl has now gone back to her country. But, Madam President, he now gambles to maintain the habit. You see, Madam, long ago, the rum shop people used to go there to vent, to talk. Now, all the vices which could destroy your family are in a

UNREVISED 59 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) rum shop—the women, the alcohol and gambling—and all these beckon to the weaknesses of individuals. So, we have to be cautious when we are giving this, you know—passing any legislation which could encourage that. And, you know, Mr. Manning was known for his love of his country and religious conviction, and other Caribbean nations also had hesitation to bring it on. Jamaica: only when—Jamaica actually hesitated for years because of the church having a sort of, you know, restrictions. So, you had Barbados also, it is illegal. You could go in a cruise ship that that dock overnight but usually you found that sort of restraint. So, Jamaica, in 2010, after a lot of debate, then they permitted the casino gambling under the mix of tourism and having it in large scale projects to encourage tourism. Even Grenada, it was legalized in 2014 to boost the economy. But, you know, you have to wait for 300 rooms before you can get some sort of approval. So, yes, there is the tie-in for tourism with it but along with that, you have to understand, Madam, it may also, as some Members mentioned, attract certain businesses abroad who may not be above the law. In fact, in Cuba, in 1958, when casinos were closed down, it was run by the US mob and flourished in Cuba until it was shut down after Fidel Castro came in power. So, the element of mafia control, besides the social distress, the element is something which I also may have to, you know—a reason why I am giving my reservation for this. You see, so I am trying to balance what is good. Is this good for the country? Is it good for society? And I want to just quote an article, Madam, Sunday, July 07, 2013, Radhica Sookraj in the Guardian: “Liquid cash luring casino owners to T&T”. And, in this one, this article, attorney David West, at the time, he gave an interview and he was in extradition and money laundering laws. He actually said that, you know, we need legislation, and he actually mentioned the fact that, you know, people come in

UNREVISED 60 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) here and they flaunt the laws, businesses come in—one Member actually mentioned a Malaysian company who came in there. But this article, it actually had mention of certain individuals, Turkish businessmen, coming into this country; American businessmen, having big legal problems amongst each other. So we have to be careful of who we are allowing. Now, I welcome clauses 31 and 32, even clause 34 of this legislation, which actually sees fit that the FIUTT will be the body that will look to see who is coming in, investigate who is coming in. But what I am saying, Madam, is that even though—we have to be careful who we are letting into the country. And, you know, the fact is we have to be—somehow be given the opportunity to say, listen, an international investor is coming in. These persons want to open up a casino, these persons want to open up a pub or a gambling institute in your neighborhood. Let it be there in the media that people could see. Let it be a signage if there is an area where people are passing and they see that there is a signage where persons could now say, “Listen, they are going to put a pub next door to our school or whatever, you know, we could object.” So, therefore, even though there are pieces here where persons can object, I am saying it has to be glaring, a signage that this establishment will be now, you know—be giving way to casinos or a gambling establishment. I say we want any neighborhood where we have those establishments going to be put in, the neighbours should have a say in it. And you see, Madam, while clause 32 may have persons who should object, I am thinking, we have to make it easier for persons to know what is going on. And even though clause 32 mentions the fact that certain individuals may object and it mentions a few people: the school principal, the teacher, religious organization, any resident who can object. But, Madam, objecting is one thing, but if it is granted, there should be a method of appeal.

UNREVISED 61 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d)

You see, there is a method of appeal here for businesses who are not given the licence. So, you are not getting a licence, you can now appeal, you can go to the court. We may have to have an easier method of appeal for neighborhoods to now ask the Commission: Why did you allow this in my area? You see, there have to be certain guidelines where you are going to put a pub, a gambling establishment in my area. Madam President, right now, in the Aranguez stretch, there are about nine bars. When you are driving, it is horrendous to face that traffic when you have to weave in and out. That is before the COVID. Sometimes drunk persons come on the road. Neighbours are actually at wit’s end, how to get rid of them. And I remember once, there was another lady who actually got a petition and tried to close down one of these establishments. And, Madam, you know what happened? She was threatened. She was threatened and she had to withdraw that, and the rum shop is still there. So, we have to put something, Madam, whereby people can anonymously report to the Commission that we do not want this establishment here. Those persons who are coming an applying to have that establishment, we have to have the names, who they are, because they may have another establishment out there and a member of the public may know of any sort of past history where the Commission may not be privy to. Have it in such a way that persons could anonymously give that Commission the ability to look at that. Madam, my concern also is, you know, even though clauses 79, 80 and 81 speak of the protection of children, Madam, even before this Bill was materialized here, I have to make mention of the fact that, you know, there was an article, I want to quote—a Guardian article, March 28, 2016, by Anna Lisa Paul, where it is captioned, “Garcia reluctant but CCTV in schools still an option”. And this came about in 2016, when students were gambling in schools, and he said it would not

UNREVISED 62 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) be tolerated. But, yet still, in 2018, I remember, in Tobago, in the Signal Hill Secondary School, a gambling episode, a 17-year old person—a child was knocked unconscious had to be sent to Trinidad because of gambling in school. And even in 2010, Madam, we had a VPA, a Violence Prevention Academy Report that—I think that was commissioned by Mrs. Hazel Manning, at the time, who was the Minister of Education and students put gambling as a major problem in their school also. So, we have to say that children will follow what they see. If adults gamble, so will children. So, we have to know that, you know, children have to learn that gambling is not the easy way. It is not a spin of the wheel, it is not just throwing the dice. Gambling, you have to work for your money and this is something—why I worry about our children. And why I also worry about our children, Madam, you see, there is a research that was done, a BBC article on Newsround: “Gambling and gaming: Children as young as 11 betting online”. It was on the 21st of November, 2018, and the article speaks of a new danger. You see, I have three boys and my boy— long ago, I used to have cards, Batman comics on my hand, ball and bat. Children now have a device, a phone. And the research shows that in the UK: “The Commission…”—said— “children who have problems with gambling between the ages of 11 and 16, has risen to more than 50,000 in two years.” So, we have to address this also, Madam. We have to address, what is going to happen to our children? How we are going to try to prevent this? Because, you see, games open the doorway to gambling. And there is research on it now that, you know, there is something called a “loot box”—I do not know much about games— a loot box feature where children would want to buy and win and whatnot, and that has shown that it causes persons to be gambling.

UNREVISED 63 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d)

So, Madam, because of this, I am saying our children would be at risk. We have to ban advertisements on gambling. That is one. Number two, I suggest, just as how Nevada—21 years and over before you can gamble. So, we are you going to get online gamers who could now progress to gamblers, we need to have that period between 18 to 21—their brains are still developing—where we could say no gambling till 21. So, I would hopefully hope that we could move the age to the age of 21. Madam President, so I fear for our children, and I also have another problem. So besides the social ills on children and how it could affect gangster— remember, I treat people with a gambling disorder. Ludomania is gambling disorder. And it is only recently, as one of our speakers mentioned before, that Garth, in a programme—you know, right now, psychiatrist had gambling as an obsession. Now, we put it into a category by itself. We think it is so serious. So we actually realized gambling as an addiction, just like drug addiction. It causes the dopamine to increase in the brain. And I think the Member before mentioned it quite nicely, how it is not just chemicals in your mouth, it is also an addiction and this is a disorder. And I do see that there are places in this Bill were we can rehabilitate. But, you see, another Member says it is tokenism and probably it is, because you see after the fact you have created gamblers, you are now trying to help them. My problem, Madam, is this. If we had, there was a—we have to be aware, that if you have somebody in your home who is gambling, how are we going to help that individual? Okay. Instead of having, as the Bill suggests, you go and you give an NGO and other individuals in that fund, I am suggesting, Caura has a rehabilitation centre already. It is government-based. Dr. Winston Gopaul does a wonderful job there. Let them get that funding where they can establish another

UNREVISED 64 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) branch just to deal with the gambling, as well as others. So, my suggestion is you have to channel it into something we already have instead of creating new avenues. Another thing is, if I have my wife gambling, what am I to do? The Commission should have a call-in service whereby you can report your wife or your husband who is gambling and they will have that ideal list all over before you come into one of those establishment, you are now non-grata. You are there, you are there, you have a gambling addiction or some violent activity, and there are those clubs now who actually know certain persons who they do not even allow in because they know they have certain problems. They may come, want to cause fights, but we need to do it official where people report to the Commission, the Commission could—look, you have you have to red flag these individuals because their wives came or somebody came in to say there is a problem there. Now, Madam, there was a study NORC, National Opinion Research Centre for the University of Chicago in 1999, which they mentioned that persons living within 50 miles of a casino is twice as likely to develop a problem gambling than others. And you see that the National Centre for Responsible Gaming had those figures. Madam, if we are going to now shut down certain—we are starting from scratch. We cannot just allow, just as I mentioned, nine bars in Aranguez Main Road causing traffic and whatnot. We have to have to say, okay, we are starting from scratch, there should be a geographical, you know, separation between these establishments. Geographical, so you would not have that congestion. You see, because it was mentioned before, the closeness, the proximity. So if we are starting from scratch, we will have to see: How do we read out one or the other? Well, you have to have an establishment that could have proper parking. Therefore, in part of the Commission members, there should be someone also from the regional and local authority there or transport division or even planning to say, “Well, you

UNREVISED 65 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) cannot have an establishment to have gambling and you have nowhere for people to park.” We have to start making these changes in our society. So, Madam, I looked at the fact that you have also the need to establish that, you know—part of the requirements also is the investigation of terrorists or funding of terrorism. So that Commission should be named. And I agree with Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye, you have to name persons. Persons probably from the planning, if you are going to have that parking problem; persons from national security who would know who is funding terrorist activity. And you see, so the Commission itself, I am saying, you know, should have certain persons of certain calibre, psychiatrist if you want also to look at that. Clause 64 mentions the Development Fund and these different funds, how it could be disbursed. Madam, in Trinidad and Tobago, I have looked at, you know, clauses 64, 65 and 66, where you are looking at the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fund. We always have problems in Trinidad and Tobago where people may say, if the Government has control of this fund, they can indirectly influence the members of this developmental body just to, you know, give sporting activities or cultural activities, which will only benefit certain individuals. Remember, we also have here people saying, “Well, certain members of society are left out. It might be used as a political tool, where you are only funding party problems.” I am saying, have it in a way that people could see who is applying. I know the Minister has to give a report, but have it in a way people could say well, these bodies are applying. We need a board that might be probably—ethically balanced board, so no culture will feel left out in the disbursement of funds. Because I am fed up of utterances after, that people will say that, you know, we were left out and whatnot. Have it there where people of calibre could say all segments of society will get a piece of the fund to develop sports or whatnot.

UNREVISED 66 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d)

But, Madam, looking at sports too, I am saying, I have also frowned on the fact that you use sports and they have alcohol advertisements, even sports. The fact is cricket is a million-dollar, billion-dollar industry in India with cricket betting and also boxing. So therefore, we have to see what we have, and if we are going to look at sports, we have to get the message away from children that sport and betting are linked, and even with alcohol. So we have to now also look at some of the advantages. And some of the advantages, I am thinking that, you know, we can really develop as Tobago, as really the Las Vegas of the Caribbean. Because you had other countries within the Caribbean gaining from casinos, even Aruba and, you know, Curaçao. These other places have it. You had other countries that have it really to attract their tourism. We need money. We need tourist money. So probably this is one of the advantages I saw. I saw another advantage where the Government—and the Minister of Finance did say, we really, really need this to get funds in. Trinidad is in a bad way. We need the fund, the finances. If this is a way, we can get the financing, I am thinking, this is one of the reasons I may decide, you know, to back this. I also feel very ashamed that the international obligations are not met. If we are the only country in the world who has not passed this legislation, it put us in a bad light. People look at Trinidad: “Look they encouraging people from Turkey and all these places to come in here with their mobster gangster rule.” So this is a way that I am also thinking that, you know, I would have to lean for this. So even if we look at the argument that the workers, you know, may lose their jobs, single mothers—Madam, I have been hearing the dialogue of single mothers for the longest while and I am saying there are other people who are married persons, who are also in a dire need for a job and they are in a marriage. So, we cannot just look and say single mothers need the money. We have to say

UNREVISED 67 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) whoever may need that money, may need to get it. Single mothers may have to look at the fathers who are not there and say, “Give us some money.” So the single mother, while I appreciate that we have to look at the single mothers needing jobs, we may have to somehow look at the social grants and whatnot, so we can help these individuals, retrain them also and also let them meet their jobs that they can get. 12.30 p.m. You see, Madam, I look at certain ills in society and we have gone to say, well, okay, gambling is there; it is there, we could, you know—it could be driven underground. With this legislation, it could be driven underground. We have to look out for that. But we also have to say that, if the gambling is there let us pass legislation to put it in place. So, from the dialogue of our passed Prime Minister, Mr. Manning, who had a “no” note of this, I would say that we have to now look at how we can make it work because it is there; it exists. And, Madam, I am saying, how are we going to know which of these institutions are flouting the rules? I think we have to have like part of that fund should go into something like Crime Stoppers, so workers in establishment could report their boss and say, “Look, a child came in there.”, or “He is encouraging other activities.”, or you find that there are some illegal activities. So if I know I am a worker and I could go to that fund and I am going to get a reward, like Crime Stoppers, I would be quicker to come out and say something. Madam, section 38 asks for conditions for licence and I am thinking, you know, we already say a condition should also be adequate parking, and also the PTA should also have a part to say who it is; transport. And a very important part I looked at is section 74 which looked at cheating. Madam, I had persons who had gambling instances in a bar and they actually went at each other; pulled guns for

UNREVISED 68 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) each other and outside “eh” because they are not allowed to carry their guns in, they lodge it. And it was because they thought some cheating occurred, so section 74, I am hoping, would really come into where persons could have, if they think they are cheated by an establishment, by another, they can go to the Commission to get some sort of a hearing. So we need to this there; we need the hearing to be very strict in the application of the rules. You see, we can have all the rules to protect children, Madam, but I remember a night club a few years ago where when an international singer came down, a 14-year-old girl was gyrating all over with him on the stage. And that same night club, two weeks after, a Minister went and opened another—opened an event there, which was disgusting. That night club should have been shut down. We have to have a strict policy. If these persons asking for these establishments, you know, permission, a strict policy—“We are going to shut down”, and that is it, you know, you would have an appeal, but if you are encouraging minors—in the States you have to show the 21-year-old card before you can go into these establishments—[Inaudible]—cannot go into a bar. We have been falling back in this so we need to have these things strictly adhered to. We need to have the social media also engaged where you are going to put up signage for people who are applying, put signage outside the property. We need to have, I am saying, a strict policy by the Commission to show that they know and they are aware of children who could be a nation of gamblers if we do not— because remember, the children now are learning by their games to have that mindset to go into gambling. If we do not put things in place, we would be encouraging children. Somebody mentioned to me, “Look, we allowing—soon, people will be smoking and gambling in this country, what is going to happen?” We have to put things in place.

UNREVISED 69 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d)

We have to realize the Government needs the revenue. We have to realize we have the Rehabilitation Fund that we have to make sure that it can reach to the individuals who really need it. And we also have to look at the fact that the gambling has been here; we had sweepstakes, “whe-whe”, all these things were there before. We realize that the fact that, you know, even though this comes on, it may go underground again, but we have to put the laws in place where we can gain from persons who are taking part in it; all that funding that the Minister of Finance mentioned that we are getting lost. We have to realize some businesses will fold up because they would not be able to afford some of these machines, but, again, I look at that as nothing bad. I look at that as something good because I want less of these establishments. I do not want more. Also, I want that those that are there have strict sort of a policy when they are applying, they can actually have good parking and have people who can object to it and people who can object to it and actually be heard, not just to say somebody would pay something to someone to get, you know, a permit passed. So we have to say why you are given this permit. We have to see the persons who had objected to say, “Well, we want”— Madam President: Sen. Deyalsingh— Sen. Dr. V. Deyalsingh:—I would apply again for a— Madam President: Sen. Deyalsingh, you have five more minutes. Sen. Dr. V. Deyalsingh: Thank you, Madam. So therefore, we have to look at other instances where, you know, if you have a bar and you have the bar downstairs and a child is upstairs; if a child is in that premises sweeping the front, the child may not be allowed to sweep or you can get charged. So again it may, in a sense, you know, we have to be careful how we are doing this, because if you already have a bar established, is there a transition

UNREVISED 70 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Dr. Deyalsingh (cont’d) period where those individuals, you may be able to help them? The few that may remain standing, we have to have certain things that can help them. But I am thinking, you know, a child should not grow up in a premises where there are bars, there is alcohol, there is gambling activity because, I think, we owe it—this legislation owes it, not just to gain money for the Government, not just to go after the shadow economy, not just to put some form of legislation to the mobster, gangster-type persons who may come down here and open up, but it also needs to be there to protect the individuals, protect children who may be potential gamblers. Madam President, in closing I want to say this legislation gives me a lot of concern; should I support, should I not support; but I have to weigh on the side of the Minister of Finance, his appeal of the need for it and also I am hoping we can really get this legislation in place. I mean, we have come a long way, you know, I remember the first Government we had a cockfighting Minister of Trade, I think; we have come a long way from that to Mr. Manning saying, “no”, to now putting something in place, and I think putting something in place, we have to do it correctly. We have to make sure that all i’s are dots and t’s are crossed. Thank you, Madam President. [Desk thumping] Madam President: Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (Sen. The Hon. Randall Mitchell): Thank you very much, Madam President, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill but also, Madam President, to use the opportunity to speak on behalf of the hospitality, entertainment and tourism sectors, those who are directly and indirectly involved in this sector. Because, Madam President, the Bill speaks, not just about regulating the gambling sector but it is also a vital part of our economy and its resurgence post-pandemic. And, Madam President, I will speak directly to those in the tourism

UNREVISED 71 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) sector, the accommodation sector, the artistes, the entertainers, casino workers; those involved in food and beverage, et cetera. But, Madam President, I too wish to echo the sentiment of my colleagues on this side, as well as the Independent Bench that it is indeed a global embarrassment that a gambling sector has been allowed to mushroom in this country for over 20 years and continues to be unregulated. And it is more than just embarrassment, it has to be reiterated that an unregulated gambling sector, Madam President, presents a significant risk to our financial sector, as well as to our global reputation as we fail to meet our Financial Action Task Force obligations towards money laundering and terrorist financing. So here we are once again. We have been here before and I note, Madam President, that the Opposition UNC are now indicating that they are not opposed to the regulation of this sector but, Madam President, we were here before but this time we are here without a former UNC Minister leading a band of misfits to intimidate Members of this said House. This time we are without a UNC, a former UNC Minister leading a band of misfits to protest outside the Minister of Finance’s home, Madam President, with the clear intent to intimidate. So, Madam President, I commend the hon. Prime Minister for his persistence; the Attorney General; but I want to pay a special commendation to the Minister of Finance that notwithstanding the intimidation of a few who were intent on not having this Bill passed, through intimidation, to come back here to make legislation for anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing measures. Madam President, where there is the proliferation of gambling in any country, as there is in Trinidad and Tobago, there are three principles that are involved that any government must do and that is to ensure that all gambling activities are properly recorded and taxed, that all games and gambling are fair and conducted honestly and that the industry is free from any connection to organized

UNREVISED 72 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) crime, money laundering and tax evasion. And those principles, Madam President, are highlighted within the objects clause of the Bill. But let me just touch on something that Sen. Lyder said, Madam President. Sen. Lyder spent a lot of time speaking about the threat to bars that operate these multiplayer gambling machines and that threat is a threat to the entire industry of some 10,000 workers. And the Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs spoke to that argument, appropriately described as a straw argument but, Madam President, I paid a little more mind to Sen. Lyder’s argument and I wondered if Sen. Lyder, in this contribution, was not using his argument and using the strangeness of the nomenclature between the meaning of “bars” and “casinos” to force a loophole in this law to allow bars to operate like casinos outside of the regulations. You see, Madam President, a lot of these bars were formerly bars but there are bars now that operate a number of amusement machines and a number of multiplayer roulette machines. They are no longer bars, they are now casinos. So, Madam President, once any establishment wishes to operate over 20 amusement machines, as is described in the Bill, or multiplayer roulette machines, you are caught by this Bill and you must apply to become licensed. So, Madam President, through you to Sen. Lyder, he may wish to tell his friends that clause 53 outlines the transitional provisions if one bar wishes to operate over 20 amusement machines or multiplayer roulette machines. You simply must apply for a licence and that is all it takes. There is no threat to any industry. Madam President, the sixth objective in the objects clause to the Bill provides for the collection of taxes and it implies that gambling activities captured by this Bill must be appropriately recorded and taxed, and at present, Madam President, this is not occurring. The BIR has reported that there are thousands of

UNREVISED 73 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) unregistered gambling machines upon which taxes are payable and not collected and they are unable to easily enforce or even enter upon these private members’ clubs to conduct audits. And the provisions of this Bill closed that tax gap and full compliance, with the provisions of section 63 of this Bill, will now allow for the people of Trinidad and Tobago to collect what is justly due to them from this industry which the Board of Inland Revenue, or it might be the Ministry of Finance, estimates at $500 million annually in taxes. The second objective speaks to ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair, open and responsible manner and by all reports, Madam President, there is absolutely no guarantee right now that this unregulated gambling and gaming in Trinidad and Tobago through these private members’ clubs are conducted fairly, openly or honestly. The very nature of casino gambling raises suspicions of cheating, especially by the house, whether it be through loaded dice or whether it be through the rigging of gambling software. And at present there is no competent agency to conduct any audit of these machines to ensure that they are operating properly according to fair standards and there is no agency that works to protect the consumer of the gambling industry. And with the coming into force of the provisions of this Bill, consumer protection is now provided for through clause 67 and 68 that allows for enforcement officers to enter onto premises and audit machines and gaming software—to ensure, Madam President, honesty and fairness, and Part VIII of the Bill creates offences around cheating. So therefore, Madam President, with the coming into force of the provisions of this Bill, the gambling industry will now have integrity and credibility that it needs to thrive in terms of having gambling activities at their premises. Madam President, a lot has been spoken of the third and fourth objectives and I think all of us in here would have all accepted that the absence of regulation to these private

UNREVISED 74 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) members’ clubs creates a number of problems for us here in this country. The whole industry at present is stigmatized as having been notoriously linked to the many evils that plague society at this time. And the coming into force of the gambling commission and its licensing regime, and the concomitant rules and regulations, along with the supervisory authority, the FIU, aligned to ensure compliance, the gambling industry in Trinidad and Tobago will no longer pose a threat to the financial sector. Madam President, the Bill also seeks to protect minors and other individuals from the harmful effects of gambling. And for my position, Madam President, I am agnostic when it comes to the argument about the morality or the immorality of gambling and I have heard Sen. Deyalsingh, and Sen. Deyalsingh has spoken a lot about his objections to gambling, but I agree with Sen. West that the horse has already bolted when it comes to the debate of the immorality or the morality of gambling or whether we should have gambling or not, because we have had gambling here for over the last 20 years and there has been a full gambling industry that had blossomed during that time. So it is too late, Madam President, to have those discussions on those debates; a whole gambling industry, through the Registration of Clubs Act, where 7,000 persons are directly involved. We do not also have the option like the Bahamas or Grenada. Because we have had gambling over the last 20 years through a loophole, we do not have that option where we can legalize gambling and regulate the sector but apply it only to the tourism sectors. We understand that there is problem gambling and I would respectfully submit, and I understand that Sen. Deyalsingh has indicated his support, but supporting this Bill is also supporting the effects of clause 64 that establishes the Rehabilitation Fund that supports NGOs and other entities in the rehabilitation of persons so afflicted with problem gambling.

UNREVISED 75 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d)

The last objective, Madam President, is the objective to contribute to the economy by creating employment and, Madam President, the gambling industry has and poses the potential for significant positive effects for the economy and for the diversification of the economy. The most important factors in the decision of any country to legalize and regulate the gambling sector are the economic and social benefits to be derived from the gambling industry. In other words, Madam President, countries that have made the decision to allow gambling, determined to allow gambling when weighing the economic and social benefits and the economic and social costs. In the Trinidad and Tobago experience, however, we have a thriving gambling industry, so the consideration was the extremely high cost of leaving the sector unregulated or the extremely high cost of shutting down a thriving sector with 7,000-plus workers when compared to the potential of the gambling industry to contribute significant value to the economy, to a diversified economy and to the tourism and hospitality sectors. And, Madam President, when you compare the benefits with the costs, the benefits far outweigh the costs. And this Bill, Madam President, is incredibly important to the tourism, hospitality and entertainment sectors; sectors that have been severely battered and impacted by this COVID-19 pandemic; sectors, Madam President, that are calculated to contribute over $15 billion to GDP every year and sectors that have employed over 60,000 persons, many of whom, Madam President, are home at this time. So gambling and gaming are well synchronized activities within the tourism model and they fall under the band of tourism service providers under the category of entertainment and attractions. And entertainment and attractions are the lifeblood of a destination’s tourism product. Here in Trinidad and Tobago, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, we are always on the hunt for

UNREVISED 76 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) entertainment and attractions that might enhance the value of our own tourism product. And recently we have embarked upon a project to enhance the Ariapita Avenue experience as a part of our revitalization of Port of Spain policy and the Ariapita Avenue experience has tremendous potential to add value as an attraction here as an entertainment zone. And during the recent consultation on that project, Madam President, we were all asked the question, “Well, what is Government’s return on that project?” In other words, what is the economic and social value to the enhancement of an attraction in the tourism sector? And the answer is the same for Ariapita Avenue as it is for the regulating of the casino sectors. And we understand that casinos are generally involved in gambling and leisure activity; they are also a large component of the food and beverage sector and there is also a large component of entertainment. And there are tremendous social benefits for those who are directly involved or can be directed involved in the operation of casinos in the form of employment and jobs. Casinos tend to be labour intensive and there are a number of standard jobs within the casino model, many of which, Madam President, are unskilled. And just to name a few of those categories, you have the administrative and executive employees, you have service and activity staff, you have accounting employees, domestic employees, pit bosses, game staff, shift managers, security staff; there are a lot of persons who are employed by casinos. And it has to be said again, the hon. Attorney General made the point, that the regulation of this sector, many of those employees—all of those employees can now enter into the formal economy. They can now open bank accounts, receive salaries directly to their bank accounts, pay their NIS and apply for mortgages, apply for loans, Madam President, to the banks, because as it stands, the banks, because of the tremendous risk that casinos pose to the financial sector, many of the banks have stopped doing business with casinos.

UNREVISED 77 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d)

Madam President, indirect employment, there are a number of sectors that are supported by or support the casinos and the gambling sector. Some of those sectors, Madam President, surveillance and IT companies. There is the need for training in this sector. So there is the casino dealer training school, private investigations. There are persons who look after and maintain the gaming tables, change machines, slot machines, persons who repair casino furniture, persons who supply surveillance equipment, persons in the construction sector; the transportation sector, Madam President, hotels and the accommodation sector, in the entertainment, and that speaks directly to the artistes and the creatives; audit and accounting; legal professionals. There is a whole economy that works to support and that are supported by the casino sector. Madam President, also the agricultural sector that support the food and beverage component within the casinos; the manufacturing sector, cleaning supplies and the growth and the success and the regulation of casinos also offer an opportunity for the growth and success of all these other sectors that depend on the casinos, Madam President. And all these persons, all these job holders who are directly employed by the casinos or who are employed in the supporting sectors, the money that they earn they now spend it within the local economy for a multiplier effect. And this, Madam President, is extremely important when considering coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resurgence of our local economy coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Madam President, there are economic benefits to the State, benefits through taxes and clause 63 of the Bill and Schedule 5 identify the taxes applicable to be paid upon tables and machines. Madam President, again, by the estimates of the Board of Inland Revenue, the State can collect upwards of $500 million annually in taxes. But then there are other taxes and taxes is not so much of a bad word;

UNREVISED 78 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) taxes are how the country manages it affairs. It goes into hospitals. It goes into roads. It goes into education. 1.00 p.m. So, Madam President, income tax is, the more people who are employed is the more that the Government receives in terms of the pay-as-you-earn taxes for persons earning over $6,000 a month. Consumption tax, value added tax on products and services consumed within the industry. The more value you create, is the more taxes that you can now collect through the consumption tax. Madam President, another potential positive benefit, and Sen. Deyalsingh touched on it, it would be very interesting to see going forward, how would the accommodation sector, the hotels, respond to the regulation of this industry. Those who are in the hotel business or those who are now wishing to invest in the accommodation sector, may very well decide upon investing, having now seen the regulation of this sector, the legalization of this sector, in constructing integrated hotel resorts that include casinos. In Tobago there are considerable opportunities for hotel and hotel resort development as well as in Trinidad. The Ministry of Tourism will stand ready to do its part to encourage any potential hotel development by offering the incentives that we have under the Tourism Development Act. We stand ready to do that. But if the regulation of this sector encourages the investment of hotels and integrated resorts, there are so many more spinoff effects and impacts to the construction sector, the transportation sector, and many other sectors during the construction of these hotels and, of course, the tourism operators that work within the sector.

[MR. VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair] So, Mr. Vice-President, in conclusion, I wish to say that I wholeheartedly support the measures in this Bill. I say it is too late at this time to debate on

UNREVISED 79 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d) whether we should or should not have a casino gambling sector. That horse has already bolted, we have it, it is here and it has been here for the last 20 years. I believe, Mr. Vice-President, that the social and economic benefits of regulating— Mr. Vice-President: Minister, you have five more minutes. Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. The social and economic benefits of regulating the casino and gambling industry, far outweigh the costs of not regulating the gambling industry. Taking into consideration the world post-COVID, it is important to us to ensure that this gambling sector is brought over to the formal economy, and to ensure the sector’s success and contribution to a diversified economy, that would put us back on a path towards growth and prosperity. Mr. Vice-President, with those few words, I thank you. Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Lutchmedial. Sen. Jayanti Lutchmedial: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for the opportunity to contribute today in this debate on the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill, 2021. Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest, in that, my work in the field of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing, I do advise several persons who would be captured under this Bill, with respect to complying with the present anti-money laundering requirements under the FIU Bill. So I just want to declare that up front. I do not see myself as being conflicted. In fact, I see myself as probably having some insights that I could bring with respect to the AML aspect of this piece of legislation. I think we have said it many times, but let me just reiterate. The Opposition is in support of fair, balanced, proper regulation of the gambling industry. No one in the Opposition is saying that we should allow the gambling industry to simply

UNREVISED 80 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) carry on in its present form or unregulated. To say that is absolutely incorrect, because the industry is actually not unregulated at present. In fact, it was under the People’s Partnership administration that amendment was made to the FIU Act, and created the FIU as a supervisory authority to supervise what we call “designated non-financial businesses and professions”. DNFBPs is the FATF, the international organization, that is the acronym that they use, and we created a supervisory regime for DNFBPs, including persons who were licensed under the Registration of Clubs Act, and persons who fell under the Gambling and Betting Act. So we do have a system of regulation in place right now. Is it enough? Perhaps not, and we know from our mutual evaluations and so on, that more is needed in order to meet the international standards. That is not being debated here, whether or not we have to go further in terms of how much we regulate the industry. What is up for debate is the manner in which this Bill will do so, and the problems that could arise, one. And two, I know some of my colleagues have raised it as well, the timing, given our circumstances right now, facing and coming out, trying to come out of a pandemic and, also whether or not there are issues affecting the rights of persons who are involved in these businesses. So let me just get very quickly into my first point. Now, when I was looking at this Bill, I think it is good when you have the objects of the Act set out very clearly at the front and at the beginning in clause 4. One must understand whether or not the objects of the Act are going to be met by what follows in all 80-something pages of this Bill. What we want to do, yes, we want to protect minors and so on, and you want to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair, open and responsible manner but, you know, it must go further than that. Because for gambling to be fair and to be conducted in a fair, open and responsible manner, the regulation of the gambling must also be fair and it must

UNREVISED 81 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) also be done in a responsible manner. So let us look firstly at the structure of this Commission. The Commission is established under clause 5, and it is a commission to consist of persons appointed by the President. By virtue of section 80 of the Constitution, we know that means on the advice of the Cabinet, so it is a political appointment. It is going to be a politically appointed commission that is going to sit to regulate this entire industry. Are there stipulations as to who would be qualified to sit on the Commission? It is very broad. It is contained in subclause (5). Persons can be: “a member of the Board by reason of his work and experience in the gambling industry or a field relating to law, finance, information technology, economics, management, social work or law enforcement.” So it is a very broad range of persons. You can have any sort of qualification or experience in any of those fields, and that qualifies you to become appointed by the President, on the advice of the Cabinet, to serve on this Commission. And it sounds good, but you do not realize until later on that the kind of powers that this Commission has to exercise over the industry, that you could have serious injustice and conflicts arising. How is it dealt with by this Bill? Under clause 12, a member must declare his interest, sounds familiar. You could recuse yourself. You could sit as a person involved in this industry. You could be a person who actually has a pecuniary interest in this industry, and a matter that affects you while you are sitting on the board can come before the Commission, and you could say, “Well, here is what pals, this affects me, I will step out the room. You guys go ahead and decide”. Or a matter could come before the Commission that affects your major competitor, and you can sit there and say, “I will decide on this. I do not have a pecuniary interest in this”, and so you leave up to persons who are in the

UNREVISED 82 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) industry, who can be appointed to this Commission to declare their interest. The room for injustice and for political mischief and for several other things to go wrong is evident upon a cursory reading of this Bill. We have other commissions that issue licences and so on, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, who must issue—and the Central Bank in charge of licensing the financial institutions. There are several mechanisms in place to insulate those bodies from this type of interference. This is not the way that an industry should be properly regulated by persons who have an interest, and can simply declare their interest and step outside when decisions are being made. This is not a commission that is going to be staffed by persons who are public officers. There is a provision where you can have persons seconded to work in the Commission and so on, but unlike, for example the FIU that is presently regulating this industry for anti-money laundering compliance, the Director of the FIU is appointed by the Public Service Commission. The Chairman of this Commission is a political appointee, not a public servant. So those safeguards that would safeguard the applicants, the population, the people who have an interest in this industry, those safeguards that would exist when, for example, you are dealing with your licensing or your supervision by the FIU, they do not exist in this piece of legislation. Another issue that I have, when it comes to the current mandates of the Commission, is that when you look at their functions and powers under section 13, there is nothing included when it comes to education and outreach. The FIU which presently regulates the industry for anti-money laundering compliance, has a mandate to conduct outreach and compliance initiatives. The reason for that is because it is recognized, not just because it is a recommendation of the FATF, but it is recognized that many persons who operate in these existing industries, that

UNREVISED 83 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) have now become specified as high risk for anti-money laundering or susceptible to money laundering and terrorist financing, persons need the type of guidance in order to come into line with the compliance requirements. One only has to look at the internal controls that a licensee under this piece of legislation is required to implement under clause 52, and you could understand that this really will exclude, or make it difficult, for small businesses to comply with. It is very, very high level. I was at the FIU when we started the supervision function under section 18 of that Act, and I could tell you, from meeting with persons who are in this industry and other industries, when you tell them things like internal audit for compliance, and use words like, you must have record keeping and human resource policies and practices, and you must conduct your own sample internal review and audit to test whether or not there is compliance with the legislation, they look at you like you are speaking Greek or French. They cannot make heads or tails out of these requirements. So while the FIU has a mandate to conduct education and awareness for AML/CFT, I would recommend that the Commission, if it is supposed to be a specialized supervisory authority for this particular industry, that they are mandated to conduct some education and outreach, and awareness, to bring—the object of FATF compliance is not to force people out of an industry. It is to have people working in the industry and bring them into compliance, and that is part of—I believe it is a function suitably placed within the remit of this Commission. Another thing is that in the FIU Act, if I recall correctly, or under the— sorry, the financial obligations regulations, part of what the FATF always calls upon—we talk a lot about Recommendations 35 and 22, and this one and that one, but Recommendation 1 is that you must take a risk-based approach to supervision. That is actually included in the Financial Obligations Regulations which guide how

UNREVISED 84 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) the Central Bank, the FIU, the TTSEC and those other supervisory authorities would conduct their supervision of entities. I would recommend that that be included in this Act, because not only because it is relevant and because it is needed, but when the FATF or the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force is examining us for compliance and for our laws, they want to see that our supervisory authorities are mandated to take the risk-based approach to supervision and to enforcing compliance. Now, as I am on that point of the risk-based approach, Trinidad and Tobago conducted, or we started a national risk assessment exercise in 2014. It included both public and private sector entities. I do not know the outcome of that exercise. Up to the 2016 FIU reports, it said that it was in phase three of the report and that they were in the final stages, and so on. I think it would be very useful for us to understand, based on that national risk assessment, of what is the national risk of money laundering and terrorist financing and, of course, now we have proliferation financing, how much of a risk the gambling sector poses to the overall national risk of money laundering. We can kind of get an idea of how risky it is, based on looking at, perhaps, sometimes the amount of registrants, which is available through the FIU, how well they are reporting, the dollar value of what they are reporting, and so on. If you have persons coming forward and registering, and you have them reporting suspicious transactions to the FIU. That is a good thing, especially if they are reporting very high value transactions. That is a good thing, because it means it comes to the attention of the FIU, and they can then treat with it and analyze the suspicion, and then do what they have to do and pass it on. So when we brought private members’ clubs into the supervision of the FIU, and they started to submit what we call the “STR”, suspicious transaction or

UNREVISED 85 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) suspicious activity reports, there were no reports in 2011 and ’12. From 2013, they went to seven reports from this sector; 2014, 17 reports; 2015, 23 reports, and that is just an example of how the reporting has increased. All of this is without this gambling Commission. This is just with the FIU doing their regulation, and their outreach and their work that they are mandated to do. What has that resulted in? Well, in 2020—we have to understand too, if we want to regulate a sector because we think that they are high risk, we must be seeing outcomes. The FIU in their 2020 report, mentioned that there is a lot fewer disclosures coming forward, but out of all the reports that they have received, not just from this sector, but generally, they had received 750 reports. They analyzed 232 of those reports carrying a monetary value of 330 million roughly, and they had disseminated reports, 33 to the TTPS, 41 to the BIR, none to customs, so for a total of 74 reports going to the law enforcement agencies, and 27 reports coming from the Central Bank going to the law enforcement agencies as well. Now, that impacts upon gambling, because the banks who deal with gambling institutions and private members’ clubs, and so on, could also be reporting. What is happening to all of those reports? That is the question that we must ask. So we cannot only tackle risk of money laundering from the point of view that everybody must be licensed and pay all these hefty fees, and we have the power to do certain things, but what you want to supervise them for is: are they detecting the suspicious activity, are they reporting it, and when it is reported what is happening to it? Otherwise all you are doing is burdening an industry and having absolutely no outcome from all of this burden that you are placing on them, and compliance is a burden. It is recognized around the world that compliance and regulatory requirements are burdensome, however, it is a necessary burden. What we really have to do and what we really want to see happening is that that burden

UNREVISED 86 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) is, for one, it is rolled out in a manner that is fair and, secondly, that it actually achieves some objective. Now, the other issue that I feel obligated to raise, when you have a system that is now—and somebody used the term “over regulation”, but I do not want to say over regulation, but it is a form of regulation that is going to come down very hard on an industry. What you have happening here is really that people who have been existing for a long time, and who been carrying on these activities under different pieces of legislation, would now have to come into compliance. Take that in the context of many of these businesses having been closed for close to 15 or 16 months, the general state of the economy, you actually run the risk of driving these businesses underground, and this, again, is a known FATF recognized problem. It is a problem where you actually encourage illicit activity because you make your regulatory requirements of such a high standard, or the implementation and the rollout of it is so high that you actually encourage people to go underground. They call it “de-risking”. They say that a lot of the time the banks de-risk certain clients who they deemed to be too risky, and what happens then? It is more dealt with in the financial businesses, but it can equally happen here. I want to quote from a speech that was given by the head of the FATF at the time, President Roger Wilkins. I think he was the Australian person/designate from Australia, who was at the time President of the FATF. This was at his speech entitled, “The danger of driving both illicit markets and financial exclusion”. It was delivered at a conference on financial crime and terrorism in Kuala Lumpur in October of 2014. What he basically said is that when the banks, and he focused on the banks—essentially to minimize their reputational risk in de-risking, essentially poor countries and classes of poor people were the ones who were targeted. There is a commercial risk in withdrawing from doing business with a large portion of

UNREVISED 87 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) the world’s population. He went on to say, yes, there are risks of being in the game, but to my mind there are bigger long-term risks in not being in the game. Meaning, if you create a regulatory system where you have to be of a certain standard to be in compliance, because you simply do not have the resources, the know-how, the system is such that it is prejudicial towards you as a small business owner, or something like that, then what you are going to do is really drive all of these smaller people underground, and we have seen it happen here in Trinidad with the banking sector. We have passed many pieces of legislation to enhance the level of FATF compliance in the banking sector, as we are required to do, but we have not done what they call managing the risk, we have not. Banks choose to embark on large de-risking exercises and just cancel clients, put them out of the system all together. And what does that do? It drives what we know now as DSS, generally. I do not want to get into it; it is an ongoing investigation. But these things happen. Informal banking systems happen when the banks become so stringent and they become so strict with the legal requirements, and the regulation of the bank now is also not risk-based enough to accommodate people who do not have proper identification, who might be renting and do not get an address. I recently went through a process with the bank, and I had to—I mean, being both an attorney registered with the FATF and sitting in the Senate, I thought it would have been easier to import narcotics than to just go through a simple process with the bank, because the banks have come down on people so hard. It is not their fault, but I am saying, when you have now a gambling sector faced with all of these requirements, you already have illegal gambling, we know this, we know this. This is a known fact. We all know about when you could go to “de shop and buying three milk and two cheese, and one bread is really playing a mark”. You

UNREVISED 88 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) might actually encourage more of this to happen, because people cannot comply with the requirements of the Act, and so they would just take it underground. So you could actually have the reverse effect from what you are trying to accomplish, and actually have more crime and criminality and illegal activity in the gambling sector, when people choose to go to the informal route of carrying on gambling, and so on. I did a brief search to try to find charges linked to money laundering and gambling, and all of them: October 2019: “Port of Spain businessman granted bail, money laundering”—reading from the Newsday. Another: “Chinese...charged for money laundering” All of these, they were not actually legal gambling establishments under the Gambling and Betting Act, but they were not registered with the FIU. It was all illegal gambling; so illegal gambling has a place right now. This brings me to the point of all these powers that are given to this Commission and to the enforcement officers, and so on, is it one of the requirements—and perhaps, this could be clarified—that they will also monitor the industry for illegal activity? Because the FIU does that. The FIU, apart from supervising the registrants, one of its powers is to conduct surveillance on the sector, just like the Securities and Exchange Commission, to see if people are conducting the business of being a broker/dealer or an investment advisor without being registered. So is the Commission, and is the staff of the Commission, going to be mandated to conduct surveillance? There are penalties for failing to register and for conducting business, but who is going to carry out that activity? I think that is very important, because it is important for the compliance of the country with

UNREVISED 89 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) the international standards that we have a system in place to really police, for want of a better word, the industry for non-compliance with the registration processes. It makes no sense to have this very detailed, almost very burdensome system, imposed upon the people who are actually trying to comply, and who are coming to the Commission to register, and then there is a free-for-all out there for everybody else “who doing their thing”, because then again it comes back to the point that it would be more attractive for people to just avoid the Commission, avoid registration and conduct illegal gambling activities, which would really then facilitate tax evasion, money laundering and even terrorist financing. So those are some of the points that I wanted to raise. Everyone keeps going back to this thing, that we are raising the issue of bars. Now, if I am wrong and I am reading this thing incorrectly, I am subject to correction by the hon. Minister, and I would welcome it. But my understanding is this: Bars, what started off as traditional bars, licensed under the Liquor Licences Act, are allowed to have a certain number of machines. I believe it is under 20, amusement machines. A gaming lounge as defined in this Bill means: “‘gaming lounge’ means premises licensed under the Liquor Licences Act, in respect of which a licence is issued by the Commission, pursuant to this Act, to accommodate a maximum of twenty amusement machines;” So a bar, which presently under the Liquor Licences Act, has amusement machines, would be captured here. A gaming lounge is included as a gaming establishment, right above that, the definition: “‘gaming establishment’ means a casino, a gaming lounge or other premises prescribed...” Gambling, as defined in the Bill, means the collective activities of gaming and

UNREVISED 90 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) betting. So gaming, gaming lounge, gaming establishment, it all comes under the purview of the Commission. I think that that is the point that my colleagues had been trying to raise previously, and we have been, you know—so the Minister said that bars would not be affected. Perhaps a bar in the traditional of a bar that sells alcohol and cutters would not be affected, but every bar, under the Liquor Licences Act that presently has up to 20 machines, in my reading of this—and as I said, I am subject to correction if I am reading it wrong—but if they are under the Liquor Licences Act, they are allowed to have under 20 of these machines. I think the maximum pay out on those machines are $5,000, or something like that. That is what we call the “one-arm bandits”, I think is the term that they use for it. Then they will be captured by this law, and they will be required to register, and they will be subject to the same stringent requirements under this Act. That is why I said the application of a risk-based approach to supervision really is a fundamental requirement for a commission that is going to be supervising for anti-money laundering compliance in particular. Not only for fairness and to do justice to the industry, but also to comply with our international requirements, because that is a FATF-recognized point. Now, I have to say as well that the issue of the constitutional majority being removed is a bit worrisome. I have heard the Attorney General today, last week, the week before and every week talking about Suratt. You know, one of the things that is different about this legislation is that you are not just creating an industry, or a regulation for a new industry, for example, like the Cannabis Control Bill that was laid recently. This is an industry where you have several participants already existing under different pieces of legislation, and you are seeking to bring them all under the purview of this Commission. So you have people enjoying property right now, which is a licence, and you are basically saying to them, if you want to

UNREVISED 91 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) continue to enjoy that property that you have in the form of a licence, you must now become licensed under this piece of law, and you must submit yourself to certain things like giving consent to entry and so on. Respectfully— Mr. Vice-President: Senator, you have five more minutes. Sen. J. Lutchmedial: Respectfully, I would like to say section 4(a), section 5(2)(h) and section 5(2)(d) of the Constitution, do raise red flags for me in this piece of legislation. I would like to caution the Attorney General. I have said it before when we were dealing with procurement, when we were dealing with many other pieces of legislation, where the majority is removed, the tide of judicial sentiment in this country is against Suratt. What is going to happen when, and I do not say “if”, I say “when”, Suratt is overturned by another decision of the court? Every piece of legislation that we pass that is “Suratted” here, and that we pass on the basis the AG has not sought a special majority, but believes that this is proportional in his sole discretion and judgments, stands to fall if Suratt is overturned. What are the implications for us as a country? Forget the politics of it. What are the implications for us as a country if an important piece of legislation, to regulate a sector that is deemed to be susceptible to money laundering and terrorist financing, falls on a challenge because Suratt is no longer good law? The most recent decision in Dominic Suraj, the Court of Appeal has said they disagree with it. The Jason Jones decision, they have disagreed with it. The very strong dissenting decision of the Chief Justice, as he then was Justice of Appeal Jamadar in Barry Francis, goes against Suratt. Where is the tide going? As a responsible Attorney General, he ought to give a certain amount of consideration to that point. 1.30 p.m.

UNREVISED 92 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d)

Very briefly and quickly, Mr. Vice-President, I believe that the amount of categories of licences in this Bill raises a certain difficulty and I do not know that it is necessary. Particularly under the “Categories of licences” under clause 30, I am looking (f), (g) and (h), selling a gaming machine, importing and supplying, installing and maintaining. I read this and I thought to myself, well, if Courts needed one licence to sell washing machines, another one to repair them, and another one to lease them or to maintain them, I mean, it would be ridiculous. Why all these different categories of licences for things that are connected to each other? I believe that a simplified mechanism—because the problem with licensing is not just the cost of it and so on, you are also looking at the process. There is no time frame for a decision to be made when you make an application, and this is under clause 34. I believe that there ought to be a time frame within which the Commission must a decision on every application for a licence. If it is that they cannot, you should have a clause in here if it is that they cannot give a decision with a certain specified time frame, that they must inform the applicant and so on. This is due process. That is something that could be withheld. I know, and I have heard said here before that, look if people do not agree with whatever we pass here and so on, well that is what the courthouse is for. That is abdicating your responsibility of a Legislature. Our role here is to make good law, not law that “I put in whatever I want in it, and if you do not like it, go to the courts”. And, you know, that is a very, I would say, you know, very narrow scope of the duty of the Legislature. We have to study the entire mechanism that is implemented in this law and we must ensure that it is a good mechanism that will achieve the desired outcomes. What are the desired outcomes?—proper regulation, proper and fair implementation of taxation, making sure that you do not have underground gambling, the proliferation of underground gambling which, as I

UNREVISED 93 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d) indicated, could happen when you have too stringent a role for regulators and they are not doing it on a risk-based type of approach. And there are several other things that I have to raise and perhaps if in committee we could get an opportunity to do so. I want to flag, for example, the information on the public register which people can access. That is personal information about the number of machines you have at a particular address, it could pose a danger to persons in the industry. The fit and proper criteria in Schedule II of the Act, I mean, any—it leaves so much room for interpretation that a commission consisting of persons who are in the industry can actually use this criteria to exclude people for various reasons, and yes, they will have to resort to litigation to get it done, to challenge it and so on. But do you want a law for an important industry like gambling where the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Art benefits has spoken a lot about the benefits that we could have and so on to tourism, and other Ministers would have spoken about the tax collection and so on. It is an important industry and it is here whether we like it or not and that is the moral question which I am not getting into, but it is here and you have to regulate it properly. And so I would ask, Mr. Vice-President, that we give serious consideration as to whether or not this is a proper method of regulating this industry, and whether it could lead to abuses further on that could just diminish the importance of the industry and its viability. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice-President: Leader of Government Business. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Agriculture Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat): Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, for the opportunity to join this debate on this landmark legislation. And towards the end of my colleague’s contribution, Mr. Vice-President, I was drawn to remember that it was

UNREVISED 94 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d)

Bob Marley who refined an Abraham Lincoln statement dealing with fooling some of the people some of the time and all of the people all of the time. And my friends on the Opposition Bench persist with this campaign of trying to mislead us. The facts are there open bare for all who wish to see. It is there. This thing about the Legislature and the courthouse and you come in the Legislature to do the business. You know, the United National Congress failed as an administration in relation to gambling and failed this country deeply in relation to this Bill that is before us now; and let us get the history right. The first is in relation to my friend’s submissions on the issue of the FIU and anti-money laundering and all of those things. Be very clear. The Bill is very clear. The object of the Bill is to deal with money laundering and terrorism financing. Out of that we will deal with a historic problem. This is not new. This is not new. Go back to the literature, Roy McCree, one my lecturers at UWI in sociology, he wrote a very interesting paper that traces the history of “whe-whe” and the legalization of “whe-whe” and some of the context in which and the views at the time when we were taking something. And I am on record over and over because I saw people in the community where I grew up. I have the fortune of living in gambling communities all of my live so far. Growing up in Rio Claro, I moved to San Juan, walking through the Croisee to get home. I moved to Curepe, well Chaguanas did not have much of that but I understand this. But I saw young men and women, young men in particular, being unable to get jobs in the police service and the teaching service because they were caught with pieces of paper with numbers written on them. They were caught with numbers on their hands. And one day in the 1980s by 1994/’95 it was a fait accompli, the administration of the day decided to legitimize this thing that had been practised for so long. And since then as I had just been admitted to the Bar, I took this dim view of

UNREVISED 95 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) the system because that is what in Rio Claro they considered it to be an establishment. I do not want to say Babylon. But after so many criminal records and blockages and so on, the law said, go ahead and do it, and it continues but it continues not alone. And we talk very lightly about this parallel system. I will give you a story about that parallel system. But the point is that my friends had significant opportunities, and on the anti-money laundering part of it, I am on record, the previous Bills, as tracing the United National Congress’ record in dealing with CFATF and FATF compliance and in particular and I could tell you continuously, when you go to the MER records, the reports and the updates, right through until we took office in 2015, Trinidad and Tobago remained non-compliant in relation to gambling. That is the record. And it is Lincoln who said it but Bob Marley who refined it; you cannot fool all the people all the time. I am one of those persons who would not be fooled. I am one of those persons. Part of my career was in this and I am not allowed to go into that. But I do not need to have worked in a major financial institution to talk about money laundering. I will tell you this. When I returned to Trinidad in 2014 I was asked by somebody in my village Rio Claro to the play a mark for them. And the man told me where to go, and I went into store to play the mark on his instructions, three marks which I did, and of course I am not adverse at taking a chance in the Play Whe and certainly not the Lotto. I played the three marks for myself too. And life went on for the next few weeks I really did not look back to see if I became a millionaire. But I was cleaning my pockets at some point and I jumped. I got scared, Sen. Vieira. I saw receipts because I keep all my bills, my transactions are not like credit card or anything, I am not in the fancy world as yet. And I am cleaning out my pockets and I found this thing that says, two brassiere, three panties and four jockey shorts.

UNREVISED 96 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d)

Well, I was shocked. I said to myself, “Oh my God, what did I find myself in? How am I going to account for this? What am I doing with this?” And I struggled until it dawned on me that that was actually my Play Whe ticket. And it will happen again, when I was in Caratal and went to play a mark and saw my receipt said Shandy, Carib and something else, and realized that I am part of the problem. I was part, but this is the reality, and we are not here on Play Whe and “whe-whe”, we are not on here on that. But we are here on this issue of gambling and the unregulated nature of it and the way in which it is draining what could be resources made available to us. Let us not bury our heads in the sand. And one of the points that I want to make, one of the challenges of this Bill is this. If we can get the Opposition’s support—just like in TTRA, notice that they are allergic to regulating anything to finances. You mention financial system and they run, they run and they run to the courthouse in some cases. If we had out of that JSC, and I am coming to that process, if we had that support, we would have been able to put in place a more rigid and independent enforcement, because I talked about the Shandy and the jockey shorts for that reason. We have had law, we have had law. Since 1955 we have had law in relation to the bars and liquor licences and so on and even before that in the Summary Offences Act from 1921 we have had references to gaming in 1979. We introduced in the Summary Offences Act two specific provisions relating to gaming and betting. We have had it, but at no point in this country’s history has there been enforcement of the type, and that is what we see proliferating in unregulated bars, bars—a bar— We see it. “All yuh doh like to talk bout it”, you know. I was in the community of Navet in the 2015 election campaign, Navet, and a bar that I had grown up and known all my life, I pushed the door and tried to enter it and realized I could not enter it. And that bar with the installation of air-

UNREVISED 97 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) condition units was converted into a casino overnight. So those who are talking in defense of these bars, I do not have a problem with these bars. I do not have a problem if you want to gamble in your bar. I do not have a problem if you want to turn your bar into a casino, but the law is the law and it must be regulated and you must not continue to invoke the specter of job losses. This is not about losing jobs. This is about preserving those jobs and setting the gaming industry into a long- term future and being able, being able as a country to extract what we could extract from the industry. The industry is highly profitable. I believe the Minister of Finance mentioned along the way $16 billion involved in the industry, highly profitable. But where is the money going? Take your heads out of the sand. It is the exiting the country and going out of here and what remains has to be shared up among the employees and so on, but the taxing system does not take anything. It does not take anything. So that this is not about killing off jobs, sending people home. All these things that have been raised all the time. Every time we come here those things have been raised. And when I talk about my friends and the Legislature, you had your chance. It is amazing. The first thing is that this Bill is essentially the UNC Bill. This is essentially—do not fool yourself. I listened to you. I listened to Sen. Lutchmedial talk about the different licences. You know the licences in this Bill and the licences required in the 2015 Bill which my friends passed in the House at that time are the same. I listened to them talk about us on this side changing, allowing to the Minister to appoint the board, the Minister to name the board. And I know there are two amendments proposed by my colleagues on the Independent Bench. Well, that Minister is in the 2015 Bill and there is this thing that is being—it is not being said but it is out there, that this Bill is so radically different, that we are doing

UNREVISED 98 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) something that the UNC did not propose. Listen, this goes back to 1999 when Mervyn Assam, the then Minister, brought a Bill to deal with horse racing and off-track betting and so on; and that Bill lapsed three times. And then this Bill in 2015 laid, debated and passed in the House and came to the Senate and eventually lapsed in 2015. And the Minister of Finance revived that Bill in its exact form, in its exact form, and it is that Bill that failed at the hands of the United National Congress in the other place, their own Bill. Their own Bill. And it is that Bill that was brought back again, revived and committed to a joint select committee. And that joint select committee in its life between the Second Session of the last Parliament and the Fifth Session had about, had 16 different—the membership covered 16 Members of the Lower and Upper House. And today 11 of those Members are still in the Parliament either here or in the other place. And this Bill went through—if I tell you, in the Second Session I will tell you this. I have not seen a joint select committee of this Parliament work as hard as this JSC on this Bill. I have not seen that. Of course, it was chaired by the hard working Minister of Finance and he knows the importance of this Bill. And in the Second Session there were seven meetings and four reports of that Joint Select Committee. In the Third Session there were nine meetings and four reports. In the Fourth Session there were six meetings and three reports, and in the Fifth Session, two meetings and the final report. In 24 months, Mr. Vice-President, 24 months not— in the four Sessions, sorry, there were a total of 24 meetings in four Sessions, 12 reports in a committee that covered 16 Member of the Parliament. And you will stand here today and suggest that what we have before us was rushed? This was not rushed. Assam, 1999, attempted to change this piece of legislation. You passed a

UNREVISED 99 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d)

Bill, and I will tell you about that Bill compared to what is before us now. You passed a Bill. But the timing of the passage of the Bill—I will say today and stand to be corrected by anybody that it was no accident that it was no accident that it was towards the end the five year three-month term of the UNC that that Bill was put through the Lower House. Purely for campaign purposes, watch the timing of it, purely for campaign purposes and nothing more, because there has been nothing. If you are not meeting CFATF and FATF compliance on gambling, nothing, zero to show for it. And if in your closing weeks in office you put that Bill there, you were not serious about getting it through. And if you get an unusual second bite of the cherry as an Opposition and have your Bill put forward via the new Government, you are not serious because you shut it down. And if after all that discussion, because I read the voluminous report of that committee and I looked for areas, there was no minority report, I looked for the areas of conflict. I looked to see what is this thing that that keeps us back and there was nothing, there was nothing except an obstinacy to modernize the controls over gambling and money laundering and anti-terrorism financing in this country. And I went through—I went through. Thankfully we had the very nice weekend where we had a lot of time at home and I looked and this Bill that we have before us impacted 58 clauses in the UNC Bill. The last time I used a number they went all over the place saying 98 changes were made and they did not say what I also said, 94 of those were commas and full stops; 58 clauses it impacted. But when you hold up, and many you have had the consolidation, when you hold up the UNC Bill and the Bill that is before us and you see the differences in red, you come to realize that it is about seven, seven changes which have been made, seven changes. And I will go so far as to say that, having gone through this Bill part by part comparing it to the Bill laid by the UNC in 2015 and passed by the

UNREVISED 100 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d)

House, I could really see no more than about four changes that should draw our attention, no more than four. When I looked at Part II, because this Bill, Mr. Vice- President, is in 11 Parts, 11 Parts. When I looked at Part II, the Commission, the creation of the Commission I saw no difference, I saw no difference in what in relation to what was laid in 2015 and passed and what is before us now. When I looked at the licensing regime I saw no difference between the two. When I looked at gaming and betting I saw Parts IV and V, I saw no difference. Where the differences are, are in areas where—when we do legislation, when the hon. Attorney General and the CPC does legislation, they would not only look at that Bill but they would look at similar legislation drafted within the resent times, and they are always trying always to create consistency in language, in the creation of offences, in the fines which are applicable and the jail time and so on. So a lot of times you see changes from versions of Bills, you would see changes which represent, not core changes to the intents, purposes and objectives of the legislation but you will see changes which reflect consistency across similar types of legislation which have been drafted. You may see new obligations taken on. So you would see AML obligations, sometimes you have to come here to amend legislation to take on to reflect obligations taken on via treaty or via agreement or in order to keep our banking sector whole, our insurance sector whole, our financial sector whole and that is what you—but when you look at the core of this—it is not only the core. When you look at this Bill compared to what was passed in the House in 2015, there are no significant differences. There are no significant differences. And I would go so far as to say, they are not different at all and it makes me wonder, it makes me wonder what type of Government you were and what type of Opposition you are to make those workers feel that you are here to defend them when you have been at the heart of their problem, because we

UNREVISED 101 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) could have been failed in the CFATF and FATF process just as our banking sector was put on the brink. And just as our farmers supplying cocoa to Europe were unable to cash their cheques because we were on the brink and we were blacklisted, this thing that you claim to defend today could have fallen apart if you were left in government to continue to be non-compliant in relation to gambling and the regulation of gambling, because that is where you were, and you understood that modern legislation was an important inevitable path to the way forward, and what you did was a sham, not only in 2015 but thereafter. Why would you participate? What sort of Legislature participates fully in a process that straddles four sessions of the Parliament, 24 meetings, 12 reports, 16 Members, outside advice, external expert advice? What sort of legislator participates in that process and then refuses to support the outcome of that process? I cannot accept that. I cannot accept that, not because I am armed with some special knowledge because I live here and I understand here, and as I walk all around this country I see it. I said on a political platform that I never thought in little Rio Claro I would stand up and in the place we call the junction and if I stretch so I touch casino, and if I stretch left I touch another one. Mr. Vice-President: Minister, you have five more minutes. Sen The Hon. C. Rambharat: If I raise my leg backwards, three casinos in a small agriculture community. And if you do not want to say it, I say it. You go through all those bars, all those lounges, because I never thought about this gaming lounge and all of that. Trinidad and Tobago has become a dangerous place at the hands of unregulated gambling. And I listened to Member Lyder and he has, as the UNC has had since former Prime Minister Patrick Manning talked about regulating, the UNC has had a correlation between legislation and job loss and

UNREVISED 102 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d)

Member Lyder, Sen. Lyder repeated it here today. It is a fallacy. 2.00 p.m. Legislation creates transparency, accountability. It will create an opportunity for fairness to the workers. It would create fair competition. This will help the industry because you are talking about 2,000 bars. I have seen these machines in pharmacies and all kinds of places; this is not 2,000 bars, this is about 20,000. This is all over the place. And I know there is a casino in Port of Spain that has supplied a 120,000 of those machines across the country. And I will tell you why. In the lead up to the 2015 elections, the group that represents the people who use these equipment sought a meeting with me and I agreed. And for hours they talked to me about the need for regulation because things had gotten out of hand. So this is no simple matter. And if bars want to be casinos, the legislation provides for that. And if casinos want to be rum shops, it provides for that, and who wants to play could play. But it cannot be that you go to play Play Whe and you end up with a receipt for brassiere, panty and jockey shorts. Nowhere, nowhere in this modern world—and you turned a blind eye to that? I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to do that. The reality is this: Gambling is undertaken in the construct of the 1963 Act; the Registration of Clubs Act; the Liquor Licences Act, 1955; the Summary Offences Act, 1921. This Bill seeks to deal with part of the industry because it does not deal with those places that operate under the Registration of Clubs Act. It does not deal with those places that operate under the Liquor Licences Act. But it deals with those places if you are operating as a casino. It deals with those places on that basis and it is not right to say it targets bars. It does not target bars. I could go down by Red Lion when it reopens. I would not have to worry about Red Lion shutting down. I could go by plenty of bars. There is no need to worry. If you want your bar to operate as a

UNREVISED 103 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d) casino, then you have to comply with the law. So, Mr. Vice-President, in the words of Bob Marley, “you can’t fool all the people all the time”. And this legislation is essentially the legislation that was passed in 2015, and today, International Day of Yoga, we will pass this Bill in this House. I thank you very much. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, and I want to thank Sen. Rambharat for his contribution. He has done a lot of the heavy lifting for me, and particularly the reminder that we have been looking at this legislation for a long time. And I have pulled up the Bill that was passed in 2015 by the UNC, and when one looks at that 2015 legislation which was passed in May of 2015, just a few days before the Parliament was dissolved, and in fact the dissolution of the Parliament was inevitable because the Parliament must dissolve at a particular time based on the Constitution, and therefore the dissolution of the Parliament in June of 2015 was inevitable. And yet as Sen. Rambharat has pointed out, the then UNC Government debated and passed the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill in House of Representatives at the end of May 2015, and there is no doubt, looking back now, that was just for cosmetic purposes. They never brought it to the Senate and they never completed the passage of that legislation. But what is interesting about that 2015 UNC Bill, is the manner in which various parts of it are structured, and I would refer hon. Senators to clause 6—or it became an Act. Well, no, it was passed in the House. So clause 6 of the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill of 2015, the UNC Bill, relates to the establishment of the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Commission. And 6(2) said, which was debated and passed by the Opposition now: “The Commission shall be managed by a Board appointed by the Minister,

UNREVISED 104 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

for the purpose of exercising such powers and duties as are conferred upon it by this Act...” And then it goes on to say: “The Board shall consist of a Chairman and eight other members…” —and the members: “…shall be qualified…by reason of their work and experience in the gambling industry or fields relating to law, finance, information technology, economics, management, social work or law enforcement.” And that is why I was very disappointed in the contribution from Sen. Lutchmedial, asking why are we setting up a commission like this, when in truth and in fact it is virtually a carbon copy of the Commission that was debated and passed by the UNC Government in 2015. The other thing that bothered me about Sen. Lutchmedial’s contribution—and I began to have my usual reservations about the quality of education at the University of the West Indies—was the statement that, the way the members of the Commission are appointed, you could have someone who sees a competitor applying for a licence and would simply organize things in a particular way to block a competitor. That is absolutely ridiculous. Clause 5(6) of the Bill is very, very clear and it excludes certain persons from appointment to the board. The list of ineligible persons includes those who: “(a) …operated a gambling establishment prior to the”—Bill—“coming into…”—law; “(b) holds a licence issued under this…”—Bill; “(c) intends to apply for a licence…”—under the Bill; —“or (d) has a financial interest in but does not operate a gaming establishment.” So how on earth could a member of the board see a competitor coming to

UNREVISED 105 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) apply for a licence and arrange to block that competitor, when such a person would be automatically disqualified from being a member of the Commission? And that just goes to show, all that is happening here is that the Opposition has been filibustering for six years. Filibustering. This is the essence of filibustering in the full meaning of that word. Just delaying, frustrating the completion of the matter. It has been six years since the UNC passed the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill. Six years. And what I did, and what we did, when we came into office in 2015, recognizing how important it was to regulate this sector, we did not change a full stop, a comma, a semicolon, or any word in the Gambling (Gaming and Betting) Control Bill passed by the UNC in May of 2015. I put it back verbatim, word for word, foolishly assuming that since the UNC had passed this Bill, debated it and passed it, that they would have no objection to their own Bill. Well, silly me, six years of filibustering and wasting time, and delaying and talking nonsense. And if I could go into the contributions of some of the Opposition Members. Sen. Mark made the outlandish statement there was no consultation on the Bill. As Sen. Rambharat has pointed out, the Bill before the House is almost a mirror image of the Bill that was debated and passed by the UNC in May 2015, and also laid in this Parliament by myself, and found itself before a joint select committee for years, and it underwent multiple consultation. There were 15 rounds of consultation with stakeholders in 2016; 38 different stakeholders. That was in 2016. And because of the filibustering of the Opposition, we had to do it all over again, so you had a second round of consultations in 2018, with stakeholders, hours and hours, I dare say about 100 hours of discussion and consultation with 38 different stakeholders. So it is ridiculous for Sen. Mark to say there were no consultations.

UNREVISED 106 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

Let me deal with this matter of bars. Currently under the Liquor Licences Act, a bar is allowed to have 20 amusement machines. If you want more than 20 amusement machines you are a casino. Why is it bar owners want to be casino owners but not subject to regulation as a casino? Twenty amusement machines is more than adequate for an establishment whose primary function is to sell spirituous liquors and alcohol. That is what a bar is for. That is what you get a liquor licence for. The licence to sell liquor. Why on earth would a bar owner, having the ability to have 20 amusement machines—“one-arm bandits” they are called—want to have more than that? If you go beyond that and you want to have roulette machines and blackjack tables and so on, you are no longer a bar, you are a casino. So I hope that puts an end to that. There is so much that Sen. Mark said but with the limited time I just cannot answer everything. But virtually every single thing Sen. Mark said was not true. Virtually every single thing he said was not true. I mean I have about 10 pages of untruths here from Sen. Mark but I do not think I am going to waste time on that. Let me give you an example though: Why would the Government put a business through the hassle of acquiring 11 licences when the purpose of the licences can be achieved with a single licence? And my staff here has put in bold, “This is not a true statement, as no single person will be required to apply for all 11 licences”. That is only common sense, some of the licences are for the manufacture of machines, some of them are for the import of machines; some of them are for the repair and maintenance of machines; some of them are for the sale and distribution of machines. No one person would have to apply for 11 licences. The licences are all specific. User specific. As I said, 10 pages of untruths. Let me move on now to other comments made. And before I do that I just want to revisit the history a little bit. The last report on the gambling Bill was laid

UNREVISED 107 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) in the Parliament in 2019, and the members of the committee at that time were myself as chairman, Mr. Al-Rawi, Mr. Young, Ms. Olivierre, Mr. Singh, Mr. Indarsingh, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Le Hunte, Mr. Mark, Ms. West, Mr. Richards, Dr. Deyalsingh. And I want to put on record that I truly appreciated the interventions and the time spent by members in this committee. And therefore, it was a source of great shock to me, having spent hours, I dare say 100 hours on the consultations and examinations on the Bill over a period of four years, and not a single objection raised at the end of the process, to come to the Parliament and see the Opposition vote against the Bill in the other place. Shocking. So, let me just look at some of the points made by hon. Members of the Independent Bench. Sen. Teemal asked about the manner in which the establishment of the Commission is structured, and why is the President and why is the Minister involved in certain places and so on. I think that was answered already but it bears repeating. The way the wording of the legislation is structured, President means Cabinet. And a Minister would bring a note to Cabinet to recommend the appointment or determination of a member. So, we could have left it as it was. The Bill that was passed in the Senate said that the members of the Commission would be appointed by the President on the advice of the Minister. That was actually passed in this place, this honourable Senate. Those words, that the board would be—the Commission would be appointed by the President on the advice of the Minister. We have taken out “on the advice of the Minister” part, and it will simply be “Cabinet”, but Cabinet deliberates on a Cabinet Note, so the note has to be brought by a Minister. So in this particular case, for the appointment or termination, it would be based on a Cabinet Note submitted by the Minister of Finance as the relevant Minister for the legislation, to the Cabinet, and then appointed by the President on the advice of Cabinet.

UNREVISED 108 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

These are standard provisions, they exist in all types of legislation. It is quite standard. There is nothing sinister about it. And I want to make the point, the UNC knew that it was important that the Commission be appointed by Cabinet or appointed by the Minister. The UNC’s version was a board appointed by the Minister. Our version is a broad appointed by the President which means Cabinet. But because this involves revenue collection, and I want to make that point. We must not lose sight of the fact that in addition to controlling a particular activity, the purpose of this Commission is to ensure proper revenue collection. And it is the role and function of the Executive to have some measure of control over revenue collection, and therefore it is very important that either the Cabinet or the Minister be involved in the appointment of this Bill because revenue goes to the core of the function of government and the function of the Executive. I think Sen. Teemal also asked about why are we staggering the appointments. And that is again something that we borrowed from the private sector, so it means that you do not have to reappoint the whole board immediately, you would have some members coming in and some members coming out from time to time, and allows for continuity. So that as a member comes out there are some from the previous board remaining who could provide the transition into a new board, a new commission. With respect to the adjustment to the special majority, and why we are doing it, and why we have decided to go with this format at this point in time. Up to today, Mr. Vice-President, I was meeting with one of the credit rating agencies, and they asked us, why did we take so long to adjust the gambling Bill to allow for a simple majority? And the answer that I gave was, well, we were just hoping that the Opposition would support us. But as Sen. Rambharat has pointed out, any time you come to something to deal with revenue and money and collection of money,

UNREVISED 109 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) the Opposition opposes it. Any time you come to bring efficiency and integrity and better management and better transparency and equity into the collection of revenue for the service of Trinidad and Tobago, the Opposition opposes it. So we have decided, there is no point after six years of them filibustering, we need to get this thing, this show on the road. Sen. Teemal also asked how did we arrive at the Estimates of Revenue. That is actually in the interim report of the Joint Select Committee. And in the introduction to that report, it indicates that our estimate of the amount of money that is spent in this sector on an annual basis is $16 billion. That is actually in the Joint Select Committee report, in the introduction. So that, if as Sen. West has pointed out, if you take 25 per cent of that as profit, that is $4 billion. And if you take 25 per cent of that as taxation, or a notional percentage of 25 per cent, you get $1 billion. Our estimate of collections from the gambling and gaming sector, once this gambling and gaming Commission is fully established, is at least $500 million. Right now, we get about $75 million. And again, it is important to note that for the future security of Trinidad and Tobago, we are in a very difficult situation right now with COVID-19, and the devastating effect that COVID-19 has had on our economy, and on revenues, and on business, and on industry, and on economic activity, and so on. We have been running persistent budget deficits in Trinidad and Tobago for some time. In 2018, we were almost bringing our accounts into balance. By 2019, we were very, very close. Then COVID came along in 2020, and all of the work we had done on growing revenue was literally destroyed by COVID. But, we expect to come out of this pandemic in due course when we are able to achieve vaccination which the Minister of Health is well on track to achieve herd immunity. And as we come out, Mr. Vice-President, we have to look at ways and

UNREVISED 110 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) means of dealing with structural problems in our economy. We have to look at new revenue streams. Right now, we have a $16 billion industry. If we get $30 million, $40 million out of that industry on an annual basis, we get plenty. The country should be getting 5 to $600 million out of that $16 billion-industry. It is just not fair to the ordinary taxpayer, to the salary person whose taxes are deducted at source from their monthly income. It is just not fair to the ordinary worker who has to pay income tax that you have a $16 billion industry literally getting away with murder. So that this is a revenue stream just like property tax and just like the revenue authority. We need to improve efficiency in revenue collection. We have to close the gap between revenue and expenditure so that eventually we will have a balanced budget. We must do this, Mr. Vice-President. And therefore, we must, for the service of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, make sure the people in this industry pay their fair share of taxes. With respect to other matters raised by Members, and coming back to this matter of the simple majority, what we have done as exists in many other jurisdictions and other types of legislation in Trinidad and Tobago, what the Bill had in it before, is that officers of the authority, the Commission, would have quasi police powers, or police powers, be able to enter, search, seize. That was an infringement of various constitutional rights, and that was what the other Members on the other side opposed. What we have done, is we have resorted to well- established processes and procedures, such as application to a magistrate for a warrant. So that a judicial officer having reviewed evidence and submissions from the various officers, whether it is a police officer or whether it is an officer of the Gaming Commission, would make a decision as to whether there is sufficient reason to allow search of premises to determine whether persons are cheating on their taxes, whether they are engaging in illegal activities, whether they are

UNREVISED 111 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) adhering to the requirements of their licences, and so on.

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair] So that that is how we have removed the special majority. We have resorted to—it is time-consuming, and it is not as efficient as a stand-alone gambling commission that would have its own enforcement ability. So we are incorporating—because we are getting so much resistance from the Opposition— into this legislation a process whereby judicial officers will be able to adjudicate as to whether action should be taken against licensees under the legislation, and police officers would also be involved as independent police officers reporting to the Commissioner of Police, and not reporting to the gambling and gaming Commission. Madam President, how much time do I have again, nine? Madam President: Nine more minutes. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much. Madam President: You finish at 2.33. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much. And therefore, we are going to press on. If Members opposite on the lower benches, the UNC, want to go to court to challenge the proportionality of this legislation, they are free to do so. But we cannot stay in a tailspin and a never-ending whirlpool just waiting on the Opposition to support what is right and proper. We just cannot wait on them. We will stay here for the next 50 years and they will nitpick and they will grumble and they will find something wrong, they will pretend they do not understand and so on. We have to get on with this legislation. We have to. And I am gratified in the knowledge that a former version of this Senate approved the previous Bill which was even more stringent than this one. And therefore, I am hopeful that with proper explanation to Independent Senators, we can pass this legislation today.

UNREVISED 112 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

And we will be bringing a Revenue Authority Bill in similar fashion. We will have to water it down but at least we will able to improve the administrative efficiency of our Inland Revenue Division. At least we will make some progress where that is concerned. With respect to the difference between this Bill and previous Bills, and especially the difference between this Bill and the Bill passed by this honourable Senate previously, the main additions deal with improvements in the approach of Trinidad and Tobago to the vexed question of anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist financing, and other financial requirements. Because we have been brought on to the world stage through the Financial Action Task Force, through the Global Forum we are part of these global bodies and we have no choice but to be part of these global bodies, otherwise we would be pariahs on the world stage. We would be blacklisted, grey listed, restricted, and so on. So that you see the introduction of the Financial Intelligence Unit as the authority that will deal with the money laundering aspect of the gambling industry. And we think that is only fit and proper because that is what the FIU is set up for. And we have other improvements that have come in, such as the ability for the Commission to impose administrative fines. This is something that has evolved over the years in the world, coming out of various Financial Action Task Force meetings and reports. So that the main changes to this legislation from what was there before, is that we have removed the requirement for a three-fifths majority by bringing in other arms of the State such as the Judiciary and the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, and they have to perform in a particular manner, and they have to perform within a particular legal framework which allows the protection of rights and freedoms of citizens. That is one of the main changes. The other change is to strengthen the capability of an agency such as this to

UNREVISED 113 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) detect and deal very seriously with money laundering and terrorist financing. And that is how we have brought in the various agencies of the State, FIU in particular, the financial intelligence branch of the police, and we have allowed the sharing of information and collaboration between all these various agencies; the FIB, the FIU, the TTPS on its own as a main service, the Commission itself, and the Police Complaints Authority— Madam President: Minister, you have— Hon. C. Imbert:—bring them all in and incorporate them into the framework of the legislation— Madam President: Minister. Minister, you have five more minutes. Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much—in a collaborative manner. I do not think I need to impress upon hon. Senators how important it is we deal with this unregulated sector. Trinidad and Tobago is the only unregulated gambling sector in the world. We are an anomaly. And as Sen. Deyalsingh has recognized, there is the phenomena of gambling addiction, very serious matter. There is the whole question of the pernicious effect of gambling on children, minors. There is the whole question of the desirability of having a casino in a residential neighbourhood. Certainly, we do not want that, and therefore this legislation includes the ability for persons to object. As Sen. Deyalsingh has said, perhaps we need to go a little further. But what I would ask is let us get this legal framework going. It will take us, in my opinion, approximately six months to properly establish, populate and operationalize the gaming and gambling Commission. And as we do that, and as it starts to function, and as we see how the new licensing regime is going to work, and if we see weaknesses in terms of dealing with this specific point made by Sen. Deyalsingh, we see weaknesses in terms of the process for the granting of licensing and the ability of

UNREVISED 114 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 2021.06.21 Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d) members of the public to object to the presence or the operation of a casino in their neighbourhood, then we can make adjustments to the law. The law is not static. It is living, it is evolving all the time. But I do not think I need to belabour the point in terms of the fact that we need to regulate this industry. One of the points that needs to be highlighted is the fact that there is tremendous leakage of foreign exchange from this unregulated industry. Tremendous leakage. Because a lot of the ownership is foreign, and they take their profits from the industry which are substantial, convert them into US dollars, whether legally or illegally, and export these profits out of the country, and therefore we need to understand what is going on. We as a country, as a government, as a Parliament, we need to understand what is going on. We need to regulate this industry. We need to deal with criminality that is associated with this industry, and we need to deal with the negative social effects associated with gambling. So, I am asking for the support of this Senate for this long overdue legislation which we have laboured on, certainly from my perspective, this Parliament has laboured on this legislation for the last six years, and therefore I beg to move. 2.30 p.m. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a second time. Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate. Senate in committee. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance? Mr. Imbert: Yes, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, may I just point out before we begin our

UNREVISED 115 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 deliberations, there are 88 clauses to this Bill, there are seven Schedules, there are also three sets of amendments that have been circulated. There is one proposed by Sen. Vieira, one set; one set proposed by Sen. Teemal and one set proposed by Sen. Mark. So, may I just ask for everyone’s cooperation as we begin the deliberations. It is, as I say, numerous clauses, various amendments being proposed and therefore I need everyone’s cooperation as we move through this committee proceedings. Yes, Attorney General? Mr. Al-Rawi: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just to indicate that the Government proposes two small amendments to clauses 53 and 70 and they are en route, if not posted already. Madam Chairman: 53 and 70? Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, please, Ma’am. Thank you. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3. Question proposed: That clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: There is an amendment circulated on behalf of Sen. Teemal and Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair? Madam Chairman: Yes. Sen. Mark: I have asked for some assistance in typing up my amendments but maybe out of an oversight—[Interruption] No, I am saying that I had asked the Secretariat to type up my amendments and what happens that there might have been an oversight because there are several definitions here that we would like to address like, “equipment”, “gambling machine”, we have an “enforcement officer”, “gaming establishment”, “vulnerable person”. So I just want to let you know that we have put forward a number of changes and amendments so—but it is

UNREVISED 116 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 not reflected in the document that is before us. Madam Chairman: So, how are we going to proceed, Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Well, Madam, I would just—as we go along, I would just outline those areas. Hon. Senator: By “vaps”? Madam Chairman: Well— Sen. Mark: No it is not by “vaps”. I mean, I have it here. Madam Chairman: Just one second. What I have before me, the list of amendments proposed and signed by you, Sen. Mark, for clause 3 has two proposed amendments. You are saying now that it is more. Now, you know my position, I have just stated to the committee that this is an intricate process because of the number of clauses and because of the number of lists of amendments that we have. And therefore, it is not a tidy arrangement for amendments to be proposed from the floor, Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, I am simply saying that what was circulated does not reflect— Madam Chairman: But, Senator— Sen. Mark: Yes, yes, I know, I know. But, Madam Chair, if it is that you want to—if you would like to proceed, minus what I am suggesting, we can do it. Because all I am saying is that in my original document, there are several amendments, two definitions. All that is reflected is two. So if the Parliament wishes to proceed without the various definition, we can do so, no problem. I am just saying that we put it in writing. Madam Chairman: So, hon. Senators, clause 3 has—there are—let me just tell you, there are—clause 3 covers from page 2 to page 11 of the Bill. What I propose to do is to—we will do it page by page. All right? And then, where those proposed

UNREVISED 117 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 amendments fit in, we will deal with it at that stage. Okay? So could we deal with page 2 of the Bill? Because I am also entertaining any questions or comments. Sen. Mark: Can I start now? Madam Chairman: Yes, I think that your amendment, “enforcement officer”— Sen. Mark: Yes. Madam Chairman: That is on page 3. Are there any questions or comments on page 2 of clause—what is set out at page 2 of clause 3, dealing with clause 3? So I can turn the page? Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, on page, I do not know if it is the same page—I do not know. When I say page— Hon. Senator: It is page 2 of the Bill. Sen. Mark: Yes. Madam Chair, is that part one dealing with all—is it clause 3 on page 5 of the document I have before me? Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, we are on page 2 of the Bill dealing with clause 3. Sen. Mark: Okay. Madam Chairman: Out of concern for the committee, instead of just lumping clause 3 together, which encompasses several pages, I decided we go through page by page and anyone who wishes to raise a question or make a comment can do so. So we are on page 2 dealing with clause 3. Sen. Mark: Yeah. So under the definition “associate”— Madam Chairman: Yes? Sen. Mark: We are suggesting that this definition is too broad and it could create a duty of disclosure on a person who is not named or has applied for a licence. So we are asking the Government to revisit this particular clause— this definition, because it is too wide in the context of what we are trying to achieve. So that is the submission we would like to make as it relates to “associate”.

UNREVISED 118 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the definition for “associate” is written in the context of beneficial owner as approved by the Financial Action Task Force. This was carefully considered in the eight years of consultation that this legislation went through and by the Global Forum and other entities. So we regret that we cannot accept that recommendation. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, may I go on? Madam Chairman: Yes. Sen. Mark: All right, Madam Chair, if you go to the “authorised officer”, it means: “…an officer designated under section 67;” It is our view that this needs to identify whether the purpose of the “authorised officer” is to be administrative rather than investigative as this will duplicate and confuse the role of the “enforcement officer”. So we need a clear definition of what this really— Madam Chairman: So what you are asking for Sen. Mark—because there is no amendment before us. Is it that you are asking for clarification on the definition of “authorised officer”? Sen. Mark: Yeah. Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Mr. Imbert: Now, let me jump in here— Madam Chairman: “Oh”, Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Let me jump in here. This definition simply says it is: “an officer designated under section 67;” When you go to clause 67, Madam Chairman, 67 is a very long clause and in 67(2), it gives a whole list of activities that the authorised officer may undertake

UNREVISED 119 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 and a whole series of things associated with the authorized officer. It identifies very clearly what the functions, responsibilities, powers and duties of an authorized officer are. So I simply do not understand the point, but perhaps the Attorney General could understand. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, in direct answer to Sen. Mark’s enquiry, suffice it to say 67 does, as the Minister of Finance puts it, specifically speak to function with the specifics of the law, clause 67 and the Act in general. We did not do it in any other way but this because it was such an involved definition that we felt that it should be part of the operative law. In other words then, not just by way of reference in the definition section but in the body of the law. Therefore, clause 67 is perfectly clear and within the context of how we ought to interpret this provision. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, may I also enquire as it relates to clarification here, who—and may I ask the Attorney General: Who is liable, through the Chair, Attorney General, in the event that this Commission abuses its power and somebody wants to take legal action against— Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman— Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, well no, that question—that question really does not arise at this stage. This is, we are dealing with the Interpretation section and therefore, I think I would not allow that question at this stage. Sen. Mark: Could I also indicate, Madam Chair, whether the Government has considered appointing a constable instead of the police and putting that under— Madam Chairman: No, Sen. Mark, also that question, not at this stage as well. Can we move on to page— Sen. Mark: So at what stage would I be able to raise that? Mr. Al-Rawi: Under “enforcement officer”.

UNREVISED 120 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: When it comes up in the Bill. Sen. Mark: 67? Madam Chairman: So we go to page 3 of the Bill. Page 4? Page 5? Sen. Mark: I do not know why we are moving so quickly but— Madam Chairman: Page 5, Sen. Mark, you have a proposed amendment to “enforcement officer” and “equipment”, both of which fall on page 5. So you can speak to your proposed amendment at this stage. Sen. Mark: Just now, just now, Ma’am, just now. In terms of “equipment”—are we on the one, Madam Chair, the— Madam Chairman: Your proposed amendment to clause 3 which has been circulated. Sen. Mark: Is that the “enforcement officer”? Madam Chairman: Yes, it is. Sen. Mark: Yeah. But I just raised that a short while ago and the Minister, the Attorney General— Mr. Imbert: No, you did not. You raised “authorised officer”. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, before I deal with the “enforcement officer”, may I just deal with “equipment”? Madam Chairman: No, Sen. Mark, “equipment” comes after. If you look at the amendments— Sen. Mark: All right. I will ask my friend to just— Madam Chairman: Sen. Rambhajan? Sen. Rambhajan: Grateful, please. In relation to “enforcement officer”, I know that there was some discussion a few minutes ago about the “authorised officer” and the “enforcement officer”. The concern is that there is very little demarcation between the powers of both. The “enforcement officer”, while a constable under

UNREVISED 121 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 the Supplemental Police Act in the definition section—when you look at section 67, the rubric of enforcement, both “authorised officer” and “enforcement officer” are being used in that enforcement section with very little separation between their powers duties and functions. So the question is, for clarity, is it that the authorized officer is going to have investigative and enforcement powers? If he is going to have that power, why do we need the enforcement officer then? So— Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman— Sen. Rambhajan:—just in relation to the differences in the definition and purpose. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance? Mr. Imbert: Let me just make a general point. I have a little difficulty. I have before me an amendment proposed by Sen. Mark, where he is not complaining about the existence of the enforcement officer. He wants to add a member of the police service to the supplemental police. So I do not understand the point made by the other Senator because it does not speak to the Opposition’s own amendment. It does not make sense. Madam Chairman: Sen. Rambhajan, that is what I asked you to speak on the amendment as circulated by Sen. Mark to clause 3— Sen. Rambhajan: Yes. Madam Chairman: —which is dealing with—and we are dealing with “enforcement officer” at this stage and I am asking you to speak to that. Sen. Rambhajan: Yes, please, I am guided. Yes, just in relation to “enforcement officer”, whether there would be consideration to specifically stating that the “enforcement officer” would be a member of the police service or a constable appointed under the Supplemental Police Act. Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we specifically proposed that the “enforcement

UNREVISED 122 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 office”, who has the powers of the police fall, under the special reserve police officers. We looked at the issue of supplemental police and if you look to that particular Chapter of the law, 15:02, we are not looking at rural police or estate police, et cetera. It is for the manner in which the SRPs can be appointed with ease and flexibility and specialization that we went for the SRPs as opposed to the supplemental police. So for the record, the SRPs, being police officers clothe with police powers, we put the enforcement powers under them being distinct from the administrative powers. Secondly, we did that to underwrite the constitutionality of the law, specifically because they would have the Hinds qualification in law and that they would therefore meet with the constitutional muster that the Privy Council, et cetera, has considered in those ends. So it was bifurcated. One, specifically SRPs can be better tooled for this purpose and stand in a category different from supplemental police. And then secondly, to make sure that there was a constitution backing to the use of police powers in a Hinds context of the Privy Council’s discussion on that basis. Sen. Rambhajan: I thank the hon. Attorney General. Madam Chairman: The second part of the proposed amendment which deals with the word “equipment”. Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Yes. Madam Chair, as it relates to this particular definition, we felt that we should make an amendment by inserting the words: “but not inclusive of internet gaming” after the word “thereof”. We feel that, for instance, that would be very important in the context of this particular definition of equipment. And that is why we have sought a slight amendment to this particular word, “equipment”. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance?

UNREVISED 123 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Mr. Imbert: I just conferred with the CPC’s office. Since Internet gambling is going to be a prohibited activity, I personally did not see the need for these words because it is not allowed. So that, the “equipment” in this definition is to be used in the context, the framework of permitted gambling and therefore, I did not see the point in adding in these words. I thought they were superfluous because Internet gaming is not allowed. CPC confers with me but I will— Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Mr. Imbert:—defer to the Attorney General. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, in supporting the Minister of Finance, I would like to point out, because the hon. Minister said it in his piloting of this Bill, Internet gaming is built upon equipment and it is permitted under this law when the Parliament, by way of affirmative resolution, decides that it should be. So if you were to amendment the law right now, as proposed by Sen. Mark, we would be cutting out the prospect of Internet gaming, which is something that the Minister of Finance has said is under scrutiny, as to when it is appropriate. Let me make abundantly clear, this law contemplates Internet gaming under specific circumstances of affirmative resolution of the Parliament to allow it. So if we were to take Sen. Mark’s recommendation, we would end Internet gaming as a possibility under this law which is not something that the Government is prepared to support. Madam Chairman: Okay. Page 6? Sen. Mark: I am going to “gambling machine” now. Madam Chairman: Sure. Sen. Mark: Right. I would like to suggest that this particular definition— particularly, when you go to subclause (a) of this definition, the definition, Madam Chair, is a bit wide and when it is stated that it is:

UNREVISED 124 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

“designed or adapted for use by individuals to gamble whether or not it can be used for other purposes…” I just wanted to ask the Attorney General whether that could be interpreted to mean other devices and it could— Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Sen. Mark: Before you go on, Madam Chair, I am suggesting that we could put a definition just before “designed”, “primarily designed”. So we know that this machine is primarily designed or adapted for use because as it is right now, it could be expanded to and could be misinterpreted. Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, thank you. Madam Chair, that would be a very dangerous step for a number of reasons. Number one, this definition was scrutinized by an international consultant who spent years in the Joint Select Committee that Sen. Mark participated in. It was also scrutinized against regulations—nine of them—that that consultant, assisting the Parliament and whose record is here for all to see, had careful view of. If we were to adjust the language to put “primarily”, we would open Pandora’s Box as to whether equipment is of this type, a gambling machine, included or excluded. And I will tell you why, Madam Chair. We are in the technological world. A telephone can be a gaming device in certain circumstances because its software can be used in a particular way. So the advice against technological specificity was given to the committee, in the Joint Select Committee aspects, and therefore, I want to urge that we ought not to make it up as we go along because we have been eight years in discussing this law with international experts. And therefore, I respectfully do not agree that we ought to touch this definition as recommended by Sen. Mark.

UNREVISED 125 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: Can we move to page 7? Sen. Mark: Yes, page 7. Madam Chairman: Page 8? Page 9? Sen. Mark: Is that dealing with “vulnerable person”? Madam Chairman: No, we have not reached there yet. Page 10? Sen. Teemal, you have proposed an amendment to the definition of “vulnerable person” on page 10. Would you like to speak to it, please? Sen. Teemal: Yes, Madam Chair, the definition that is proposed here mainly focuses on the question of addiction—gambling addiction. And over the last years, in terms of several jurisdictions, the issue of problem gambling has emerged. And in terms of treating with problem gambling a person could be a compulsive gambler, which is based on primarily addiction to gambling. But problem gambling is a wider term that encompasses not only the compulsive gambling but other aspects of compulsive behaviour that leads to gambling problems. So that is why I thought that the expansion of the term “vulnerable person” to include “problem gambling” would serve this piece of legislation in the context of rehabilitation. Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the issue of vulnerability is something that certainly is one of the main core principles of the legislation and indeed the set-up of the funds, et cetera. So we have to look at the issue of vulnerability in the context of what the law actually says. Madam Chair, when you look to vulnerability and you look to the set-up of the fund and the access and purpose of the fund, the fund it allows us to go a little bit broader. The introduction of a person who exhibits behavioural patterns of problem gambling as evidenced by an urge to gamble, despite harmful negative, is particularly subjective. So we are faced with, whether

UNREVISED 126 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 we go for the objective or the subjective at this point. From an interpretation point of view, the preference would be the objectivity. So, Madam Chair, what I can say in looking at this is that this would require us to do a little bit more investigation. I think that it is a worthy position to have a look at but I do not feel capable at this point that making a subject shift in that direction just at this moment. It is certainly something that we can have a look at and then come back to, because it is not a topic that we looked at in the Joint Select Committee. Even though this Bill came from a different source, it is something deserving of second look. So I do not know if the hon. Senator would allow us the room to have a view of that. 3.00 p.m. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance, did you want to add anything? Mr. Imbert: Well, this is really dealing with psychological issues, and if you look at (a) and (b) these are tangible things: the vulnerable person cannot pay their gambling debts; they cannot meet their basic needs; they cannot meet the obligations of their job because of gambling addiction. This goes into behavioural patterns and I mean, I think it is important, very, but I certainly do not have the expert knowledge on how to frame or draft this at this point in time. I think it is very interesting and it is something I would like to support, but I am not sure these words are appropriate and I am not sure we could do it today. I mean, certainly I can give an undertaking that we will revisit this and see what we can do in the future, but right now I am not sure this drafting is appropriate as the Attorney General has said, it is subjective. What is an urge to gamble; how do you measure that? In the first part you can measure the inability of the person not to pay their debts because they are just not paying or they just do not have any money. They have no money in the bank. And you can also determine

UNREVISED 127 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 whether a person is unable to meet basic needs of the family because no food on the table. You could figure that out. Or, obligations of his job, not coming to work or not working. Those are things you can measure, but how does one measure an urge to gamble. So I think when you get the psychiatrist and the psychologist involved in drafting something like this, but I think you very much for the suggestion. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. I would like to support Sen. Teemal’s recommendation and I encourage you to do revisit it because I think problem gambling is more for the recognized term now. It is wider than just addiction. Addition is a narrow frame and it is harm experience not just by the gambler but by those associated with him. So I welcome the suggestion. Thank you. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair? Madam Chairman: Yes. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we wholeheartedly agree that it is a worthy concept, but I would just like to point us to where “vulnerability” is used in the context of clause 64 of the Bill which is sufficiently wide notwithstanding the firm undertaking the Government gives to look at this because it is something that we must have a look at. When we look to 64(2): “The Rehabilitation Fund is established to assist non-governmental organisations and other groups working with vulnerable persons and their families suffering the effects of gambling addiction and other forms of harm or exploitation...” So when you look at the breadth of the language in 64(2), there is a bit more comfort. The hon. Minister of Finance’s point on the subjective versus objective aspects would only qualify us in respect of the vulnerable person. The purpose of

UNREVISED 128 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 the Fund which is what we are treating with here, the Rehabilitation Fund, is much broader but we do certainly give the undertaking to have a look at that, but just to give comfort to hon. colleagues that as used in the context of clause 64 that we are on the right track. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, I would like to say that we find this definition to be too wide and too subjective, that is, “vulnerable persons”. We also would like— Madam Chairman: But, Sen. Mark, is it that you are saying that what is in the legislation is too wide, or are you speaking to Sen. Teemal’s proposed amendment? Sen. Mark: Well, I am speaking to his amendment, but I also had an amendment as well to this one that you did not see. You understand? I am saying the definition does not take into account— Mr. Imbert: Which definition? Madam Chairman: Attorney General and Minister of Finance, let me do some interrupting here. Sen. Mark is speaking to what is proposed in the Bill, and what he is saying is that this definition of “vulnerable person” is too wide. Is that what you are saying, Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Yes. Madam Chairman: Yes. Okay. Page 11, we just have— So, hon. Senators, at this stage I will now put the amendments that have been circulated. So the question is clause 3 be amended as circulated by Sen. Mark. Question, on amendment [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, are you still going through with your proposed amendment? Sen. Teemal: Of the comments by the hon. Minister of Finance and the AG, I do

UNREVISED 129 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 accept the fact that this is a work coming through many years. The context I looked at vulnerability from that objective point of view. As Sen. Vieira did mention in the whole context of rehabilitation with regard to gambling, the term problem gambling is more au courant in terms of current trends, but if the commitment is given to look at it in the future, I am okay with that. Madam Chairman: So, you are withdrawing your— Sen. Teemal: Yes, I will withdraw. Madam Chairman: So that the amendment that is proposed by Sen. Teemal is withdrawn. Amendment [Sen. D. Teemal] withdrawn. Question put and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5. Question proposed: That clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: There are amendments proposed to clause 5 by Sen. Mark, Sen. Teemal, Sen. Vieira. So shall we begin with the amendment as proposed by Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, this section is extremely challenging and controversial. We do not support the Minister, the Cabinet rather, appointing these individuals to sit on this Commission. We are therefore proposing, as circulated, that the members should be appointed—first of all, the composition of the board we are seeking to alter and ensure that there is at least a member appointed on the recommendation of the Gaming Association in Trinidad and Tobago. We are also proposing in our amendment, Madam Chair, that the persons to sit on that board should be recommended by the President—right?—on the advice of the Prime

UNREVISED 130 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. So we are at variance with what is being proposed here and we are also saying that these members of the gaming Commission should be subject to what is called a fit—in other words, the criteria that is used to determine a worker, whether it is a supervisor or a licensee, a fit and proper person, they should be subject to that same set of guidelines as members of the Commission. So we are proposing clause 5, as circulated, to replace this clause that we have in the legislation. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Thank you, Madam Chair. We do not think it is appropriate for somebody who is involved or associated with the gaming sector to be a member of the board—somebody who is actively involved. Because, for example, Madam Chair, you have the ineligibility provision that a person who has operated a gambling establishment, holds a licence, intends to apply for a licence, has a financial interest in, is disqualified, and that explains why we cannot agree with this. We do not think such a person should be on a regulatory board. That is like putting, if I could use an analogy, a shareholder of a listed company to be the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is a board to regulate gambling and we do not think people associated with gambling should be on this board actively associated. In other words, being recommended by gaming associations. With respect to the second proposed amendment by Sen. Mark, I have made the point this is a revenue Bill, and therefore, it is a matter for the Executive. It is not in our opinion a matter for the President in his or her discretion. With respect to 6, I do not see what is so special about this Commission that members of the board have to be determined to be fit and proper. You can apply that across the board. The same Securities and Exchange Commission, we could insert that in that

UNREVISED 131 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 legislation right now— Hon. Senator: Industrial Court. Mr. Imbert: Industrial Court, good point—and say that they must pass a fit and proper test. So I do not think that is necessary. What I think is necessary for the licensees, the owners and directors of licensees should pass the fit and proper test. But I do not see any need to burden the appointment with a fit and proper test as contemplated by Schedule 2 of the Bill. So we cannot support these recommendations and I do not know if the Attorney General wants to come in. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, just to agree with everything the Minister of Finance has said. The issue of conflict of interest was the subject of significant discussion at the joint select committees that we had on this particular Bill where we looked at the comparative law context, and in no jurisdiction did we find putting somebody who is involved in the industry on the point because then you end up in the whole problem. If you look at the representative factors as an example in Trinidad at the NIB, for instance, who is the majority voice in the employers’ circuit or the trade union circuit obviously becomes a problem. So who is going to be selected in a highly competitive industry? So one, conflict of interest was looked at in joint select; two, no jurisdictional comparisons offered themselves by way of presentation; three, the rule of thumb is that this ought not to be in the position. Madam Chair, what I can say is that the Government is minded to make further amendments to clause 5 but we will get there when we get to Sen. Vieira’s point if I could just flag that because I think that there is prudence in the amendments but I do not think we are there yet. Madam Chairman: Okay. Sen. Lutchmedial. Sen. Lutchmedial: Attorney General, just a quick question because under clause 12 a member of the board is entitled to declare his interest, “actual or contingent

UNREVISED 132 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 pecuniary interest” if it comes to his knowledge while he is sitting on the board. So that to me kind of conflicts with what you say here that you must not have a financial interest or operate a gambling establishment. Even if you are not holding the financial interest but subsequent to your appointment it comes to your attention that you have an actual contingent pecuniary interest, you are allowed to simply recuse under 12. So I do not know if you need to tidy up a little bit between 12 and 5 because it seems that they are working against each other. If the objective—and I agree with the Minister that perhaps it is necessary to make sure that no one who is actually involved in gambling sits on this Commission because as I raised the conflict of interest, but that is not what it says in 12. It says that once you are appointed in 12 and you have some pecuniary interest that you must just declare and sort of recuse yourself and record it in the minutes. Mr. Al-Rawi: You see, Madam Chair, what Sen. Mark has proposed is that one of whom shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Gaming Association of Trinidad and Tobago. That is very different from a pecuniary or actual interest arising from time to time. That is a representative position for somebody that has an obvious conflict of interest in more than one way. You can see somebody having a pecuniary contingent interest, for example, they inherited something or it came along for a purpose. The purpose of the annual returns and the declarations in clause 12 take you into the propriety of decision-making aspects and we borrowed from the Integrity in Public Life and other positions there. So there is a material distinction between what Sen. Mark is offering, a person who is nominated by in the form that Sen. Mark has suggested. So we think that it is a clear distinction. I thank Sen. Lutchmedial for her concern, but I do not think the two things match respectfully.

UNREVISED 133 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sen. Lutchmedial: With respect, I do not know that you are saying that the position should be a member of any gaming association, but should it not come as a recommendation from them. So it could be because remember one of the qualifications that you are looking at for board members are persons who by reason of his work or experience in the gambling industry. So a person could be retired from the industry but the gaming association can recommend them as a fit and proper person to sit on a board l like this and not necessarily currently involved in the gambling industry. Because how do you get work and experience in the gambling industry if you were not involved at some point in time? Mr. Al-Rawi: The point is that it is passed. Sen. Lutchmedial: It is passed, sure— Mr. Al-Rawi: So you can have experience and be passed. I mean, you are an excellent example of somebody with great experience in the FIU but no longer there. Sen. Lutchmedial: Sure. Mr. Al-Rawi: So therefore, you would qualify ostensibly as a person just using it as a hypothetical example. Madam Chair, just to say this was the subject of a number of years of discussion and we looked at this whole representative aspect. There can be litigation as well as to who represents whose interest because look at what is proposed by Sen. Mark, “on the recommendation of the Gaming Associations in Trinidad and Tobago”. What does that mean? That has been the subject of disagreement in other circles of structure in the employers’ circuit, in the trade union circuit, et cetera. That is opening the door to too much discussion of difference. So we respectfully from a policy position believe that we ought to stay where we are. We do see as we come to Sen. Vieira’s amendments other points. Madam Chairman: Yes. So I will now move on to Sen. Vieira to speak to your

UNREVISED 134 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 proposed amendment. A person shall be qualified to be a member of the Board where: a) he has work and experience in the gaming and betting sectors; b) he is an attorney at law of at least seven years standing; c) he has AML CFT experience; or d) he has at least five years’ experience in accounting, finance, economics, information technology, management, social work or law enforcement. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. First of all, let me start off by saying I agree with the Attorney General. I think having people who are conflicted to this important board would be like having the head house being gutted by the fox. But I think we could all appreciate the significance and the importance of this board because it is directing management of the Commission. It is going to have oversight of sophisticated and potentially harmful sector with deep pockets. So the persons appointed should not just be fit and proper, but they should be required to have competency and capabilities to holding these key positions. And that means having an ability to understand the technical requirements of the sectors, the inherent risks and the management processes. Having said that, I found that clause 5 is a bit loose and general, so I wanted to tighten it. I think one important competency there, must be AML/CFT experience, but you do not want any lawyer just come out I think. So as you make reference to the Real Estate Agents Act and to the Urban and Regional Planning Profession Act where we spent a lot of time looking at composition, I would suggest that we follow those approaches and that is the background of my proposed amendment. Mr. Imbert: We have no objection to Sen. Vieira’s proposals, but the Attorney General would like to add “proliferation financing”. And I will have to ask CPC

UNREVISED 135 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 how do you do this? You put a comma? Mr. Al-Rawi: We define—sorry to cut in. We define AML/CFT/PF in the definition section. So all that we would need to do to keep it harmonious with what is defined already is to just say he has AML/— Mr. Imbert: A slash. Mr. Al-Rawi:—CFT/—yes. Mr. Imbert: So we will accept and we will just put “/” between AML and CFT and then “/PF”. Okay? Sen. Vieira: Thanks. Mr. Imbert: No problem. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman: And Sen. Teemal, your proposed amendment. Madam Chairman: Madam Chair, in terms of substituting the words, “Minister” by “President”, seeing that the appointment to the board is made by the President. Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Yes. So let us look at—we are on 5, so it is subclause (4). Now, it is standard for the Minister of Finance to determine the terms and conditions of all boards whether they are statutory bodies or whether they are state enterprises and that is only natural because you are talking about remuneration. This is what terms and condition means in the context of this. It is what their fees would be and so on. So, if you say President it just means the Minister of Finance has to go to Cabinet and ask Cabinet to agree to proposals made by the Minister of Finance with respect to board fees and so on. So I do not think it is appropriate to change “Minister” to “President” here in this one. You know we could talk about some other ones as we go along. Okay? Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, I would agree with him. Withdrawn. Amendment [Sen. D. Teemal] withdrawn.

UNREVISED 136 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: So I will now put the various proposed amendments. Hon. Senators, the question is that clause 5 be amended as circulated by Sen. Mark. Question, on amendments, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Madam Chairman: Hon. Members, the question is that clause 5, be amended, as circulated by Sen. Vieira and further amended as follows: c) after the letters AML/CFT/PF. Mr. Imbert: The CPC has recommended to clean it up, we word it as follows: A person shall be qualified to be a member of board where he— —and then it goes: has worked… is an attorney… has AML/CFT… has at least five years… You do not have to have he in front of each one. And then the CPC just asked me whether we need to specify a number of years of AML/CFT/PF experience. I do not think so. I think it is specialized, they just need to have experience. Okay? So it would read as follows, Madam Chairman: A person shall be qualified to be a member of the board where he— —and we take out subclause 5: (a) has work and experience in the gaming and betting sectors; (b) is an attorney-at-law for at least seven years standing; (c) has AML/CFT/PF experience; or (d) has at least five years’ experience in accounting, finance,—et cetera. Okay? Madam Chairman: So I will now put it again to the committee. The question is that clause 5 be amended as circulated by Sen. Vieira and further amended as

UNREVISED 137 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 follows: (b) to remove the word “he”; (c) to remove the word “he” and to include “/” after AML/CFT/PF; and (d) to remove the word “he”. Question, on amendment, put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6. Question proposed: That clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: There is an amendment circulated by Sen. Vieira, Sen. Teemal and Sen. Mark. So perhaps we can begin with Sen. Vieira. In subsection (6), by deleting the word “Minister” in the chapeau and substituting the word “President”. Sen. Vieira: My proposal comes on the basis that the person appointing the board is the President as set out at 5(2). So I understand what the hon. Minister had said about the process. In this context the President is usually acting on the advice of Cabinet, but for consistency sake and because you want to avoid the perception that somehow Government is trying to influence or undermine, I think the wiser course would be to keep “President appoints”, “President disappoints”. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we agree and there is a distinction in subclause (4) if we could just note in accepting Sen. Vieira’s recommendation that we amend subclause (6) by replacing “Minister” with “President”. There is a small distinction to be noted in the tendering of your resignation to the Minister because you still have to go back in getting the replacement to the President. So it is usual that it is sent to the line authority Minister in those circumstances. I am just saying that in anticipation of getting to Sen. Teemal’s contribution.

UNREVISED 138 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Mr. Imbert: Yes, because it has to get the President somehow. So I mean, you resigned to the Minister. I accept what—I am quite comfortable with the sixth part, the termination by the President—the subclause (6) one. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, having heard the responses of both the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General, are you pursuing your amendment? Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, I would not pursue what I have proposed for subclause (4). I withdraw. Mr. Imbert: Right and we go with (6) Sen. Teemal: And subclause (6) is similar to what— Mr. Imbert: We good with that. Sen. Teemal:—Sen. Vieira is proposing. Madam Chairman: So that you are withdrawing your proposal. Thank you very much. Sen. Mark Amendment [Sen. D. Teemal] withdrawn. Sen. Mark: Yes, I have the same proposal that— Madam Chairman: So you would withdraw yours as well? Sen. Mark: Yes. Amendment [Sen. W. Mark] withdrawn. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. So hon. Senators, the question is that clause 6 be amended as circulated by Sen. Vieira. Question, on amendment, [Sen. A. Vieira] put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13. Question proposed: That clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

UNREVISED 139 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark and Sen. Teemal, there are proposed amendments. Sen. Mark, will you speak to your amendment please? Sen. Mark: Yes, I will ask Sen. Renuka Rambhajan. Madam Chairman: Sen. Rambhajan. Sen. Rambhajan: Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to 13, we believe there is duplication in the role of the Ministry of Social Development and the use of the Rehabilitation Fund for all intents and purposes under 13. So we are proposing that rather at (c) where the Commission seeks to address through the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fund the harmful and negative effects of gambling, we propose instead that the Commission is to assist the Ministry of Social Development through the provision of information that they would have collected in the performance of their function to that Ministry to administer any programmes for rehabilitation. Mr. Imbert: I do not think we can agree with that because it is a duty of the Commission to use the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fund to deal with these harmful and negative effects. If we were to go along with what Sen. Rambhajan is proposing, firstly the words are very amorphous to “assist the Ministry of Social Development”. I do not know what that means; and it also removes the responsibility of the Commission to address through these funds the harmful and negative effects of gambling. So it defeats the entire purpose of that subclause. So we cannot agree with that. Sen. Rambhajan: If I may, just in relation to the purpose of the amendment, it is that there is some concern that we would have large sums of money being collected by this Commission which is then being funneled into two separate funds that they also administer. So we are suggesting some form of check or balance on the use of the funds to facilitate social programmes when there is a Ministry that is

UNREVISED 140 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 available to already do that. In other words, they would already have the framework. This is the consideration that we are putting forward. Mr. Imbert: Yes, but you are defeating the whole purpose of 13(1)(c). 13(1)(c) says: “to seek to address, through the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fund, the harmful and negative effects of gambling;” So that is a very positive and precise definition. You are saying take it out. Delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following: “…assist the Ministry of Social Development through the provision of information on the harmful and negative effects of gambling and…provide a report…to that Ministry.” That means you cannot use the Fund to help people affected by harmful and negative effects of gambling. Your proposal does not make any sense to me because all you are saying is take out the ability of the Commission to help people through these funds to deal with harmful and negative effects of gambling, remove that and replace it with simply provide the Ministry of Social Development with information, but it does not allow the Fund to be used for the purposes of social development. Madam Chairman: One second, I think the Attorney General wanted to add something. Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, in jurisdictions around the world the Commissions are given a specific function to take the profit, or the benefit, or the largesse of this sort of industry and apply it with the knowledge that they have. I take the Senator’s point about accountability but the accountability is matched by the fact that these accounts are subject to section 116 of the Constitution and the Auditor General. So I do accept that point

UNREVISED 141 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 and I just wish to point the hon. Senator to the fact that elsewhere in the law we do treat with that. 3.30 p.m. But the hon. Minister of Finance is getting to the point of the power to do something with the fund. Now I remind that the fund, the excesses of the fund go back to the Consolidated Fund and that the fund is managed in a very careful way. So if I take the mischief that the hon. Senator is pointing to which is accountability, I wish to assure that the Auditor General does have oversight and operation in this area but the point that the Minister of Finance is making which I support is that we must give them the positive power to do something with the fund in the context of transparency and accountability. Sen. Lutchmedial: Just a question on section 13, generally the functions of the Commission. Has the Government given any consideration to the issuance of guidelines and standards which is currently done by the FIU and transferring that to this Commission as a specific requirement? Because the FIU does sector specific guidance and currently they are doing that in relation to the gambling sector and I think that if this Commission is meant to specialize and supervise this industry, that function as well as the function of outreach and awareness and so on should perhaps form part of the functions of the Commission. Mr. Imbert: Could I be directed to the amendment that the hon. Senator— Madam Chairman: No, just one second, Minister of Finance. I think the Attorney General wants to put in— Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, it falls under clause 86 of the Bill where regulations are promulgated into this factor and where guidelines are also part of this so yes, we have given consideration. Mr. Imbert: “But we on clause 13.”

UNREVISED 142 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Mr. Al-Rawi: I understand. Mr. Imbert: “I aint reach 87 yet.” Madam Chairman: All right. Sen. Rambhajan, could you speak to the second part of the amendment to clause 13? Sen. Rambhajan: Madam Chair, the capital B we are going to? Madam Chairman: Yes. Sen. Rambhajan: Grateful. In relation to this, we are proposing for accountability in relation to the process of the Commission that a statement of reasons be provided. We anticipate where persons apply for a licence and they may or may not feel aggrieved that the provision of a statement of reasons might assist. Part (d), the amendment proposed, is the laying of parliamentary reports on the functioning of the Commission and part (e) deals with specifically the Commission’s ability to get information from the persons and to share that information with other state agencies. So we are suggesting that if the Commission is set up as an administrative body, the right to access information, private information of citizens without reasonable cause may open, to use the hon. Attorney General’s term, a Pandora’s Box so perhaps there should be some consideration to a process as to how it is the Commission is going to get this information and how it is going to share it with other State agencies. Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Mr. Imbert: Go ahead. Mr. Al-Rawi: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the licensing regime, the later clauses will show us that you have to consider the applications. You may grant, vary, revoke, suspend and refuse all of the positions and they are dealt with in each one of the subheadings.

UNREVISED 143 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

There is a positive obligation in the law as drafted that you have to provide your decision and your decision and reasons are subject to the due process requirements of going to court where your reasons would be proffered in that regard. So taking the identification of mischief, in this particular recommendation here, we respectfully suggest that the amendment is not needed at this particular point because elsewhere in the law it is traversed and that the due process of having to demonstrate what your reasons are is a requirement in the whole, you can go to court and challenge the position. So I thank the hon. Senator to please accept the recommendation most respectfully offered as to the reasons here. In these circumstances, Madam Chair, functions as are described because it is a feature of certain laws that you describe powers and functions and functions are usually put out in a very framework way without being as prescriptive as this. So from a drafting perspective, the law being read as a whole, I think that what the hon. Senator has pointed out at proposed (b), (d) and (e) are caught in other sections of the law respectfully. Mr. Imbert: May I also? Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal. Mr. Imbert: I am sorry, go ahead. Madam Chairman: No, Sen. Teemal has a separate proposed amendment. Mr. Imbert: Oh, let me just deal with the issue raised. Madam Chairman: Yes, Minister. Mr. Imbert: These requirements do not properly belong here at all. If you go to clause 34 on page 30 of the Bill, it speaks to: “(4) The Commission shall make rules for the conduct of the hearing of any application…” And then it says:

UNREVISED 144 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

“(5) Rules made pursuant to”—that—“subsection…shall be published in the Gazette and shall be available at the office of the Commission.” So that if you go backwards now: “(1) Upon receipt of an application, the Commission shall carry out an investigation of the applicant…” And then: “(2) The applicant…may, if requested… (a) submit to, or assist in the investigation; (b) submit to an interview; (c) provide information… (d) be subject to a hearing for the purpose of an application.” And so on and so on and so on. So that what is in small (b) is captured under later clauses 34, 35 and so on. With respect to (d), there is going to be a report laid before the Parliament on the Commission so I do not see the relevance of (d) and then (e) is actually captured in 34(3) where it says: “The Commissioner of Police shall cause such enquiries to be made as he deems necessary and shall provide a copy of the report on his enquiries to the Commission.” And that is with respect to an applicant and persons associated with an applicant for a licence. So that I do not think any of these things properly belong in this clause. Madam Chairman: So we move on to the amendment as proposed by Sen. Teemal. Sen. Teemal. Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, the way it is worded there is that it tends to suggest that the Commission in order to address the harmful and negative effects of

UNREVISED 145 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 gambling would only have the powers to do so through the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fund which is why I am proposing that after— Mr. Imbert: Accepted. [Interruption] Okay, sorry. Accepted in principle. Madam Chairman: Continue, Sen. Teemal. Sen. Teemal: After the words “Rehabilitation Fund”, the words “and other means” be added. Mr. Imbert: I understand what the Senator is saying and I will confer with the hon. Attorney General. What the Senator is saying is that it should not only be the Rehabilitation Fund and the Development Fund that the Commission would use to deal with these matters. Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Sure. [Discussion among Members] Mr. Imbert: Just excuse us one second because I like your point and I agree it should not be just limited to those two funds in terms of dealing with, you know, the problems, the harmful effects. Clause 64, AG? Just give us one minute, please. What is intended by this clause is that the money in the fund will be used to deal with this problem. Now, I do not know what other means you would have because it all requires money of some kind. It is whether it is going to be a strict application of the funds for this problem or whether it is a broader application but you are still going to have to use the Fund to deal with the problem. So I understand what the AG is saying. Mr. Al-Rawi: So, Madam Chair, if I could put it on the record. I do understand what the hon. Senator is saying, let us do our very best to be as broad as we can in ensuring that the ills of gambling are best attracted and treated with. My hesitation, the difficulty I have with this is what does “other means” mean in the context of 13(1)(c)? So 13(1)(c) as it is set up works in tandem with

UNREVISED 146 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 clause 64 of the Bill where we have the Rehabilitation and Development Fund, the funds are established in 64 and both of them are established and that they should lay their reports, et cetera. Subclause (3) of 64 says: “The Development Fund is established to assist persons in areas of sport, social…work, arts…” And in subclause (2) tells us what: “The Rehabilitation Fund is established to assist non-governmental organisations…other working groups with vulnerable persons and their families suffering”—from the—“effects…” Looking at how litigation operates in this country, I need to anticipate what a judicial review claim could be against the Commission. We would certainly want to make sure that they are compelled to use the funds within 64(2) and 64(3). When I introduce the concept of “other means”, that is where we end up in some difficulties because these are now specific to the two funds. So the precision of the law, the first rule being that law must be precise, would cause me some concern there. Madam Chair, if you look to letter (i), as in indigo subclause (1), it says: “…to carry out such other actions in pursuance of the provisions of this Act.” That is where the omnibus catch-all of anything else that you could not contemplate came in. So I would not want to conflate the “other means” in subparagraph (c) with the fact that the Commission is not limited insofar as there is an omnibus provision at 13(1)(i), as in Indigo, which could take care of those positions. I need to make sure that the funds established, the Development Fund and the Rehabilitation Fund, can be accessed for the purposes set out in clause 64. So the mischief that the hon. Senator is treating with can be captured under letter

UNREVISED 147 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

(i) as in Indigo in 13(1)(i). Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, I understand what the Attorney General is saying but it is just that should a situation arise where the fund is exhausted, say for instance, but in order to address the harmful and negative effects, you need other appropriations. I have used the words “other means” but say if the Commission has to appropriate funds to further the rehabilitation exercise, say the fund is exhausted, to give the Commission that avenue to appropriate funds otherwise. Mr. Imbert: I understand what the Senator is saying. Perhaps we could look at that in due course. These funds will be substantial because of the amount of money that is passing through this industry and I think certainly at the beginning, there will be sufficient money but I understand what the Senator is saying so perhaps we could look at that in the future. We could give an undertaking to look at that. Okay but I do not think these funds would be exhausted immediately, they may be later on. Mr. Al-Rawi: Even if the fund is exhausted, Madam Chair, the point that the hon. Senator is making is let us do our best to look after our vulnerable so if the fund was exhausted, then this particular position would not apply, it is where you come into (i). So if you look at the rules and regulations, we look at the guidelines, et cetera, the fact is—and mind you, the fund has to be capitalized as well by way of appropriations by the Parliament and then supplanted by the contributions coming from the industry. But if you look to the general purpose of clause 64, 64 says you must use every purpose, it is broader than vulnerable persons or the funds themselves and how they are capitalized is to give the Commission the room to develop as it moves along to protect the vulnerable because what we know today as a vulnerability may not be a vulnerability tomorrow. So the point is well understood

UNREVISED 148 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 and I think that the Minister of Finance is correct to ask for some room to consider that respectfully, hon. Senator. Sen. Teemal: Okay, Madam Chair, I will work with that. Madam Chairman: I am sorry? You will withdraw? Sen. Teemal: Yes. Madam Chairman: Thank you. Amendment [Sen. D. Teemal] withdrawn. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 14 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30. Question proposed: That clause 30 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, you have a proposed amendment. Sen. Mark: Can I proceed? Madam Chairman: Yes. Sen. Mark: Yeah. Madam Chair, in clause 30(5), it is stated that: “The Minister may by Order, subject to negative resolution of Parliament, amend the categories of licences.” Madam Chair, the licences are clearly outlined in the primary legislation that we are dealing with at the moment. I think it is very dangerous to give a member of the Executive that extraordinary power to amend laws that are of a primary nature and particularly dealing with licences on its own and further, this is being subject only to a negative resolution. So we are clear that there is a distinction between primary legislation and subsidiary legislation and we do not believe any Minister should trump primary legislation in this context and that is why we are calling for

UNREVISED 149 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 the complete deletion of that provision. Mr. Imbert: If that is so, then I suggest Sen. Mark also call for the deletion of 30(2)(l) because the Commission who is not a member of the Executive can include any other category of licence that they see fit without any parliamentary oversight either. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, could I assist please? Mr. Imbert: Just one second, AG. Mr. Al-Rawi: Sorry. Mr. Imbert: It is simply the categories that are being amended, not the form of the licence itself so I do not understand the objection so we cannot agree with that. Go ahead, AG. Mr. Al-Rawi: So, Madam Chair, first of all, there are a number of inaccuracies in the manner in which Sen. Mark made statements about subclause (5). The Minister is not doing anything without scrutiny. The Minister is being given the power subject to negative resolution of the Parliament to amend the categories of licences. That means that when the legal notice is published and laid on the floor of this Parliament, on the table of this Parliament, that there is a process of negative resolution that applies. This has ample precedent in the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. I can give you the example of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago which allows for the amendment of many processes of very deeply entrenched matters, for instance, the appointment of a Commissioner of Police which is done by way of negative resolution. So this is not something that is a frolic of the Minister on his or her own far be it the case. So point number one is that there is Parliament scrutiny, point number two is that there is ample precedent in this regard in respect of all matters all over the Constitution in particular.

UNREVISED 150 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chair, it is also important to note this came from the Bill and the Policy Paper from the UNC since 2013 and it was subject to the fulminations of the Joint Select Committee, et cetera. The point is any licence that is granted is still subjected to due process, every licence in this particular position: the consideration of the licence, the revocation of the licence, the amendment of the licence, the variation of the licence, the suspension of the licence are all subjected to reasons and decisions and the cleansing eye of the court in the due process where your appeal goes to the court, Court of Appeal or Privy Council. So for all of those reasons, Madam Chair, we certainly cannot respectfully accept the recommendations coming from Sen. Mark. Mr. Imbert: And just let me amplify, if one looks at 30(2)(l), it reads as follows— there shall be categories of licences as follows and (l) says: “any other licence as the Commission may stipulate from time to time, as it deems necessary, and related to the discharge of its duties and functions.” That provision allows the Commission to stipulate categories of licences from time to time as it deems necessary. It is not subject to either affirmative or negative resolution of Parliament. So I cannot see why Sen. Mark wants the Minister out in the terms of changing the type of licence, the category of licence but wants the Commission in allowing them to do whatever they want. So we cannot agree with the proposal. It is only the categories that the Minister would be adjusting, not the licence itself. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Question put and agreed to. Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31. Question proposed: That clause 31 stand part of the Bill.

UNREVISED 151 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: There is an amendment proposed by Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand what 31 is trying to convey, that at present, the FIU maintains a register of non-regulated business entities. 18C of the FIU Act says FIU should establish and maintain a register of all non- regulated financial institutions and listed businesses for what it is the supervisory authority and now under this Bill, under coming into force of the Commission, that might render this register otiose in the current arrangement, I get it and I know that you want to avoid duplication. My concern though is that the FIU is still going to be maintaining its registers because as 31(1) points out, it is still the supervisory authority for AML/CFT/PF so they are still maintaining their registers and as a matter of principle, I am uncomfortable if this subclause (3) can be interpreted as telling a supervisory agency not to keep a register, not to keep a record of the entities it is supervising. So I understand what you want but I am just concerned that the language might be a little clumsy and contradictory because it seems to contradict 31(2). Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, if I may, so Sen. Vieira said it upfront as the reason why. So we have developed a full precedent basis of dis-applying this particular provision of DNFBP registration for this area and sector and the reason is that the primary register will be this register. And there is—we needed to remove the risk of inconsistency between the two registers. So I can give the example of the Non-Profit Organisations Bill where we did a similar disapplication for these purposes, the Real Estate Agents Bill where we did a similar disapplication for these purposes. Reason being is that this is the way it actually runs in practice and in harmony. So we did look at the issue, we have now put ourselves along this path where we do the disapplication of the list. The

UNREVISED 152 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 point is that there is a list. Very recently in our Registration of Deeds (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill where we are doing the listing of attorneys-at-law and having them become FIU registered for land transactions, et cetera, there was a similar course of action taken. So I want to assure the hon. Senator that it was done purposefully with precedent in mind so that we did not have—remember one of the positions inside of here is that the regulator, the supervising authority can actually also recommend for the strike off on the list in this purpose too. So we wanted to make sure that one list was maintained, remember that they are accessories to this list at all points in time. Sen. Vieira: I understand that, AG, thanks a lot, but my concern is can this subsection be interpreted as telling the FIU that they cannot have an internal register, they should not do it? Mr. Al-Rawi: No, it will not because they still have the positive obligation for all the rest of the provisions of the FIU, section 18 in particular to have their listing, their guidelines, their questionnaires. So the FIU as the supervising authority has a full function. The Egmont principles will apply, the best-in-class positions, the ex proprio motu notice to other jurisdictions, all of that backflows into the arrangements of the FIU. Sen. Vieira: Chair, I will withdraw the— Mr. Imbert: Before you withdraw, my understanding is that gambling establishments have to be registered with the FIU. Okay? So it is a listed business. So—I do not want to use legal words—[Laughter] ipso facto, the FIU will have a register because the businesses have to register with them. What this is, is the public register and what the AG is saying is that he has done in other laws, we will have a public register flowing—

UNREVISED 153 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Mr. Al-Rawi: No, that is not what he is talking about. Mr. Imbert: All right. Mr. Al-Rawi: Sorry. I did not get a chance to have a word with my colleague but your position is understood and underwritten. In practicality, right now at law, there is supposed to be two lists. If you look at the BIR, they have a list of 248 people and the FIU, “yuh” supposed to be registered, they have a list of 20. So to take care of those inconsistencies and enforcement positions, the FIU gets to use this list. Their maintenance of lists under the DNFBP and first schedule listing requirements is never going to be extinguished. The Egmont principles will apply so that this is done purposefully to harmonize it so that we do not have any issues as to enforcement provisions as well. So that list that the Commission maintains is the list but to answer your question specifically, there is nothing that says that they could not have their own concurrent operations because they must in being the supervising authority and “regulator”, they are going to have to issue their guidelines and structures, et cetera, including the AML/CFT/PF questioning. Mr. Imbert: But to come back to Sen. Vieira’s actually proposed amendment. Sen. Vieira: [Inaudible] Mr. Imbert: Yeah, you are saying take it out and the section had said that 18C of the FIU Act will not apply to gambling establishments. That is what is in the law right now and as we pass this, as we propose to pass this, as we hope to pass this, it means that section 18C of the FIU Act will not apply to the gambling establishments and therefore it means that the public register that is created by section 18B of the Financial Intelligence Unit of Trinidad and Tobago Act will not apply to these gambling establishments. But as the AG has pointed out and as I have pointed out, they will have their own internal register because they have to register them anyway and then he has pointed it out that this is the preferred form

UNREVISED 154 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 of legislation for these stand-alone systems. Okay? I got right there now, AG? Right. Madam Chairman: So Sen. Vieira, you are withdrawing? Sen. Vieira: Yes, Chair. I thank both the AG and Minister. I understand the position, I am glad it is on the record and I withdraw. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Amendment [Sen. A. Vieira] withdrawn. Madam Chairman: So the question is that clause 33 now stand part of the Bill. Sen. Lutchmedial: Madam Chair, I just have a quick question based on this. Madam Chairman: Sure. Sen. Lutchmedial: Attorney General, the list published under 18C by the FIU is the recommended list that all financial institutions refer to in order to understand to know whether they are doing business with an entity that in fact registered with the FIU. If you are saying that 18C does not apply to people who are gambling institutions now, would that not affect the integrity of that 18C list which is the list that financial institutions are recommended and mandated to check to identify their customers as DNFBPs? Mr. Al-Rawi: No, it would not affect it because they are mandated by this law to be supervised by the FIUTT, they are mandated to be registered. 18C which says: “The FIU shall maintain a list of all non-regulated financial institutions and listed businesses registered pursuant to section 18B and make the same available to the public by posting it to the FIU’s website unless…” The reason why we have separated this out, just as we did for non-profit organizations and real estate agents, is because the listing that we are doing, the register is bifurcated now. The bifurcating is part private and part public and specifically so. Because the register in certain aspects is going to be broader than

UNREVISED 155 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 just the FIU aspects where we capture private information which remains private and subject only to law enforcement scrutiny and public information which would be the list per se, we therefore achieve two things. 4.00 p.m. We get the constitutionality of not disclosing private information in capricious circumstances and we meet the 18B, section 18 FIU listing which is that you have a list and you know that these are registered entities. This law is setting up a supervisor, just as we did with the non-profit, just as we did with the real estate agents, it meets with the provisions of Recommendation 26 in particular and the other 28, 29, IO1, IO3, IO5 Recommendations as well. Mr. Imbert: I think we will have to see about this and revisit it if necessary. I understand the points made; they the points made are important points that banks would be looking at a register to see whether X or Y is a listed business. I understand the points made. The AG is also looking at the new form of law that he is developing in terms of these standalone systems. So we will monitor it and see whether we need to address it or not. Question put and agreed to. Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32. Question proposed: That clause 32 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: There is an amendment proposed by Sen. Teemal. Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, looking at the nature of the licensing and the high degree of maturity and high level of responsibility that goes with the respective licences, I am proposing that the age of 18 years be increased to age 21. Mr. Al-Rawi: So Madam Chair, the age of majority in this position is a tough one. Our country has wrestled with ages of maturity for a long while. This Government

UNREVISED 156 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 held the view that children should never be married. That was not a shared perspective. We are not a theocracy. We are a democracy. However, this is a policy decision at this point that I think, once we get into the regulating of the industry and the data starts to come out, we will understand with the vulnerabilities look like. And then, as a society, based upon that data, we can say well: should it be 21? Should it be 25?—where the policy positions come out in that? We are very conscious that people have varying degrees of maturity, et cetera, inside of this position. But for now, a child is anybody under 18. So we have gone with the policy position of 18 for now. But I catch the hon. Senator’s point. One of the obligations and functions of the commission is going to be to monitor the effect of this. And I think that when we get the feedback coming in, for the first time regulating people by the thousands, that we will have actual data to treat with this information. So for now, we are respectfully asking that we stay at 18. But the point is obviously well within the domain of the commission to recommend otherwise. Sen. Teemal: All right. Madam Chair, through you, hon. AG, the reverse could also apply. Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, true. Sen. Teemal: Because we could go with the 21 years and then based on what you are saying there, reduce it to 18 years after a period of time when all the data and surveys and research do come in. You see, the nature of this industry could have very deleterious effects through very negative social impacts and consequences on our citizens. And I am sure, although 18 years is the legal age limit, I think, because of the particular nature of the industry, whether we should go very cautiously and use 21 years instead of the 18.

UNREVISED 157 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, can you move on to the other part? Because I think the Attorney General has put on the record his response to the first part of your proposed amendment. Can you deal with your amendment at (b), please? Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, when you look at subclause (8), the persons who may object are listed there, but I am not seeing if objections are raised what it the procedure to deal with the particular objection that is raised, which is why I am proposing that amendment. Mr. Imbert: If we go to the part that deals with the application, the conduct of hearings, and so on, there would be rules and these rules would be published in the Gazette. I am not sure— Mr. Al-Rawi: So we have: “The Commission shall make rules for the conduct of the hearing of any application referred to in 2(d)” And 2(d) is: “(2) The applicant and the persons referred to in subsection (1) may, if requested…” —submit to, et cetera. So we did put rules there. So the Senator’s recommendation is that we make rules for the conduct of any hearing or investigation of any objection. “The Commission shall, upon…conclusion…forward a copy of its decision to”—person. This requires a little bit more consultation. Mr. Imbert: Yeah. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Madam Chair, I just want to comment on Sen. Teemal’s point. Wisdom does not automatically come with age, perhaps, wrinkles and grey hair.

UNREVISED 158 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

But they say you are young once but you could be immature forever. Mr. Imbert: Coming back to this thing about the rules for the conduct of a hearing or an investigation of an objection, we already have rules for the conduct of the hearing in 34. So that is already there. But we do not have rules for the investigation and objection. I do not know. I mean— Sen. Teemal: In terms of application the rules are there, but for somebody raising an objection, it is not really clear, you know, what rules would apply. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I understand the hon. Senator’s point. But the caution that we are volunteering at this point is, there is a process to becoming a person in the industry. You have to apply. So this first position here that we are looking at is application for a licence. Everybody who wants any kind of the licences must go through the process. You must be an adult, you fill out the questionnaire. You subject yourself to positions. When we get down to objections, the following persons may object. They come down here. It says who may object. The next step in the sequential aspect is—skip past fit and proper criterion for 33. We get to investigations, because: “Upon receipt of an application”—that is for a licence in 34— “the Commission shall carry out an investigation of the applicant and any proposed or existing associate or employee of the applicant. (2) The applicant”—et cetera—“may, if requested… (a) submit…”—et cetera—“the Commissioner of Police” “(4) The Commission shall make rules for the conduct of the hearing of any application referred to in subsection 2(d).” Now that is: “…subject to a hearing for the purpose of an application.” So it is at this point in 2(d), that we then get into rules shall be published in

UNREVISED 159 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 the Gazette. So it is in the hearing of an application that the objections would be brought to life at this point here, in 34(5), and that is where they are published, the rules are done in that way. If we were to take it the other way, which is in the tick the box of the licence aspect in 32, putting the hearing of the objection up there, then you are going to have confusion as to the hearing of the application. The hearing of the application is dealt with in clause 34 of the Bill and rules are made. And if there are objections and they wish to hear it, it is at that point that that will happen. We then go on to reasons, show cause, due process of High Court appeal, et cetera, et cetera. So the rules are caught under 34(4) and (5). Mr. Imbert: Let me just come in here as well. Did we go to the second part of Sen. Teemal’s— Madam Chairman: That is what we are dealing with, Minister. Mr. Imbert: Right. I know, I am talking about the second part of the second part. “The Commission shall upon conclusion of any hearing…forward a copy of its decision to the person making the objection.” Have we dealt with that yet? No? Okay. Madam Chairman: Well, I invited discussion on the second part. Mr. Imbert: Sure. What I would refer Sen. Teemal to is clause 35. If you look at clause 35, it says: “The Commissioner shall, upon the conclusion of any hearing, forward a copy of its decision to the applicant and publish its decision once a week, for at least two weeks in at least two daily newspapers…” So I think that is ample opportunity for somebody who has objected to be aware of the decision of the Commission. I think what we are struggling with here is whether we should add, not in this clause but in another clause that when the rules

UNREVISED 160 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 are being made for the conduct of hearings, whether we should be specific and say including objections, and I suggest let us wait until we get to clause 34 and take a look at that. What do you say, AG? Madam Chairman: Sen. Thompson-Ahye? Sen. Thompson-Ahye: Madam Chair, I just wanted to say that when you look around at the requirements, and so on, for a licence, they all say in the Caribbean and in the bigger countries, you all see 18 years of age. Every one of them that I have looked at. I have looked at least 10 between the last few days and 18 years of age seem to be the age that they have for the application for the licence. So anything that is amiss, any concern would be addressed during the process of examining the eligibility of the person. But they all start at 18 years of age. I have seen none with 21 or 25. But I understand the concern about the majority. But those things would be captured. I do not think just a normal 18-year-old is going to apply. It must be someone who, perhaps the family business or something, or they have been going on with it for some time. But it is not going to be any run of the mill ordinary 18-year-old who can apply and get a licence. But that is the benchmark that they use. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Sen. Teemal, having heard the responses of the Ministers, do you wish to proceed with your proposed amendments to clause 32? Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, before that, the Minister of Finance did say that for the second part of my proposed amendment, maybe under investigations clause 34, maybe when we get to that clause, we can look at subclause (4), where: “The Commission shall make rules for the conduct of the hearing of any application…” And maybe if we add “or objection” and if it could be addressed within there, on

UNREVISED 161 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 that basis I would be willing to withdraw. Mr. Imbert: Okay, we have a little procedural problem here, because there is no amendment proposed to clause 34. But, what I would say, in response to the proposed amendment to 32 by Sen. Teemal, certainly when the Commission makes its rules for the conduct of hearings, I would think any reasonable commission must include within those rules, how to treat with objections. Otherwise I could see opportunistic lawyers, perhaps on the other side, going to court to question the impartiality and the fairness of those rules. I would think that naturally the process of dealing with objections would be contained within the rules because it is a subset of the hearing. Okay? So I would ask that you bear with us on this one. Mr. Al-Rawi: Just to add by way of precedent, if you look to the Liquor Licensing Committee for objections, you look to Town and Country Planning for objections, even though the law does not condescend to say “and we will have a procedure for objections”, objections are taken account of in this nature of work. You could even get down in a very different way to the environmental rules and regulations and laws that we have where objectors’ views have to be taken into account. So, in 34(4): “The Commission shall make rules for the conduct of the hearing of any application…” And that application includes all aspects of the application, including the objectors. So it is framework at that point. The rules will condescend, as they must, to those particulars in the rules themselves. Sen. Teemal: Okay, thank you. Mr. Imbert: May I also say to ensure something by the CPC on some of the regulations that are being proposed and will be implemented, made by the Minister under the relevant clause in the Act, will be regulations dealing with licence

UNREVISED 162 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 denials, disciplinary actions, hearings, et cetera. So the Minister has the power to make regulations which would govern hearings, objections, denials, et cetera, under another part of the Bill. Okay? Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: No. I follow all you are saying and I agree with you that in the normal course of an application, one would expect that that would entertain an objection. But as you were speaking, it occurred to me a person may get through with their application and it is fine, but something changes and someone now wants to bring an objection to an existing licence. Would that be factored in? Madam Chairman: Senators, I think the positions have been articulated. Sen. Teemal, my question to you is: In light of what the Ministers have said, are you proceeding and pursuing your amendment? Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, in the context of the reason put forward and what was elaborated about the regulations to address objections, I would withdraw my— Amendment [Sen. D. Teemal] withdrawn. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33. Question proposed: That clause 33 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, again I would like to propose for the Ministers consideration as a compromise, if we could probably change the negative into affirmative, having regard, Madam Chair, to Schedule 4 and some of the very challenging criteria for certain categories of employees within the sector that would have to be undertaken. I think that the Parliament should have a greater

UNREVISED 163 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 degree of oversight, not through a negative. In other words, Madam Chair, I am saying that I am proposing a compromise. Rather than delete it completely, I am asking the hon. Minister to consider changing the negative into an affirmative. Mr. Imbert: Well, I think Sen. Mark is a little mixed up there in terms of the numbering. 33(2) does not deal with Schedule 4. It deals with Schedule 2. Sen. Mark: Oh sorry. Mr. Imbert: Schedule 2 is fit and proper. It has nothing to do with employees or anything like that. Sen. Mark: No, Schedule 2. Yeah. Mr. Imbert: So now that I have corrected your record, do you still want to go ahead with your proposal? Sen. Mark: No, no, it is the same Schedule. I said 4, it is really 2. Mr. Imbert: You really meant 2? Sen. Mark: Yeah. Mr. Imbert: I see. Sen. Mark: So I am saying that, for instance, we could compromise. Because we believe the Parliament should in fact debate any proposed changes that the Minister may want to bring to Schedule 2, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman: Sen. Lutchmedial? Sen. Lutchmedial: I think what Sen. Mark is saying, the thing about the fit and proper criteria, remember when something is changed by negative resolution, it takes effect right away. If the Commission is going to be assessing applications in accordance with an amendment proposed by the Minister that takes effect immediately, but then you have that 40-day window where it could be negatived, how unlikely it is, you know, regardless? You can run into problems there. So I think that any amendment that would affect the way the Commission is conducting

UNREVISED 164 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 its assessment of applications could perhaps or should perhaps be brought. And that is why we are proposing the affirmative resolution, because you do not want a flip flopping or a change that can take effect for a period of time and then be negatived and you revert to an old situation where the Commission has to conduct its business. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, our legislation is replete with provisions that allow amendments subject to negative resolution. Something like this, which is evolving, and I would draw the parallel to the Civil Aviation Regulations. These things are of a highly complex technical nature. I certainly do not think it is efficient use of the Parliament’s time to come and debate all of these things, unless there is something obviously wrong with it. And if there is something obviously wrong with it, that is where the negative resolution kicks in. I do not think it is an efficient form of legislation to have everything subject to affirmative resolution. We have Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 3, Schedule 4. If we agree to what is being proposed by the other side, it means every time we want to change a comma inside of here, we have to come and get parliamentary approval in what is a technical matter. So we do not accept that. It flies in the face of parliamentary efficiency. Sen. Mark: My compromise. I propose a compromise. Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put and negatived. Question put and agreed to. Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 34 to 37. Question proposed: That clauses 34 to 37 stand part of the Bill. Sen. Lutchmedial: We did not propose an amendment here but on reading it over

UNREVISED 165 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

I am just looking at— Madam Chairman: What? Sen. Lutchmedial: Sorry, 34. Madam Chairman: Clause 34? Sen. Lutchmedial: Yes. With the investigations, the wording in subclause (3): “The Commissioner of Police shall cause such enquiries to be made…” But I do not see the connection between the Commissioner of Police getting involved. So, perhaps, I am just asking, maybe you would want to consider a subclause (e) under subsection (2) to say that the application would be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police. Because how do we get from the Commission carrying out its investigation to the Commissioner of Police shall? I think you need a nexus there, that they should forward something to the Commissioner of Police to trigger his investigation. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the connection is via the enforcement officer who is an integral part of this function. And if you look to clause 67 of the Bill, you will see that they have that structure put up inside of that whole point. So enforcement officers the Commission shall designate to perform authorized in 67; 68: “…enforcement officer may undertake activities for the purposes of assessing— …compliance… …compliance… …offence… …facilities… …whether a licence is held in respect of any activity required to be licensed …whether activities are being carried on…”

UNREVISED 166 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

So the springboard comes in 68. Mr. Imbert: So I think this is a superior form because it does not fetter the Commissioner of Police from carrying on an investigation. If we were to link it, in other words, it is by reference from the Commission which he may decide not to refer it to the police at all. This allows the police, based on information they have, to investigate an applicant for a licence. Sen. Lutchmedial: I agree that the Commissioner of Police should be allowed to investigate. What I was saying is that perhaps just to tidy it that once that is mandatory then that the Commission refers any application to the Commissioner of Police so that he is automatically—you have a trigger. But if the Attorney General is saying that the trigger is the enforcement officers under 68, is it that the enforcement officers who are supplemental police, well SRPs, that they will carry out the investigation and, therefore, it triggers this “Commissioner of Police shall cause such enquiries to be made”? Because who is going to trigger the enforcement officer carrying out the investigation? The Commission or the Commissioner of Police? Mr. Al-Rawi: You could say that it is bifurcated. The mere fact that a licence is made to the Commission, the Commission is seized of the licence. The person who has the authority to investigate or the prudential side of it will obviously kick in there. The point is that the law sets up the fact that the Commissioner of Police shall cause. So there is a mandatory obligation, as Parliament is expressing in its version here, that the Commissioner of Police must give a report to the Commission at this point. So to answer your question: Who sets it up? You could argue that both have a triggered process. The point is that there is a positive and mandatory obligation on the Commissioner of Police to have a report. Sen. Lutchmedial: And I accept that. But what I am saying is that if he has to

UNREVISED 167 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 report then there should be some trigger here that says that the Commission must refer all the applications to him so that he knows. Because you cannot just say that he must report when he—I mean, how does he know who is— Mr. Al-Rawi: And the process comes via the enforcement officers’— [Interruption] Sen. Lutchmedial: The enforcement officer. Mr. Al-Rawi:—power in 68. Sen. Lutchmedial: Okay. Mr. Al-Rawi: And then, of course, there will be regulations. The regulations have been drafted, if I can remind. They were drafted many years ago, since 2015. There were subject to the Joint Select Committee’s full consideration and they are ready to go. Sen. Lutchmedial: Okay, so right. Maybe perhaps in the new regulation you would say that an application— Mr. Al-Rawi: Sure. Sen. Lutchmedial:—must be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police. Okay. Question put and agreed to. Clauses 34 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38. Question proposed: That clause 38 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark: Madam Chair, I would like the Minister of Finance as well as the Attorney General, through you, to explain how, in granting an individual a licence, how do we ask that individual to compromise his entrenched constitutional rights to privacy and to the enjoyment of property? How do we go about pursuing this particular provision without offending sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution? So I

UNREVISED 168 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 really need some clarification from the Minister of Finance and the hon. Attorney General on this matter, because it is very curious. It is a very curious provision. So we need some clarification. Mr. Imbert: Are you saying, Sen. Mark, that this infringes the Constitution? Sen. Mark: No, no. I am saying that when I looked at it, it just aroused my interest. Because in other words, if I am a person with a licence to operate, you are saying that one of the conditions for obtaining that licence is that I must consent to allow persons to enter my property. I must consent to allow them to access my equipment and my documentation. I am just saying it is a very curious phenomena and development and I just want to get some clarification from your good self. Mr. Imbert: I am just asking if you are saying that it infringes the Constitution? Sen. Mark: No, no, I am just seeking clarification. Mr. Imbert: So it does not infringe the Constitution? Sen. Mark: No, no, I am just asking— Mr. Imbert: All right, well then—[Interruption] Sen. Mark:—for clarification. That is all I am asking for. Sen. Lutchmedial: Could I just add to this? I am of the view that it does infringe section 5 to an extent please, hon. Minister. Because section 5(2)(d) says that Parliament ought not to: “authorise a Court, tribunal, commission board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence unless he is afforded”—certain protections. When you ask someone, as a condition of a licence, to agree that an authorized officer or an enforcement officer who is a police officer clothed with, as the Attorney General says, police powers, to enter your premises, then you are basically, you know, and they can take material away, documents, and so on, which can later on be used as evidence, then you are to an extent authorizing this

UNREVISED 169 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Commission—passing a law that authorizes a commission to compel a person to hand over documents, and so on, which can be used as evidence against them. So it could be offensive to section 5(2)(d). Mr. Al-Rawi: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, so first of all, we accept that there is no such thing as an absolute right in our Constitution as it relates to sections 4 and 5. They are properly qualified rights, subject to reasonableness obviously and in the context of reasonableness as it is interpreted to proportionality and other measures. The fact is that the law must be read as a whole. And the first milestone that we get to in 38, a condition of the licence is the provision of consent. So one has the choice, if one wishes to enter into the gaming industry, to apply for a licence and to be aware upfront that one of the conditions of the licence is the consent in the form set out in subparagraph (e). That must be read alongside clause 69 of the Bill. And clause 69 is where we have the issue of a warrant, and a warrant here is one offered in the circumstances where an enforcement officer has requested and has been refused entry, et cetera. So this law does not contemplate a carte blanche approach, when you look to the provisions of clause 69 as working alongside the provision of consent offered in the conditionality of the licence. As we dealt with, Madam Chair, when we are dealing with the whole concept of the public good and the risk factors that the society is entitled to have a look at when you are construing the law, et cetera, the reasonableness of this position in the AML/CFT/PF perspective, the risk to vulnerable people perspective, et cetera, is one factor that we must balance against, the conditional and non-absolute right to private information, et cetera. I want to remind that the self-incrimination provision is very carefully dealt with in this law. In the Bill, you will see that you are not required to answer

UNREVISED 170 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 questions. You may be called upon to answer questions but you can refuse. 4.30 p.m. So we have been very careful at each stage of the process to balance the public interest in eliminating criminality from the sector and in providing the benefit that comes with a properly regulated sector. This is the crux of what our debate was on the constitutionality, so it is more a matter of policy than it is a matter of prescription at this point. Madam Chairman: Sen. Rambhajan. Sen. Rambhajan: Grateful please, Madam Chair. Hon. Attorney General, I would like some clarity please. Even though you have provided an explanation as to the purpose of the consent, if it is you are saying the consent is not required because you have the opportunity to get a warrant, why put it in the legislation at all? Mr. Al-Rawi: Sure. Sen. Rambhajan: In other words, if I am putting in the legislation that your ability to get a licence is contingent upon you agreeing to something that you can withdraw later on, requiring me to get a warrant, why am I even putting that as a condition of the licence? Because in practical rolling out of this section it would mean that the enforcement officer goes to the establishment, says, “You have a licence, we have on record here that you consented to entry, can we come in”? The owner says, “No”. He says, “Okay, well, I will leave, and I will go and get a warrant according to 69”. So, then why require the consent on the licence application? Mr. Al-Rawi: Simple answer, Madam Chair. To underwrite or to support the constitutionality and the proportionality of passing this law with a simple majority perspective. So it is specifically intended to support the constitutionality in a society such as Trinidad and Tobago by giving you the express opportunity to

UNREVISED 171 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 either apply or not apply for the licence. This is not a matter of caveat emptor, buyer beware. You know up front what you are agreeing to in the conditionalities of the licence, and you have a choice as to whether you wish to enter into the situation or not. Sen. Rambhajan: Respectfully, I would have to disagree with you. If it is that you are saying that you have a choice, all right, you are taking my right to that choice by making it a condition of me getting a licence. In other words, you are in a very roundabout way forcing me to subjugate my constitutional rights. You are forcing me to choose between constitutional rights, essentially. Either I enforce my constitutional right to earn a living and property and so on, or I enforce my right to privacy and again self-incrimination. And I do know that you have said there is no requirement to ask questions. But the right of self-incrimination is also in relation to documents. So I may not say anything but just by handing over my documents I may incriminate myself which is now me giving up my constitutional rights. So that is the bone of contention; that this issue of consent requires me to agree to something that in constitutional law I should not have to agree to. So that is the issue. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Thank you. I have no doubt that this is going to be tested in the courts. Mr. Al-Rawi: Sure. Sen. Vieira: But I think to put it as my understanding, the waiver of constitutional rights is always permissible once it is voluntary and there is knowledge, you know what you are doing. I believe that the issue here really is where the voluntariness applies, because voluntariness means freedom from coercion, and is the waiver coercive because you really do not have a choice take it or leave it. So, it is going

UNREVISED 172 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 to be interesting to see how it goes but I understand what it is you are trying to do. Mr. Al-Rawi: So, Madam Chair, I thank hon. Senators, this is the gravamen of the argument, no doubt there will be contest on this, perhaps in the courts. I fully anticipate that position. The fact is we are the only country recognized by the IMF’s data that has an unregulated sector. We have been at this since 2013. We went to the House of Representatives and the UNC refused to support the Bill. We are at danger and in risk of a collapse of a society with 20,000 people according to Sen. Mark being affected by being unbanked, et cetera, et cetera. And there comes a point where a government has to take a strategy, a calculated, careful, balanced, proportionate strategy in trying to pass law for the peace, order and good governance issues within section 53 of the Constitution. So we are confident that people may wish to test this. It will come down to whether it is reasonable or proportionate and we will have to be guided by it. Sen. Vieira: AG, I totally understand, and I totally get the dire circumstances we face by not being compliant and the embarrassment of being the only unregulated country. Mr. Al-Rawi: And the criminality and death that goes with it. Sen. Vieira: But I am wondering, and I am not only saying this in relation to this legislation. We are at a critical pass as a country now. We are going to have to do very important things as we come out of COVID. And this impasse, this presumption that you are not going to get the support of the Opposition, we are going to have to deal with this. I am wondering, if not at this late stage, is it not possible to have some discussion with the Opposition to see if they would support a special majority? And so, it would avoid the vulnerability of a challenge. Mr. Al-Rawi: If I could say very quickly, Madam Chair, we had that discussion in

UNREVISED 173 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 the House of Representatives where they withheld their support and for the record, the Cabinet Minute which approved the policy for this law was in 2013 under the Leader of the Opposition. The Bill came in 2015. The Minister of Finance put it on the record he did not change a comma or a full stop. We went to a joint select committee, we did all the regulations, we brought the in-house people. There was no minority report from the Opposition. And when we came to the House of Representatives the Leader of the Opposition leading that Bench, said, “No”. And Trinidad and Tobago is in the jeopardy of criminality, impasse, FATF, IMF odium, Global Forum odium, while criminality runs rampant and people are unbanked and cannot open their accounts. We have “Kumbayaed” our way till we are tired. But there is no way for us to have done it in any more explicit and generous a fashion than six years of discussion with the Opposition. Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, at this stage, the question is that clause 38 be amended as circulated by Sen. Mark— Mr. Imbert: Before you put—let us vote on that. Before we vote on that. This is a— Madam Chairman: Minister, you wish to say something? Mr. Imbert: Yeah. With your permission, sorry. This is a very important point, this question as to whether this infringes the right to privacy et cetera, the right to property. But we are going with it. We will look at it. I give you an undertaking I will look at it, the legality of it. I certainly would not want this legislation to fail; that is for sure. So I will certainly be looking at it. Okay? Question, on amendment, [Sen. W. Mark] put. Sen. Mark: Can I have a division? Madam Chairman: So, hon. Senators, in three minutes’ time at 4.40, the vote on this particular amendment will be taken. Ask their Members to return to the—

UNREVISED 174 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

You are supposed to be paying attention. What we are voting on right now is the amendment as proposed by Sen. Mark to clause 38. The Committee divided: Ayes 11 Noes 18 AYES Mark, W. John, Ms. J. Lutchmedial, Ms. J. Lyder, D. Rambhajan, Ms. R. Mohan, T, Deyalsingh, Dr. V. Deonarine, Ms. A. Seepersad, Ms. C. Teemal, D. Thompson-Ahye, Mrs. H. NOES Rambharat, C. Gopee-Scoon, Mrs. P. Sinanan, R. Hosein, K. West, Ms. A. Browne, Dr. A. Mitchell, R. Cox, Ms. D. de Freitas, N. Singh, A.

UNREVISED 175 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sagramsingh-Sooklal, Mrs. R. Bacchus, H. Lezama-Lee Sing, Mrs. L. Bethelmy, Ms. Y. Ibrahim, Dr. M.Y. Vieira, A. Dillon-Remy, Dr. M. Welch, E. Mr. P. Richards abstained. Amendment [Sen. W. Mark] negatived. Question put and agreed to. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 39 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 53. Question proposed: That clause 53 stand part of the Bill. 53 In subclause (1) insert after the words “this Act” in the second place where they occur, the words “or such further period as the Minister may, by Order, prescribe”. Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Mr. Al-Rawi: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, to hon. Senators, clause 53 is where the transition provision is provided. It proposes that you have three months to transition. It is foreseeable if we recall how the Companies Act went when we were going from Companies Ordinance to Companies Act in continuing companies. That you could very well need to extend the time frame for those provisions, circumstances like COVID, et cetera. So, what we are proposing in clause 53 and later in 60 for the same reasons, is that you can have such further

UNREVISED 176 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 period as the Minister may by order prescribe. And that is in keeping with how it was managed under the Companies Act when they were operationalizing those provisions and the umpteen pieces of law that we did last year in the COVID circumstances. Thank you, Madam Chair. Question, on amendment, put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 54 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60. Question proposed: That clause 60 now stand part of the Bill. 60 In subclause (1) insert after the words “this Act” the words “or such further period as the Minister may, by Order, prescribe”. Madam Chairman: Attorney General or Minister of Finance. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, for the same reasons offered in respect of clause 53 to allow for that enlarging of the period of time, we recommend that clause 60 be amended as circulated. Question, on amendment, put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 61 to 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 64. Question proposed: That clause 64 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, there is an amendment circulated on your behalf? Sen. Teemal: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. As is stated there in subclause (2) regarding the “Rehabilitation Fund”, it gives the impression that it is just to assist

UNREVISED 177 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

NGOs and other groups working with vulnerable persons, but the role of the Commission itself in addressing the negative impacts of gambling and the effects, there is no clear role for the Commission regarding utilization of that fund for its own work in the areas of addressing the negative impacts of gambling, which is why I am proposing that the role of the Commission itself should be allowed for in the utilization of this Fund. Mr. Imbert: Are we going to deal with all of his amendments or part by part? Madam Chairman: No, just the— Mr. Imbert: Okay. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, have you spoken just to part A of your amendment, or have you dealt with part B as well? Sen. Teemal: In terms of part B, based on what I have outlined for part A for the enhanced role of the Commission in addressing negative impacts of gambling and broadening that role into areas of rehabilitation centres and other programmes, I am proposing a switch in terms of the 5 per cent and the 2½ per cent, making the Rehabilitation Fund 5 per cent instead of 2½ per cent, and making the Development Fund 2½ per cent instead of 5 per cent. Bearing in mind that the Sport and Culture Fund under the Prime Minister’s Office benefits significantly from the proceeds of the National Lottery, and substantial amounts of moneys come to development, sports and culture. So I am proposing a switch so that it puts more money into the Rehabilitation Fund. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance. Mr. Imbert: Okay. We are prepared to accept the amendment to subclause (2) but stopping at the word “gambling” in (b). So that we would agree to subclause (2) reading as follows: “The Rehabilitation Fund is designed to assist non-governmental

UNREVISED 178 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

organizations...”—and so on. That will be (a). And (b): “allow the Commission to establish a programme for public education research and training regarding problem and compulsive gambling, and the treatment and prevention of problem and compulsive gambling.” Mr. Al-Rawi: Could I intervene? Mr. Imbert: Sure. Madam Chairman: Just one second, Attorney General. So that is where you are stopping, Minister of Finance? Mr. Al-Rawi: Subject to what I am about to say, Madam Chair, because we have not had a chance to discuss it together. Mr. Imbert: We have some cleaning up to do. Mr. Al-Rawi: So, Madam Chair, in terms of cleaning up, we think that it is extremely commendable to consider the amendments that the hon. Senator has brought up. I think it hits the nail on the head. If we look at (b) in the proposed circulated 2(b), the part below where the Minister got to treats with centres and intervention aspects. So perhaps we could consider this, Madam Chair, and if you do not mind reading it with me, in (b): “allow for the Commission to establish”—programmes including programmes, so you would insert that—including programmes. And it continues as it is here: “for public education, research” Delete “and”, so it would go—“research, training,” Insert here now, rehabilitation and intervention—and then it will continue— “regarding problem and compulsive gambling and the treatment and

UNREVISED 179 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

prevention of problem and compulsive gambling.” If we put a full stop there, then all the rest comes out and it does not limit you to only those things, they can still develop further. So I was proposing if I read it in its amended form, Madam Chair, (b) would say: “allow for the Commission to establish”—programmes including programmes—“for public education, research,…training,”—rehabilitation, and intervention—“regarding problem and compulsive gambling and the treatment and prevention of problem and compulsive gambling.” So that way we would capture all the rest of it by not being too specific but leaving the room for the Commission to get to the heart of the problem, which the hon. Senator has painted in much better language than we had proposed. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. Ordinarily, I would have a problem with any organization being able to dip into funds for their own purposes but these are altruistic and important purposes that I support in principle. I am just wondering whether this amendment would trigger knock-on amendments to clauses 18 and 19? Mr. Al-Rawi: 18 and 19. Mr. Imbert: Eight-zero? Sen. Vieira: 18 and 19, 18 is the funds of the Commission which are specified, and 19 is the how the moneys are to be spent by the Commission. Mr. Al-Rawi: So it will not be 18 because 18 is the population of it. “(a) such amounts as may be appropriated... (b) special grants... (c) monies collected...

UNREVISED 180 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

(d) all sums... (e) all…sums... (f) such amounts borrowed...” So 18 is safe— “19. The funds of the Commission, in any financial year, shall be applied in defraying the following… (a) …operating… (b) …capital… (c) …fees… (e) research and development projects, training and certification and other related matters; and (f) any other expenditure or losses or write-offs identified by the Commission in relation to the Commission’s discharge of its duties...” And when we deal dealt with duties and functions, here we have: “duties, functions and contractual obligations...” One of the functions that we touched in 13 was the very concept of 64 and now 64 comes to life. So, it springs and has life in (f). So I think we are safe. Mr. Imbert: Not only that, let me just add some further clarification. If you go further into this Bill and look at clause 65, these funds are not really the funds of the Commission at all, because they are going to be managed by a committee. Follow? So this does not fall within that rubric at all. So I think we are okay. Madam Chairman: Attorney General, Minister of Finance, you have treated with parts A and B? Mr. Imbert: I will exercise caution. I think this is something we could look at as we go along. The purpose of this type of legislation, you see it in the lotteries

UNREVISED 181 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 legislation and so on, is that you want the moneys spent in something that is “not the best thing” to be spent on good things. So if I could be very simple in my language. So the whole purpose of taking a percentage of money earned by the Lotteries Board and using it for sport and culture, is in that context that you are starting off from a bad place, that this money is not really good money, and using it for a good purpose. So I would not want to tamper with this proportion these percentages at this point in time. But certainly, it is something we need to look at and if we think that there is more need to spend money on the rehabilitation side than on sport and community work and culture, we can adjust to suit in due course. So I would leave it like—because I do not think we have enough information to determine whether it should be five on this side and two on that side. I think we should just leave it so for now. Madam Chairman: Attorney General. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, one of the critical things that is going to come to us, one of the immense goods is that we are going to have data. And if we look to the estimated size of this sector, it is a very large sector. So therefore, we have to be careful at this point in prescribing a formula. Because that formula may be 2 per cent of $1 billion is a different concept from 2 per cent of $500,000, et cetera. So I think that the hon. Senator is on the right track but my gut instinct is to say let us wait on the data, see what the BIR records demonstrate, the positions demonstrate. Importantly, you still have as Sen. Vieira referred us to 18 and 19, you have the funding of the whole purpose and the appropriations and then the supplanting of the appropriations by the form of contribution from the industry. So I would recommend in the formula that you know me all about to say, “just start”. If we just start with the concept, we can then get data and move our way into some more

UNREVISED 182 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 firm footing. But I want to thank Sen. Teemal for what is clearly a vastly improved thought on the Rehabilitation Fund. Sen. Dr. Dillon-Remy: Chair, if I may? Madam Chairman: Sen. Dillon-Remy. Sen. Dr. Dillon-Remy: Chair, it is just a question in relation to what is now being accepted in the definition about—sorry, in Sen. Teemal’s amendment he talks about problem and compulsive gambling which was not accepted earlier under the definition. It was talked about vulnerable persons, so there is no definition for that in the definition section in clause 3. Just wanted to note that. Mr. Imbert: That is entirely true, and I think the law devolved in that respect. The ordinary English meaning or accepted terminology we used in the interim. But I get the point. Mr. Al-Rawi: So Madam Chair, the plain and ordinary meaning applies in the interpretation of law as the Minister of Finance is perfectly correct in reminding us. Very importantly, we did not need to include it in the “vulnerable person” because it is the other effects as well, so there are multiple objects of the clause. So the rehabilitation clause is broader than the “vulnerable person” as defined. It also includes the penumbras, the shadows that are around the circumstances and this is something that will be interpreted in the broadest sense of the purpose. Madam Chairman: Sen. Thompson-Ahye. Sen. Thompson-Ahye: Madam Chair, the two funds, Development Fund and Rehabilitation Fund, when you look at both of them you see that in so far as the Development Fund is concerned, “to assist persons in areas of sport, social and community work, arts and culture”, there are several organizations that are at present—in addition to a Ministry—that are dealing specifically with those things. That is well established over a long period of time.

UNREVISED 183 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

5.00 p.m. Here we have for the first time something that is dealing with gambling addiction and things like that, that has not been addressed. As I made the point earlier today, there is not even “Gambling Anonymous” as opposed to the Alcoholics Anonymous. These people are in dire straits, you know. The whole question of the people who are committing suicides, homes that are being destroyed, there is nothing dealing with that now. I do not think this is something that we should wait on sometime in the future. This is a very urgent problem that should be addressed now. And that is why I call it a “conscience fund”, because these are moneys that are being generated from something that does a lot of harm. And it is very well, it is really—it is only right that that money should help those people and those families that are suffering. So why wait until tomorrow or next week or the following day? This is much more urgent than the social and whatever. So give us the 5 per cent. I asked for 10 this morning, I am prepared to take five now. Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Minister of Finance? Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I want to thank Sen. Thompson-Ahye for saying it so passionately and correctly. We really cannot wait. That is why we want to pass this law. And in these circumstances, we agree with the Senator wholeheartedly, which is why we believe that Sen. Teemal’s language is, by far, better language than the Bill proposed. Sen. Teemal had the advantage of being a member of the Joint Select Committee himself and contributed very fervently in that regard. I recalled him vividly in that Committee, as I was a Member as well. So I agree with Sen. Thompson-Ahye, we need to do this now. Madam Chairman: So, if I may, Sen. Teemal, we are dealing with your amendment. The Minister of Finance and the Attorney General have reworded part

UNREVISED 184 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 of your amendment. What is your wish at this stage? Will you withdraw part B of your amendment? Do you wish it to go to vote? Do you wish your amendment, as you have it, to go to a vote or will you accept the wording as proposed by the Attorney General? Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, I accept the wording for section A, as proposed by the hon. Attorney General. I think it does not take away from my intention. And regarding section B, I do concur that it could be quite a substantial amount of moneys, even at 2½ per cent. And I am willing to withdraw on the basis that based on data that comes in, in the early years of this Act, we will be able to adjust accordingly. Madam Chairman: So and— Mr. Imbert: Thank you very much, Sen. Teemal. Madam Chairman: So, Sen. Teemal, you will hear me now proposing that, I am putting forward your amendment, as further amended, by deleting all the words that come after gambling at A (2), and by deleting B. Sen. Teemal? Yes? Okay. Mr. Imbert: The AG had put in a few words. Madam Chairman: Yes. Mr. Imbert: You got it all? Okay, good, good. Madam Chairman: So, hon. Senators, the question is that clause 64 be amended, as circulated by Sen. Teemal and further amended as follows at (b). And I will read it out: “allow for the Commission to establish programmes, including programmes for public education, research, training, rehabilitation and intervention regarding problem and compulsive gambling and the treatment and prevention of problem and compulsive gambling.” All other words are deleted in this proposed amendment.

UNREVISED 185 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Question, on amendment, put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 65 and 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 67. Question proposed: That clause 67 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, you have proposed an amendment? Sen. Rambhajan: The amendment, Madam Chair, is for the inclusion of a clause that refers to all officers being given the same powers, authorities and privileges, as a given by law to constables. This was inserted specifically to differentiate between the authorized officer and the enforcement officer, though we had some discussion on it. Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I thank you, hon. Senator, for the contribution in keeping with the policy decisions that we undertook in the last—sorry, in the earlier version of this discussion. We respectfully disagree with the use of supplemental police and prefer to stay with the SRPs, as formulated under this structure. And they in fact have in law, the very power that the hon. Senator is proposing here. So if we could respectfully disagree with the amendment. Madam Chairman: Sen. Rambhajan? Sen. Rambhajan: If I may respectfully, on the indications given by the hon. Attorney General that the enforcement officer would be SRPs and authorized officers would be performing an administrative function, and therefore, not require the powers of a police officer, we would no longer require this clause to be added, please. So we would withdraw that amendment, please. Madam Chairman: Amendment to—

UNREVISED 186 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sen. Rambhajan: Yes, please, on 67. Madam Chairman: So the amendment as— Mr. Al-Rawi: Sorry, Madam Chair, if I could just be—I have been using terms that I need to just make sure are correct. We have accepted the supplemental police in the definition—forgive me, I said SRPs, forgive me, right. It is supplemental police. and that is defined in the Supplemental Police Act. Right? So just for the record, it is in fact—if we looked to the definition section—and I thank the Minister of Finance for correcting me the slip of tongue. That is at page 5, is it? Yeah, page 5. “‘Enforcement Officer’ means a constable appointed under the Supplemental Police Service Act;” Right? So we are on all fours there. Right? So we do not need to specify the powers of constable because that Act would have the positions. I think it is 15— Sen. Rambhajan: Correct. Mr. Al-Rawi:—15:02, is it? Sen. Rambhajan: It is the Supplemental Police Service Act. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Attorney General, Sen. Rambhajan has indicated that the proposed amendment to clause 67 is withdrawn. Amendment [Sen. W. Mark] withdrawn. Question put and agreed to. Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 68 to 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 76. Question proposed: That clause 76 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal?

UNREVISED 187 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sen. Teemal: Yes, Madam Chair, the amendment being proposed, although the clause allows for permission for online gambling or remote gambling be subjected to the affirmative resolution of Parliament, it is just that in piloting this Bill, the Minister of Finance did mention that this whole issue of remote gambling is intricate, it is a bit complex, and to come up with legislation to regulate it, it could be challenging as well as take some time. But I am just concerned that if we have to, as a Parliament, to deal with case-by-case basis, on the basis of affirmative resolution, you know, what is going to be the basis of it? And this proposed amendment is, in a way, to get us to act expeditiously, to come up with the necessary legislation and get it passed so that, you know, we are not subjected to this affirmative resolution stretching on for years and years and we are not able to regulate this aspect of the industry expeditiously. Because it is an aspect of the industry that could generate quite, I think, significant amounts of revenue for us. Mr. Imbert: Okay. The proposed amendment really does not change what is in 76 because 76 makes it clear that it is not allowed. So that, it says: “The Minister may by Order, subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, amend this section for the purposes of permitting remote gambling.” It could have been done in another way, they simply not referred to at all, and it just is prohibited. And the Minister would have to come and amend the parent law. But because we are adding in affirmative resolution, it means the Minister cannot do anything unless the Parliament approves. So until the Minister brings the Order to permit remote gambling, it is illegal. So that I am not sure what the amendment is seeking to propose. It says: “…impose a moratorium on the permitting of online gambling until appropriate legislation is enacted…” But the appropriate legislation that is being referred to here, is the same appropriate legislation that will be subject to affirmative

UNREVISED 188 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 resolution of Parliament. To simplify what I am saying, you cannot have remote gambling, Internet gambling or whatever it is, until the Minister comes to Parliament with an Order which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. So I do not quite understand what the amendment is seeking to do but perhaps you could help me out here. Sen. Teemal: All right. What I was seeking through the amendment is that in terms of the whole expansion of the legislation to govern interactive gambling or Internet gambling, it is not addressed here in this particular Bill. Mr. Imbert: Yeah, but in the legislation, it makes it clear that it is not allowed. And if we want to allow it, the Minister will have to bring legislation to Parliament to allow it. So that, that is the same thing, in my opinion, that produces the same result as: “The Minister shall by Order impose a moratorium on the permitting of online gambling…” Because what you are saying is until a law is brought—appropriate law is brought to the Parliament to regulate this activity, you should not have it. And this, in the reverse, says it is not allowed until the Minister brings a law. So it amounts to the same thing. So I am a little confused there. Sen. Teemal: All right. But I will just ask that in terms of the legislative agenda of the Government, does the Government intend to address this aspect of— Mr. Imbert: Well, right now, if you look at 76(1) it says: “A person commits an offence if he does anything in Trinidad and Tobago or uses remote gambling equipment situated in Trinidad and Tobago for the purpose of inviting or enabling a person in a prohibited territory to participate in remote gambling.”

UNREVISED 189 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

So, are you talking about allowing it within the territory of Trinidad and Tobago? What— Sen. Teemal: Yeah. Mr. Imbert: What exactly are you driving at? Sen. Teemal: Yes. Mr. Imbert: I see. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira, you wanted to say something? Sen. Teemal: You see, allowing it within and the consequential effects of it, particularly in terms of under-aged gambling and ready accessibility to— Mr. Imbert: But right now, there is no licence that will allow a person to do online gambling contemplated in the legislation. It is not a type of licence. They just cannot do it. But I mean, I do not know if we need to—I do not know if I am making myself clear here. It is just not allowed. Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira? Sen. Vieira: No, well, what you are saying is that right now, remote gambling is not permitted. Mr. Imbert: There is no category. Sen. Vieira: It is unregulated. Mr. Imbert: Yeah. There is no category. Sen Vieira: And that Government intends to bring substantive law to treat with this. Mr. Imbert: Correct. Sen. Vieira: And that is why we are going to go by affirmative resolution of— Mr. Imbert: Correct. Sen. Vieira: Parliament. Because we are not coming by regulation but we are going to be amending this section in the Act itself.

UNREVISED 190 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Mr. Imbert: So, I mean, yes, based on contributions, like the contribution of Sen. Richards and reality, if we going to regulate gambling, everything is going digital, the whole world is going digital, so we will have to go there but not immediately. What we want to do is to get a handle on traditional gambling first and then we will deal with this very complex area. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, if I could just, through you, we have in the Internet gaming world, Internet gaming is a very tricky concept. First of all, the issue of taxes, withholding taxes, becomes very real. I want to remind that we have the base erosion, profit sharing and harmful tax practices legislation that we have to consider as a country as part of our Global Forum, rules and procedures, and then the double taxation relief aspects, et cetera. So, the problem with Internet gaming is not just the harmful fact that you Internet gaming. It is in a mud pool of harmful tax practices, and how we harmonize tax practices across jurisdictions. So that is point one. Point two is that once the prudential criterion are arranged, we can get there now, the cross border jurisdiction for Internet gaming often involves doing gaming in a reservation in Canada or in the United States where other tax laws do not apply and the Cherokee kingdom or whatever reservations are, where they are autonomous from a taxation purpose allows. So it is a very complicated structure from a huge issue, which is on the table right now, which is the harmful tax practices, the double taxation relief aspects and the base erosion and profit sharing dynamics. For those reasons, we could not immediately treat with Internet gaming or remote gaming because there is some work that is actively going on right now, which we have to sort out, jurisdictionally with other pots of discussions, and we are being assessed on it. So the intention is that the Central Bank will guide us along these purposes, the Board of Inland Revenue and then the other jurisdictions

UNREVISED 191 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 with whom we share tax information, under the tax information exchange legislation that we have done for the United States and all other jurisdictions and the multilateral conventions that go on there. So just to say it, this particular clause is much more than just remote gaming. It has a larger dynamic behind it and therefore, what we propose here is that we will come to the Parliament, in a permitted way, which is by way of an Order—for instance, the Constitution in section 123 allows for an Order to be done to effect certain things, et cetera, lots of ways in that. So this is intended, as we settle the taxation aspect, in particular, we will then be able to harmonize it with the gaming aspect and then come up with a plan of action. Sen. Vieira: And AG, you would also have to harmonize it with the Telecommunications— Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes. Sen. Vieira:—Act, because you have online harms and you will need to have that cross regulation. Madam President: Sen. Richards? Sen. Richards: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I just want—because I fully understand what the Minister intends with this, because I had the honour to sit on the Committee. I just want us to put on the record and for us to understand that the way it is phrased here, there are situations that may arise where young persons or persons in their 20’s who currently participate in, for example, Fortnite and FIFA, from the equipment based in Trinidad Tobago, that invites wagers, waging outside of the country— Mr. Al-Rawi: The innocent infringer. Sen. Richards: Sorry? Mr. Al-Rawi: The innocent or not so innocent infringer.

UNREVISED 192 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sen. Richards: Exactly. And sometimes the pie is quite large, eh. And I just want us to understand this will have implications for that, if I am not mistaken. Mr. Al-Rawi: But no different from the world of copyright and how we treat with our treaty obligations in technological devices that permit Fire Sticks and other aspects, et cetera. So anything that is online is going to have a load of problems and that is where we have to look to the technological side. That is why Sen. Vieira hit the nail on the head with the telecommunications aspect of how we treat with it. So point taken. Mr. Imbert: But just let me add some clarity here now. Clause 76 deals with people who are doing things in Trinidad and Tobago and outside of Trinidad and Tobago, to encourage persons outside of Trinidad and Tobago, in a prohibited territory, to engage in remote gambling. So look at it very carefully. Sen. Richards: If I could Minister, through you, Madam Chair, for the purposes of this section, a: “‘prohibited territory’ means any country outside of Trinidad and Tobago…” Mr. Imbert: Um-hmm, right Sen. Richards:—which means any country. Mr. Imbert: Yes, well it means anyone that is prohibited. Okay? So what this means is that if somebody in Trinidad and Tobago or outside of Trinidad and Tobago does something to use remote gambling equipment for the purpose of inviting or enabling somebody from outside to participate in remote gambling, it is an offence. And then to deal with the stuff inside, that you are speaking about, unless you have a licence, you cannot engage in gambling activity. And if you look at the licensing section, it speaks clearly to establishments. So there must be a physical establishment.

UNREVISED 193 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Sen. Richards: Clear. Thank you very much. Mr. Imbert: Got it? All right. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, having heard the discussions, can you just tell me, are you pursuing your amendment to clause 76? Sen. Teemal: No, Madam Chair, based on the discussions, I think my concern is on the legislative radar for the near future and on that basis, I would withdraw. Amendment [Sen. D. Teemal] withdrawn. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Question put and agreed to. Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 77 to 88. Question proposed: That clauses 77 to 88 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen. Deyalsingh? Sen. Deyalsingh: AG, could you please explain on clause 80: “A person who knowingly invites or permits or causes a child to enter licensed premises, other than a race track, commits an offence and is liable…” Why do we have to put “other than a race track”? Is it that a situation where a child could come there, see gambling going in the race track and also follow suit—like follow what the adults doing? So why is that there? Mr. Al-Rawi: Race tracks are governed under a different piece of legislation and therefore, the conduct of betting activities, as opposed to family activities, are disaggregated. In race tracks, you will often see children present but they are not permitted to be involved in the gaming areas or the alcohol areas, et cetera. So, that is why “other than a race track” was put into there because there is the whole

UNREVISED 194 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 equestrian side of it, the horses, the community aspects. So that is why that was done that way. Madam Chairman: The question is that clause 77 to 78 now stand part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye, those against say— Sen. Teemal: Madam Chairman—[Inaudible]—proposed amendment to new clause 78A? Madam Chairman: No, new clauses come after we have dealt with all the substantive Sen. Teemal: Oh, sorry. Okay. Question put and agreed to. Clauses 77 to 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New clause 29A. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark, we are dealing with the amendments as circulated by—on your behalf. First of all, you have a new clause 3 but I am not even going to put this to the committee as this falls outside of the remit of the Bill. So we are dealing with clause 29A. New clause 29A read the first time. Question proposed: That new clause 29A be read a second time. Madam Chairman: Sen. Mark? Sen. Mark: Yeah, Madam Chair, under—the reason why we have proposed this new clause is because we do not believe that the gaming Commission should be reviewing licences that they would be issuing. We believe that would be himself determining these matters for himself. In those circumstances, we believe that there must be fairness in this matter. And in those—it is in that context that we have formulated this amendment for the Government’s consideration, that is, we should establish a gaming tribunal and we have outlined who should make up that

UNREVISED 195 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 tribunal, what this tribunal should do and anyone who is not satisfied, they may appeal the decision of that tribunal. So, Madam Chair, this is in an effort to ensure that there is fairness and justice in this exercise, and the gaming Commission should not be responsible for reviewing at the same time that they are issuing licences, hence, our amendment. Question put and negatived. New clause 78A. Madam President: The question is that new clause 78A be read a second— Mr. Imbert: Madam President, I apologize, whatever happened to new clause 3? Madam Chairman: New clause 3 was not put to the committee as I have determined that it is outside the remit of the Bill. Mr. Imbert: Right. Madam Chairman: So we are now dealing with new clause 78A. New clause 78A read the first time. Question proposed: That new clause 78A be read a second time. Question put and agreed to. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal. Sen. Teemal: Madam Chair, this proposed clause deals or signage and what I am suggesting is that: “The Commission shall require posting of one or more signs on licensed premises at each point of entry into areas where authorized gaming is conducted, authorized gaming devices are located, or authorized betting is conducted to provide consumers with information about referral services regarding compulsive or problem gambling.” And that:

UNREVISED 196 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

“The owner who fails to post and maintain such a sign or signs commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars per day…”—of that particular violation. Madam Chairman: Attorney General? Mr. Imbert: Let me just go in. Madam Chairman: Minister of Finance? Mr. Imbert: We support the proposed amendment with respect to a sign. We are just having a little trouble as to what the penalty should be So, we in support of your proposal. Now, if we did not put in 78A(2), the general penalty would apply. And I have just looked at the general penalty and it is a lot: a fine of $5,000, imprisonment for two years and a fine of $10,000 for each day the offence continues. So the general penalty is not applicable. But we are not sure whether for not posting a sign somebody should be required to pay $1,000 a day. We are having a little trouble with that, so AG? Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, this is such a refreshingly novel concept, I really want to say thank you, if I may be so bold, Madam Chair. Because it is not very often that you see a positive obligation to say, “Listen, if you have a problem with gambling, here is where you could go.” That might really hit you like a—like a light in the dark coming at you. So I think it is a really novel concept and we very much like it. [Desk thumping] The question is: Where do we go on the penalty? So the continuing offences of $1,000 per day, where we do not say it is almost strict liability in the way it is set up here, right? “…the owner of the licensed premises…” That is the owner of the premises, eh. That is not necessarily the licensee. So that is problem number one,

UNREVISED 197 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

“…who fails”—no mental intention there—“to post and maintain”—two obligations. You put it up but you also needed to make sure it stayed up— “such a sign or signs commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars per day.” So I think that we should confine it to the licensee because that is where the obligation ought to reside, as opposed to the landlord or somebody who owns the building and it is being rented. And if I could recommend that what we should do here is to put a fine of $50,000 or at that point there, because it is the sign going up. I will tell you why I am there because I was also wondering whether it should be in the “Administrative Fines” section. So as opposed to committing an offence, you can pay the administrative fine and just move on. But that means that we would have to look at the Schedule for administrative fines as well and we would have to make sure that the mental intention is covered. The danger with continuing offences, I will give you the example in the Companies Act. 5.30 p.m. If you fail to pay—file your annual return, and you come to pay it late, you might end up with $50 to $100 to $150,000 in penalties on a $250 a day offence. So a thousand dollars could easily end up a million dollars, depending upon the six-year position and then the factorial—as I thought, I would never use factorials after A Levels—but, factorial comes in in a mathematical concept here. Right? So my only question here is, we love 78A(1), if I could just ask the drafter to consider how we capture the offence for (2), from the licensee perspective and whether the hon. Senator would be minded to allow us to keep it at summary conviction and put in, perhaps, $50,000, because the point is that it can be acted upon. Is that agreeable, Madam Chair? Sen. Teemal: Yeah, Madam Chair, I am agreeable to it. The principle of it, in

UNREVISED 198 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 terms of the signs, I am happy about that— Madam Chairman: Attorney General, can I have the wording for part (2)? Sen. Teemal:—and I would be guided by the offence. Mr. Al-Rawi: Sorry, Madam Chair, just give me a moment. The Commission shall post a sign. [Crosstalk] There is a fracture between well, the Commission did not do it, and I have the obligation. So the licensee ought to do that. So, yes, it should be a licensee, shall require the posting. Right? So, we should say. “The licensee shall post a sign on licensed premises”. Right? So instead of “the Commission”, it should be: (1) The licensee shall post a sign on licensed premises at each point of entry into areas where authorized gaming is conducted or authorized gaming devices are located or authorized betting is conducted to provide consumers with information about referral services regarding compulsive or problem gambling. (2) A licensee who fails to post and maintain a sign under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of fifty thousand dollars. So, Madam Chair, if I could dictate it or go it over? So, Madam Chair, some further surgery to 78A(1) as follows: The licensee—delete “Commission”. A licensee shall post a sign on licensed premises at each point of entry into areas where— Insert the letter: (a) authorized gaming is conducted; (b) authorized gaming devices are located; or (c) authorized betting is conducted

UNREVISED 199 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

And then the shoes of the clause, put in a semicolon there, it will come back out. The shoes, the footing would be: to provide consumers with information about referral services regarding compulsive or problem gambling. In subclause (2), we will have: A licensee who fails to post and maintain a sign under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of fifty thousand dollars. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, you are in agreement with the proposed amendments to your new clause 78A? Sen. Teemal: Yes, Madam Chair. I am. Thank you, Attorney General. Madam Chairman: Hon. Senators, please bear with me. I will now read to you the proposed amended new clause 78A. 78A(1): (1) A licensee shall post a sign on licensed at each point of entry into areas where— (a) authorized gaming is conducted; (b) authorized gaming devices are located; or (c) authorized betting is conducted; to provide consumers with information about referral services regarding compulsive or problem gambling (2) A licensee who fails to post and maintain a sign under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of fifty thousand dollars. Okay? Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the drafters has told me, nothing with the wording,

UNREVISED 200 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 that because it is a new piece of law, that we ought not to have a 78A. It should be new clause 79, and all the other numbers would be consequentially renumbered. Madam Chairman: Well, remember that this is new clause 78A, which will be inserted after clause 78. So, I am not sure, how it is becoming clause 79, new clause 79, because— Mr. Al-Rawi: So, it would be, as I am guided by the drafter, this is a new 78 as put, that it be read a second time, but when we look to the Bill itself, Madam Chair—actually, Madam Chair, if you could just give me a moment, apologies? Madam Chairman: And if anything, Attorney General, then what may have to happen, Sen. Teemal may have to withdraw his proposed amendment because his amendment was put as new clause 78A. So, we may have to withdraw and then put a new clause 79. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the CPC’s officer is insisting that the correct process is, that we should have the 79. What has been read as new clause 78A, that it should, in fact, be new clause 79, and that the other clauses be renumbered accordingly. They say that that way, they would be able to do all of the cross- checking and fixing without causing any difficulty for the record. That is correct? Yeah? Madam Chairman: So, Sen. Teemal, based on the advice that we are receiving, may I ask you to withdraw your new clause 78A? It has already been read a second time. So, the difficulty is now changing it into new. So, if you withdraw it, then a new clause 79 will be introduced as set out. It can even be put under your name, but I need for you to withdraw new clause 78A, that has been put. Sen. Teemal: Yes, certainly, Madam Chair. I withdraw. New clause 78A withdrawn. Madam Chairman: So, for the record, new clause 78A has been withdrawn.

UNREVISED 201 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

New clause 79. Madam Chairman: So, Sen. Teemal, this is going in your name. New clause 79 read the first time. Question proposed: That the new clause 79 be read a second time. Madam Chairman: So, the new clause 79, which I will now read, please, let me just read it. New clause 79 will be signage, 79(1): (1) A licensee shall post a sign on licensed premises at each point of entry into areas where: (a) authorized gaming is conducted; (b) authorized gaming devices are located; or (c) authorized betting is conducted; to provide customers with information about referral services regarding compulsive or problem gambling. (2) A licensee who fails to post and maintain a sign under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of fifty thousand dollars. Mr. Imbert: Madam Chair, I think you have to add, renumber clauses accordingly, some words like that. Madam Chairman: That will— Mr. Imbert: It will happen on its own? Madam Chairman: Yes. Mr. Imbert: Okay. Madam Chairman: The Attorney General, will, yes. Mr. Imbert: Okay. Question put and agreed to. Question proposed: That the new clause be added to the Bill.

UNREVISED 202 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Question put and agreed to. New clause 79 added to the Bill. New clause 78B. Madam Chairman: Well, just as a matter for the record, let me just ask the Attorney General: Are we going with new clause 78B? Mr. Imbert: Madam President, before we even get to whether we should call it 78A, B or 79 or 80 or 81 or whatever. Madam Chairman: Yeah. Mr. Imbert: I just would like to tell Sen. Teemal, this is a very interesting proposal, but we really need to study this very carefully to understand it. So that we will give an undertaking that this is something that could lead to dangerous or problem gambling. Gambling, I could see that, that if casinos give people line of credit to encourage them to gamble, I could see that that is not a good thing, but we really need to study this very carefully, and we need to get expert advice from our consultant on how to word this. So, I am giving an undertaking, we will come back to the Parliament and put in a clause to achieve this objective. But I would not want, at this late hour, to try and deal with that now. Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, just to add really quickly, again, supporting the position, because the programming inside of the gaming may include a hypothetical line of credit, we need the expert advice to make sure we treat with the issue without causing jeopardy to the structure. So, the set off on credit may be viewed in law to be a line of credit. So we need to make sure that we get it right from the experts in this area. Sen. Teemal: One of the stated objects of the Bill is consumer protection. And, I think one of the realities of the industry is the exploitation of consumers through various forms of credit, and people end up almost in permanent debt, because of

UNREVISED 203 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 the credit extended, and we really need to address that anomaly in the industry. Mr. Imbert: Totally understand. It is an excellent proposal, but a little late in the game, in terms of our legislative agenda. But we are giving an undertaking, we will bring an amendment, as soon as possible, to treat with this serious problem. Madam Chairman: Sen. Teemal, in light of that. Sen. Teemal: Yes, Madam Chair, I will withdraw. New clause 78B withdrawn. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Schedule 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2. Question proposed: That Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill. Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. Well, definitely, the fit and proper criteria is a very important element. Before going into my amendment, there are two typos. At 5(b), there should not be “undercharged bankrupts” but “undischarged bankrupts”. And down at the bottom, the last paragraph at 5, should be subparagraph “(e)” not “(c)” because “(c)” is repeated twice. So let me come back. So this subclause (5) really deals with reputation that: “...regard may be had to the previous conduct and activities...” But the way the clause reads is as though we are only looking at the reputation in Trinidad. I have a real concern that persons who cannot operate in their own home jurisdictions because they have convictions there, wash up on our shores with a clean slate. Right? So, that is Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere. It is consistent with clause 6(6). So that is that one. The second one, previous convictions. Well, the way (a) is worded is: “(a) committed an offence…” Past, but we are dealing with reputation, and a person may have multiple charges

UNREVISED 204 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 against them or pending charges against them. So, I would like to suggest: (a) previous convictions in criminal proceedings involving fraud, financial crime, dishonesty or violence, including convictions under appeal, or committal to trial in connection with such an offence. So, they have not been convicted as yet, but in terms of reputation, that is something that ought to be known about. (iii) in subparagraph (b), by inserting the words “or has any pending bankruptcy or similar proceedings”. The same applies that you may not be a bankrupt as yet, but there may be proceedings against you and you may be an undischarged bankrupt. So that is “iii” is about. Madam Chair, “iv” which deals with (c) is focusing on settlement of civil proceedings. Now, administrative proceedings are not proceedings involving judges and courts, but they are very important, because you could be dealing with SEC, Environmental Commission and also administrative proceedings abroad that we should be aware of and factor in in reputation. So, that is why I wanted to add “administrative” after “civil”. As regards: (b) “including any formal notification of investigation or committal to trial”— after the word—“fraud…” Again, in anticipation of not just with the past, but what may be ongoing. And, lastly, in: “(e) been the owner, beneficiary of, manager or director of a company, partnership or other organisation that has previously been refused a licence under this Act…” Now, that is too narrow, because you may have—I want to expand it to relate it to

UNREVISED 205 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 financial business, whether it is something to do with the Central Bank, but it should not only be “been refused a licence under the Act” in my view. I think we need to widen it up. So it will be: …refused a licence under this Act or related financial business or has had such a licence revoked or suspended. So, that is it in the broad. Thank you. Mr. Imbert: All right. A lot of the proposals of Sen. Vieira are perfectly acceptable, such as, “whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere”. And then when we go to the second one, ii: (a) previous convictions in criminal proceedings involving fraud, financial crime, dishonesty or violence, including convictions under appeal… I am wondering whether “previous” is needed, because if you have a conviction, it was previous. But I have a lil problem with the innocent until proven guilty part. If you are committed to trial, it does not mean you are guilty, you know. I am just making that point. Right? Sen. Vieira: I know there is a concern about presumption of innocence, but this is reputation. Mr. Imbert: I know. But I just want to go through the parts that we have a lil a trouble with. One is that, if somebody is committed to trial, they may not be guilty at all. Pending bankruptcy, well I am not sure exactly what that means, and then the other part about former notification or investigation or committal to trial, I think and then related financial business. I would just say “financial institution”. That is the proper terminology. But I am a lil weary about doing something, which may find ourselves in a proportionality argument in the court that you are denying somebody something based on an allegation. So AG, let me turn it over to you

UNREVISED 206 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 now. Sen. Vieira: Minister, I totally get it. And, I mean, as a lawyer, I would usually be the one, the first one to blow the whistle on caution here. But the thing is, the section is about “regard may be had to”, so what that means is, you say, look, this guy has pending charges; he has appealed it. It does not mean that it preempts him, but they can consider it. So, I am putting it in that context. Mr. Imbert: I know, but I am a lil frighten. [Laughter] I do not want this legislation to fail if somebody strike it down because it really gets into a breach of the Constitution. Over to you AG. Mr. Al-Rawi: So, Madam Chair, Sen. Vieira has hit all the correct bells. It is reputational factors, which are not necessarily immutable. It is similar to fitness and propriety under the Central Bank Act or the Insurance Act, where regard is de facto had to these arrangements. So, my initial alarm bell is, the right to being, well the golden thread of being considered to be innocent until proven guilty. But, insofar as these are reputational factors, I think that they are within the zone of care. Because we are dancing on the head of a pin, insofar as my colleagues in the Opposition intend to approach the courts to look at the proportionality of this law, and because Trinidad and Tobago has for eight years been discussing gaming law and we are at the end of the road, do or die at this point, that is where the hon. Minister’s caution rings with me, to be sure that we are doing this with positioning. I do not know if my hon. friend and colleague, Sen. Vieira, would accept an undertaking to look at this. I think he is right. My instinct tells me to have a look at it and to take advice on it, only because all of the other factors I have taken advice on, and I am careful about in terms of reasonableness and proportionality. I would hate to throw the baby out with the bath water on this one, because I have not

UNREVISED 207 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 looked at it. I accept the point that reputationally, we are in the safe zone, but my concern about “blacklisting” on the basis of something like this, there is jurisprudence on that, and I have had advice which tells me to be careful about that point. So, I am just respectfully asking if the hon. Senator would be satisfied with the undertaking for us to look at this immediately and, if necessary, to come back on it. Sen. Vieira: I am satisfied. And in terms of my other amendments, I am quite happy for you to trim them down as you see fit, because I know the difficulties that you are facing. But I think, as the hon. Minister said, there are a couple of them that you would accept. So, I will go with what you both accept and I would take the undertaking. Mr. Al-Rawi: Thank you very much. Mr. Imbert: So, if we could go straight into it. We have no problems with “whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere”. I would go with “convictions in criminal proceedings involving fraud, financial crime, dishonesty or violence”. I do not think we need to say convictions under appeal, because you are convicted. Right? And “committal to trial” take that out. I would say— Madam Chairman: So, you are taking out the words from “including to offence”? Mr. Imbert: But, he had said, if there are things we could agree to, we would go with it. So, what would you want to agree to? Mr. Al-Rawi: Sorry, Madam Chair. What I understood Sen. Vieira to allow me to do, is to take advice on it and to come back. It may very well be that we are able to do this by the time we hit the House. Is it that the hon. Senator wanted us to see what we can add in now? Sen. Vieira: Whatever is acceptable now, I will take and I will take your general undertaking.

UNREVISED 208 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Mr. Al-Rawi: Understood, please. Mr. Imbert: So, I was okay with—let us repeat, “whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere” after the words “person in question”. I am okay with “convictions in criminal proceedings involving fraud, financial crime, dishonesty or violence”. The bankruptcy thing, I would like to just leave that alone for the time being, but I do accept that “undercharged” means “discharged”. What is an “undercharged?” Mr. Al-Rawi: Undischarged, an undischarged. Mr. Imbert: Undischarged, so we need to fix that. And administrative, are you okay with that? Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, yes. Mr. Imbert: And administrative, we are okay with that. The notification, no, I would like to get advice on that, and then in subparagraph (c) — Sen. Vieira: (e). Mr. Imbert: Oh, it is an (e). It is supposed to be an (e). Right? Under this Act, oh? Sen. Vieira: I am suggesting it should be wider than just this Act, but relate it. Mr. Imbert: No, I know. I am trying to get the words. Mr. Al-Rawi: So after “Act”, it would be “(a)” licensed “under the Act”. Mr. Imbert: Or just say the Financial Institutions Act. Mr. Al-Rawi: No, but he was talking broader than that or related financial business. Mr. Imbert: Well, it would be the Financial Institutions Act. What else would it be? Mr. Al-Rawi: Not every entity is under the Financial Institutions Act. Mr. Imbert: So, it is banks and insurance companies. Mr. Al-Rawi: That will be limited to that class. Mr. Imbert: Yeah, banks and insurance companies. The Financial Institutions Act

UNREVISED 209 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21 would handle banks and insurance companies. Did you have anything else that you thought? Sen. Vieira: It is a wide-open sector. I would have said “related financial business”, because I think that is a recognized term, but I will be guided by you, if you want to advise. Mr. Imbert: Well, I do not know if it is. If it is, I have no problem. AG, what do you think? Mr. Al-Rawi: So, it has: “been refused a licence under this Act or has had a licence revoked or suspended” That is under this Act. It did not go broader than the Act itself. Sen. Vieira: This Act is only now coming into operation. So, you rightly pointed out, Central Bank, cooperative societies. Mr. Al-Rawi: So, because we have non-profit organizations, real estate agents, we have a whole bunch of things trading as registration of business names, external parts, this is something that I think we need to be careful about in terms of getting specifics on. So, if we could reserve coming back on (e). We catch the point, something broader that just “this Act”, because there may be things that are ostensibly broader that ought to be inside of here. But bearing in mind that the law needs to be precise, I would prefer to have the opportunity to make it precise if that is agreeable. Sen. Vieira: Agreeable. Mr. Imbert: I would suggest a hybrid that we just add for now, and we can take advice and come back later with a much more expansive framing or the Financial Institutions Act, for now. So, it will cover banks and insurance companies for now. So that would be:

UNREVISED 210 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

“…has been refused a licence under this Act or the Financial Institutions Act.” Mr. Al-Rawi: Sure. Mr. Imbert: Okay? Sen. Vieira: Agree. Mr. Imbert: Right? And then the next one was, such afterwards or as had? Mr. Al-Rawi: By inserting the word “such” after the words “or has had”. Sen. Vieira: It is like a licence under another hat. 6.00 p.m. Madam Chairman: If you all will grant me the gift—the gift, and it is to me—of let us just going through the proposed amendments, to Sen. Vieira’s proposed amendment so we can get it in one go. Okay? So, Sen. Vieira, in subparagraph 5(1), Schedule 2, the first one is accepted: “whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere”, after the words “person in question” Correct? At ii. Mr. Imbert:—it is a little wrong-sided. Madam Chairman: And there goes my gift. Mr. Imbert: Sorry about that. We are at the end, Madam President, “doh” worry. In the chapeau, by inserting after the words, “person in question”, the words, “whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere.” So it is just how you format the sentence. So: In the chapeau, by inserting after the words, “person in question”, the words, “whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere.” Madam Chairman: So here we go again, in 5(1)(i): In the chapeau, by inserting after the words, “person in question”, the words,

UNREVISED 211 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

“whether in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere.” ii. by deleting subparagraph (a) and substituting the following: (a)— [Madam Chairman confers with Clerk] ii. by deleting subparagraph (a) and substituting the following subparagraph: We are taking off the word “previous”, so it will be: “convictions in criminal proceedings involving fraud, financial crime, dishonesty or violence.” —iii. is off; iv. is accepted. Mr. Imbert: Madam Chair, we have to get the format right. So it is by inserting after the word “civil” the words “or administrative”. Madam Chairman: I beg your pardon, I am sorry. Mr. Imbert: Yeah. We have to get the formatting right, so it is by inserting after the word “civil” the words “or administrative”. Madam Chairman: So the way we have it here by inserting the words “or administrative” after the word “civil” is not accepted? Mr. Imbert: No. Madam Chairman: It is not the same thing? Mr. Imbert: No. Mr. Al-Rawi: It is but it is just the way they speak. Mr. Imbert: It is the way they draft: by inserting after the word “civil” the words “or administrative”. Madam Chairman: So iv in paragraph (c), by inserting the words after the word “civil”—by inserting after the word “civil” the words “or administrative”. Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes. Mr. Imbert: And (b) is out.

UNREVISED 212 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Madam Chairman: Right. And (b) is off? Mr. Imbert: (b) is off. And then in subparagraph (c)— Madam Chairman: Yes. Mr. Imbert:—by inserting after the words “under this Act”, the words “or the Financial Institutions Act”. Madam Chairman:—“under this Act”; the words “or the Financial Institutions Act”. Okay? Mr. Imbert: Yeah. And then (b) is okay, v.(b). Question put. Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, I apologize. Final gift, I have to go again: by inserting after the words “or has had”, the word “such”; the last thing—the last, last one. Madam Chairman: Yes. By inserting— Mr. Imbert: You have to put: by inserting after the words “or has had”, the word “such”; that is it. [Crosstalk] Madam Chairman: No, no, no, I am taking a deep breath. I am taking a deep breath on this one. So, hon. Senators, the question is that Schedule 2 be amended as circulated by Sen. Vieira and further amended—do you all need me to read it over?—and further amended as indicated previously. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedules 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: Sen Mark, there is one further issue which is on your list of proposed amendments, it being the preamble, but may I say to you that I am not going to put this to the committee as this also falls outside of the remit of the Bill.

UNREVISED 213 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Okay? Question put and agreed to: That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. Senate resumed. Bill reported, with amendment. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. Sen. Mark: Division. Madam President: So it is 6.07, I wait until 6.10 or unless everyone returns to the Chamber. The Senate divided: Ayes 24 AYES Rambharat, Hon. C. Gopee-Scoon, Hon. P. Sinanan, Hon. R. Hosein, Hon. K. West, Hon. A. Browne, Hon. Dr. A. Mitchell, Hon. R. Cox, Hon. D. de Freitas, N. Singh, Hon. A. Sagramsingh-Sooklal, Hon. R. Bacchus, Hon. H. Lezama-Lee Sing, Mrs. L. Bethelmy, Ms. Y. Ibrahim, Dr. M.Y.

UNREVISED 214 Gambling (Gaming & Betting) Control Bill, 2021 (cont’d) 2021.06.21

Richards, P. Vieira, A. Deyalsingh, Dr. V. Deonarine, Ms. A. Seepersad, Ms. C. Teemal, D. Thompson-Ahye, Mrs. H. Dillon-Remy, Dr. M. Welch, E. The following Senators abstained: Mr. W. Mark, Ms. J. John, Ms. J. Lutchmedial, Mr. D. Lyder, Ms. R. Rambhajan, Mr. T. Mohan. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read the third time and passed. Madam Chairman: Leader of Government Business. ADJOURNMENT The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat): Madam President, I beg to move that this Senate do now adjourn to Tuesday, June 22, 2021, at 1.30 p.m. Madam President, we intend to continue the debate on Sen. Richards’ Motion, No. 1, which is in progress. Thank you. Question put and agreed to. Senate adjourned accordingly. Adjourned at 6.11 p.m.

UNREVISED