397 Letter of Sympathy Tuesday March 15, 2011

SENATE Tuesday, March 15, 2011 The Senate met at 1.30 p.m. PRAYERS

[MR. PRESIDENT in the Chair] LETTER OF SYMPATHY (JAPAN TRAGEDY) Mr. President: Hon. Senators, you will be aware of the tragedy that has occurred in Japan relative to the earthquake, the tsunami and now the question relating to their nuclear reactors. I propose, therefore, on behalf of this Senate to send a letter of sympathy to the Ambassador of Japan and the people of Japan. I propose, therefore, that in your name, such a letter be sent. Thank you. [Desk thumping] LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. President: Hon. Senators, I have granted leave of absence to Sen. The Hon. Vasant Bharath who is out of the country and to Sen. Helen Drayton. SENATORS’ APPOINTMENT Mr. President: Hon. Senators, I have received the following correspondence from His Excellency the President, Professor George Maxwell Richards, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D.: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By His Excellency Professor GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D., President and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. /s/ G. Richards President. TO: MR. RABINDRA MOONAN WHEREAS Senator the Honourable Vasant Vivekanand Bharath is incapable of performing his duties as a Senator by reason of his absence from Trinidad and Tobago: 398 Senators’ Appointment Tuesday March 15, 2011 [MR. PRESIDENT] NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as aforesaid, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 40(2)(c) and section 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you, RABINDRA MOONAN, to be temporarily a member of the Senate, with effect from 14th March, 2011 and continuing during the absence from Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator the Honourable Vasant Vivekanand Bharath. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago at the Office of the President, St. Ann’s, this 11th day of March, 2011.” “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By His Excellency Professor GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D., President and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. /s/ G. Richards President. TO: MRS. PARVATEE ANMOLSINGH-MAHABIR WHEREAS Senator Helen Drayton is incapable of performing her duties as a Senator by reason of illness: NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as aforesaid, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 40(2)(c) and section 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you, PARVATEE ANMOLSINGH-MAHABIR, to be temporarily a member of the Senate, with effect from 15th March, 2011 and continuing during the absence by reason of illness of the said Senator Helen Drayton. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago at the Office of the President, St. Ann’s, this 14th day of March, 2011.” OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Senators Rabindra Moonan and Parvatee Anmolsingh-Mahabir took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. 399 Anti Gang Bill and Bail (Amdt) Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT Anti-Gang Bill and Bail (Amdt.) Bill (Presentation) The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I wish to present the following report on behalf of the hon. Attorney General: Report of the Joint Select Committee established to consider and report on the Anti-Gang Bill, 2010 and the Bail (Amdt.) Bill, 2010.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Mr. President, before we commence, I humbly wish to inform the Senate that the Government is prepared to answer questions Nos. 26, 27, 28, and 29. The hon. Minister of Local Government is out of the jurisdiction. And also question Nos. 35 and 36, because of the creation of a new Ministry of Justice, these questions have been sent to the Ministry of Justice and the Minister is not here today. Mr. President, we are also in a position to answer question No. 40. Thank you very much. The following questions stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson: Arima Administration Facility (Details of) 34. Could the hon. Minister of Local Government indicate:

(i) the date for the commencement of construction of the Arima Municipal Building and or the Arima Administration Facility; (ii) the estimated cost of construction of the said facility; and (iii) the projected date of completion? Drug Related Offences (Before the Courts) 35. Could the hon. Minister of National Security indicate how many drug related offences are presently before the courts in Trinidad and Tobago? 400 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

Firearm Related Offences (Before the Courts) 36. Could the hon. Minister of National Security indicate how many firearm related offences are presently before the courts in Trinidad and Tobago? Questions, by leave, deferred. PH Cars (Insuring of) 26. Sen. Terrence Deyalsingh asked the hon. Minister of Works and Transport: Could the Minister state whether the Government of Trinidad and Tobago has consulted with the automotive insurance industry regarding the insuring of PH cars and what would be the required insurance coverage for the safety of passengers and drivers? 1.40p.m. The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): [Interruption] I thank my friend, Sen. Hinds for his information and kind advice. Mr. President, the first half of this question is simple and direct. A team from the Ministry of Works and Transport, led by the hon. Minister of Works and Transport, Mr. Jack Warner, met with representatives of the Association of Trinidad and Tobago Insurance Companies (ATTIC) led by Mr. Willard Harris, Vice-President of ATTIC, at the Ministry‟s head office on October 20, 2010, regarding insurance requirements associated with the regularization of “PH” taxis. However, the other part of the question is very complex. “…and what would be the required insurance coverage for the safety of passengers and drivers?” Mr. President, attorneys present will no doubt agree that we are dealing here with the law of insurance as it pertains to motor vehicle third-party risks. This Government intends to use this Parliament, not only to debate, but also to perform the other function, that is, to educate and inform the population. Third-party risk insurance is very important. No one should use a vehicle on the road without at least third-party insurance, because to do so would be using a vehicle on the road like a weapon without any indemnity. Therefore, the law views using vehicles on the road without at least third-party insurance as very serious. May I quote from the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) which says in section 3(1): 401 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

“Subject to this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use, or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle or licensed trailer on a public road unless there is in force in relation to the user of the motor vehicle or the licensed trailer by that person or that other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Act.” What it says is that the law is very serious, and the law is saying you cannot use a motor vehicle on the road without at least third-party insurance. The law is so serious in that it spells out the penalty for so doing. In section 3(2), it states: “If a person acts in contravention of this section, he is liable to a fine of five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for two years,…” [Interruption] Hold on. That is the question. The question goes into the law of insurance. You do not understand? No, it is a question that deals with the law of third-party insurance. What is happening is that you brought a question here and when we are trying to answer it, you do not want to hear the answer. I have not started with you as yet. I am just giving the details of the law. [Interruption] Sen. Hinds: It is not relevant. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: This is relevant. It seems as though you are not understanding and you are wilfully not understanding. “person convicted of an offence under this section shall…” be imprisoned for a period of two years and, “disqualified for…a period of three years.” So important is this law which you are speaking about in this question on third- party insurance. The hon. Senator asked: “…what would be the required insurance coverage for the safety of passengers…?” When you are myopic like my friend, Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds, he cannot, even if he wishes to see the bigger picture. Have you ever thought about somebody taking a PH car, licensing it to run PH and hiring somebody to work the car? Of course, that is a part of the question. That is implied in the question. We are talking about the user of insurance. I do not know how long you have been doing law, but I am certain that you would have looked at section 4A. Chap. 48:51 which says: 402 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. S. PANDAY] “Notwithstanding any other law, the owner of a motor vehicle licensed to ply for hire…” Listen to what we are doing. You are speaking here about PH plying for hire and this is the law as it stands not only where we have a taxi, but also we are now introducing the PH/P taxi and, therefore, this part of the law is relevant to the question, which I think the hon. Senator will appreciate. “Notwithstanding any other law the owner of a motor vehicle licensed to ply for hire…” That is where the P could work as H. “and insured under this Act is deemed to be the employer of any person…” Do you see what is happening? That is why the driver will be held liable and also the owner, because the driver becomes the employer of the owner of the vehicle and is liable if it is not insured. It says: “Notwithstanding any other law, the owner of a motor vehicle licensed to ply for hire and insured under this Act is deemed to be the employer of any person driving the motor vehicle at the time of an accident as a result of which a person has suffered death, bodily injury or damage to property unless it is shown that…the vehicle…” has been stolen. The question before the Senate is: “…what would be the required insurance coverage to deal with a situation like this?” That is what the question deals with; the safety—Sen. Hinds you are not listening—of passengers and drivers. This is third-party risk law. Why is it third party? I would like to explain to you if you so desire. The insured and the insurer come together as two parties and the insurer indemnifies the act of the insured who caused injury to a third party, and this is what the question is asking when you speak about insurance coverage for the safety of passengers and drivers. The law of insurance is very, very strict and as such we thought it is the duty of the Government to inform persons what is the situation when you use a PH car on the road without insurance. When you use a PH car on the road without insurance and give someone to drive, what are the consequences? The consequences are, if persons are “damaged”, the driver or passengers, as the case may be or any third party—the passenger will be a third party—any person whomsoever is “damaged” may [Sen. Hinds thumps desk] Mr. President, ignorance manifests itself in many forms. 403 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

This is what we are speaking about, third-party insurance, because I am certain you are not speaking about full comprehensive insurance. It seems to me you did not read the question. [Interruption] You may try to disturb me as much as you want, Sen. Hinds, I have done my homework and nothing that you say will disturb me. That is the law as it pertains to third-party insurance. The question is—you did not sleep last night, did you?—what would be the situation? This is an anomalous situation where you have hired cars and private cars working as taxis. There is a hue and cry which says that you should not have private cars working as hire. Indeed—I will ignore him. Therefore, the question is, is this the best thing that we should have? Should we really have PH drivers on the road? This Government has decided to permit P cars to work as taxis and that is not the best situation. We agree with that, because the same arguments which the taxi drivers are using, we are saying is not the best situation. But why have we found ourselves in that situation? We have found ourselves in that situation of licensing PH drivers because of the traffic situation in Trinidad and Tobago. As a matter of fact, the best case scenario would have been where we had a complete public transport system with buses, taxis and maxi-taxis. But, we have today, to give consideration to—[Interruption] Sen. Hinds: Mr. President, point of order, Standing Order18(2), which of course, while you look for it, allows you to rule as totally irrelevant supplemental questions that are not focused on the original question. It means that relevance and focus on the question are necessary. The Minister is in breach of that Standing Order. Mr. President: I take your point relative to the question of relevance. On the other hand, I do find that the answer is eminently relevant to the question that has been asked and I so rule. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think for the minimum edification of your knowledge, I may read the section of the question which I am answering: “…and what would be the required insurance coverage for the safety of passengers and drivers?” As I have said, this is not the best situation, but the reason we have to do this is because of the incompetence of the PNM. We should have had a complete bus service running through the country servicing the people. [Interruption] Sen. Hinds: Is that relevant to the question, Mr. President, again I ask? 404 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: But PNM is the cause of it! Mr. President: I assume that the Minister will be carrying on with his question. We do not want to go into those other avenues unrelated to the question. So far you have done very well. I think you have kept within the parameters of what falls within the question. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much, Mr. President. What is the reason for bringing PH drivers? What is the reason we would bring PH drivers and have insurance coverage for them? It is because the transport system is not properly developed. That is the reason we have to bring the PH. It is something new. It is something many people are against. We did not want to go this way but we have to go this way because of the corruption of the PNM and how they dealt with the PTSC. We never should have had to come with this idea of PH drivers. You do not want to hear the corruption of the PNM. You do not want to hear how you hired buses—for $400 an hour, [Interruption] you used them for $400 a day. Mr. President: Thank you, Sen. Hinds. We do not want to get into a debate. We are not allowed to permit a debate relative to the question. So we could proceed within the parameters of the question and, of course, if you have completed your answer, then let us know. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much. They are asking what the insurance coverage safety for passengers and drivers is. This PH situation creates an apparent danger if we do not put things in place and the reason we have to bring the PH. Mr. President, I need to tell you also what the Government is doing in order to deal with the issue of PH. We intend to get more buses on the road so that, at the end of the day, this question will be irrelevant to the transport system. That is the point. [Desk thumping] Sen. Hinds: Tell us about it. [Inaudible] since that is relevant! 1.55 p.m. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: That is a very wormish question for you! [Desk thumping] Mr. President, what did ATTIC say? ATTIC said that as long as the regulation process leads to the definition of PH—that is the point where I was going. So we have to define PH and this is where we are saying that we did not want to go there, to define PH, we wanted a safe public transport system, but the corruption of the PNM, PM, PTSC forced us into this direction. 405 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

Sen. Hinds: PM you said? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: PNM. Sen. Hinds: You said PM. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: PNM; oh the former PM, so the definition of PH in law, so it says, Mr. President— Sen. Hinds: Point of order, can I have an opportunity to contribute in this debate? Mr. President: It is not going to go into a debate, thank you, Sen. Hinds. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It says, ATTIC advised that as long as the regularization process leads to the definition of the PH in law—so it seems to me, that certain steps have to be taken to regularize the PH—it shall be possible for insurance coverage to be provided. Now, the Senator asked here, Mr. President, the required insurance coverage. Mr. President, you would know that although it is a statutory obligation to have insurance, it is a contract between the insured and the insurer. And it says, in answer to the question, however, each insurance company will assess for itself the risk involved in the PH trade, the premiums that should be applied and whether their company shall be willing to provide coverage for the class of vehicle. Now, it also says, Mr. President, where insurance is concerned, every vehicle to be used for private hire will be required to have the third-party insurance as a necessary minimum. And when I argued, well not I argued, when I spoke earlier, Mr. President, this was the point I was hoping to lead up to. ATTIC has also said that insurance companies have indicated that all private cars which are to be utilized as private hire, must be inspected by the Transport Division of the Ministry of Works and Transport to ensure the road worthiness prior to the issuing of the insurance. And the reason for that, Mr. President, is inherent in the same question which says: “…coverage for the safety of passengers and drivers.” And the hon. Sen. Deyalsingh asked the question: “…what would be the…insurance coverage…” and I told you it was third party. But you would have seen a third party insurance policy and it says that under normal circumstances when you take out third-party insurance, it is used only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes of the policy 406 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. S. PANDAY] holder. The policy does not cover use for hire, or reward, racing, competition, rally, pace-making, reliability trials and speed testing. So under the present circumstances, your insurance policy states that you cannot use it for hire. And what will happen is that when the time comes for the policy to be issued, when they pay the required premium, all they will have to do is to delete these sections. You asked in this question also about the required insurance coverage for the safety of passengers and drivers. In that question you have asked, you heard that PH drivers will be zoned, and the question you will want to ask is, what would be the safety of the drivers and passengers if the driver operates outside of the zone, will they be covered? My understanding of the law subject to Sen. Elton Prescott SC, is that once you have the contract which permits you to drive on any roads in the country, you will still be covered and the insurance company, then could sue the insurer for breach of policy. And as you know, Sen. Hinds, if you did insurance law, the policy must be voided before the claim is completed. I thank you very much, Mr. President. [Desk thumping] Sen. Deyalsingh: Mr. President, with your leave would you allow me to ask two very short supplemental questions? Mr. President: Supplemental questions? Sen. Deyalsingh: Very short. Thank you, Sen. Panday for your elucidation. If this regularization is so difficult and to use your exact words, “so anomalous”, why the legal hurdles were not looked at first before the public announcement by the hon. Minister of Works and Transport about PH cars being regularized? Secondly, the legislation that— Sen. Hinds: Let him answer that first. Sen. Deyalsingh: Yeah, okay sorry, I will let you answer that one. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: What you said, why that statement was made about the PH drivers before addressing the legal issues? As a matter of fact, we were driven to this position by the incompetence of the PNM, because the PTSC was in such a state, that people in rural districts like Mamoral could not have gotten transport; people in districts like New Grant; people in the district of Hindustan they were pressing us; they were begging and they were saying, look we cannot get buses, the PNM has destroyed the Public Service Transport Corporation to such a manner that buses are not passing, and as such we had to move forward with such speed to create this situation. We will indeed deal with the issue. [Desk thumping] 407 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

Sen. Deyalsingh: Your answer, notwithstanding, it would seem to me that good governance would demand less hyperbole and more looking at the laws before [Desk thumping] trotting out the usual hysteria. Second supplemental question; the new proposed legislation, is this part of the Government‟s legislative agenda and if not when can we expect it in this honourable House? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: This was a matter, as I said, which came to us from the public, and as such you have to first ask whether we need to solve it by regulations, whether it will be a negative regulation or affirmative and you can expect us to be coming with this as soon as possible. And as you ask the question about legislative agenda, you all have a habit of asking about our legislative agenda. We wish to answer the question, when it would come in the legislative agenda. [Interruption] But he asked about the legislative agenda, and I wish to answer—I am answering on the legislative agenda, it will find its place on the legislative agenda, but to indicate to you that we have a legislative agenda and I, today, could indicate to you that for the next 11 sittings, or 12 sittings of the House, we will be having the Anti-Gang Bill, we will be having the Children Bill, we will be having—pardon? We will be having the Anti-Gang Bill, we will be having the Human Trafficking Bill, we will be having the Private Security firms. So, I felt that since you asked about agenda, I thought I ought to take this opportunity to indicate what it was and to inform you, Sir, that we are a new Government which has come in and every week we work all day at the LRC to have these matters on the legislative agenda. As a matter of fact, for the last two months, every Wednesday we have been working on the Children Bill to bring that before the House, thank you. [Desk thumping] Sen. Deyalsingh: Final supplemental, Mr. President; the legislation to be brought to regularize PH drivers, was this part of the legislative agenda which you waved in Parliament some weeks ago and read about 20 Acts which nobody heard? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Since you did not hear, I will bring it back and read it for you some day, thank you. Sen. Hinds: Another supplemental question, for how long; for what period would the licences for these PH cars be given? The licences for these operators, private hired vehicles, how long would the licences be for? What would be the period for the licences? 408 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

2.05p.m. Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Ask that as a separate question and I will answer it. Mr. President: I think that is a fair answer. He could not have been prepared for that. Sen. Hinds: All right. Next supplemental. In your response, in your thesis on all matters [Interruption] you did mention that these vehicles would be inspected prior to their being licensed. What about after? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: I am surprised to hear a question like that from a lawyer, or a purported lawyer. If you have to inspect in order to get your insurance—an insurance lasts for one year—before renewal you have to inspect again. I am surprised that you will ask such a question having gone to law school. Sen. Hinds: Put aside all your cheekiness, I just asked, what about if it is for four years? You are missing the point. The other supplemental question: You did say, in passing, that you recognized that the policy of the Government to legalize what were illegal operators before is not the best thing. Will you tell this Parliament why you said it was not the best thing? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Mr. President, I said so because the Government wishes to have a public transport system with a very efficient Public Transport Service Corporation, with maxi-taxis and H taxis. However, the Government is not able to do that because of the condition in which it met the PTSC. It met the PTSC rife with corruption. The Government met the PTSC with only 200 buses working. The routes could not have been serviced. We found a situation where the PNM rented buses for $400 per day when they should have paid $400 per hour. This is the situation in which we found the PTSC and we are saying that if there was not so much PNM corruption we could have accessed those funds. This was the system we had envisaged, that is why I say it is not the best in the circumstances and the reason we have to do that is the corruption and incompetence of the PNM in the PTSC. Sen. Deyalsingh: Coming back to the issue of the PTSC and the buses, when the maxi-taxi operators along the East-West Corridor went on strike earlier, the hon. Minister of Works and Transport was effusive in his praise for the PTSC and its ability to put out 100 buses, which were acquired under the People‟s National 409 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

Movement. What has become of those 100 buses which so came to the rescue of Trinidad and Tobago; and what is the status of those red band maxi-taxis as far as their licences for next year are concerned after the hon. Minister of Works and Transport threatened to withdraw their permits because they went on strike? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: I will answer the second first and the first second. You asked what happened to the buses. I wish to refer to the Daily Express dated February 25, 2011: “Rural areas to benefit from new PTSC bus routes” So you see where the buses went. “At the launch of the service of the food court at the Piarco International Airport, PTSC chairman Devant Maharaj said 20 buses”—those are the buses you were talking about—“will be dedicated to these new routes. „When the board first assumed office we found ourselves with a fleet of 180- something buses operational out of a total fleet of approximately 400. Without purchasing a single bus to date, the implementing of a rigorous maintenance and repair programme, we have increased the number of operational buses on the roads of Trinidad and Tobago to approximately 325 to date,‟ Maharaj said.” You want to find out where the buses have gone. “‟So we can introduce new routes to areas that have been without service, without the purchase of a single bus.‟” We have gone to new routes without the purchase of a single bus. That is a government that is working; that is a prudent government; that is a competent government, contrary to the PNM. The expanded service from the PTSC is expected to impact positively on the lives of hundreds of travellers and reduce the traffic on the roads. You see where the buses went? “The Piarco to Port of Spain route will have 15 scheduled departures beginning 5.45 a.m. The reverse Port of Spain to Piarco route‟s departures will start at 6.30 a.m.” You see where the buses went? “Minister of Works and Transport, Jack Warner, said many of the outlying areas that will now be served have been forgotten for many years”— by the PNM—“and having access to the bus service will save”—those poor people— “money”. 410 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. S. PANDAY] You see where the buses went? [Desk thumping] “Warner said, „Normally, the cost from Talparo to Chaguanas is $40 and we have cut that down to $4 in one fell swoop.‟” That is where the buses went. I can go on and on and indicate to them some further information on how the buses are being used. As at today‟s date, I will tell you where the buses have gone. Today: Chaguanas to Mamoral: daily trips in both directions, eight, and we are carrying 264 extra passengers; Chaguanas/Charlieville/Munroe Road: 12 further trips in those same buses you asked about, 396 extra passengers; Chaguanas/Felicity: 12 extra trips, 396 extra passengers; Freeport/Chickland: 12 extra trips with those buses you asked about, 396 extra passengers. Those are poor people that we are transporting. Sangre Grande North/Manzanilla: those buses you asked where they are; 12 extra trips and we are carrying 396 extra passengers; Sangre Grande to Caratal and a place called Guatapajaro: eight extra trips, 265 persons; Couva/Esperanza/Railway Road: Sir, the 12 buses, 12 trips, 396 passengers; Phoenix Park/Couva: which never saw a bus before, 12 more trips, 396 passengers. We so care about our students, those buses that you want to know where they went, we put out 28 trips for the University of the West Indies, students from San Fernando to UWI. They want to know where the buses have gone. Hear where they have gone: The increase in daily trips and capacity offered on the San Fernando/Port of Spain route, as well as the introduction of three new bus services improved the daily trips operating from the San Fernando depot by 21 per cent while the daily capacity improved by 12 per cent. That is where the buses have gone. Port of Spain to Edinburgh 500, 26 daily trips, 858 persons we transport. Port of Spain to Chaguanas nonstop; those buses on those roads and we transport 392 passengers. 411 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

We did not forget the East/West Corridor. They are all our people. Port of Spain to Five Rivers, previously were 28 trips now we have gone to 32. We are transporting 2,016 to 2,304. We care for the people. Port of Spain to La Horquetta: We have gone from 12 trips to 20 for the poor people; from 540 passengers, we are transporting now 1,116; more than 100 per cent increase in passengers. In Maloney, those buses you are asking about, we have gone from 8 trips to 12 trips transporting from 360 to 648 passengers. [Desk thumping] We are still on the East-West Corridor servicing our people. From Port of Spain to Malabar, we have moved from eight trips to 12 trips; from 264 passengers to 396 passengers. From Port of Spain/Pinto Road/Santa Rosa, from eight trips to 16, from 264 to 528. Mr. President, I am certain that I have informed the Senators where all the buses have gone. Thank you very much. Mr. President: It is now quarter past. Sen. Hinds: One further supplemental, if you would permit me, Mr. President. The Minister spoke very long. Mr. President: We will allow you one supplemental, but you understand the Senator will— Sen. Hinds: Would the Minister tell us when the Government will be putting one more bus up to St. Ann‟s and put he and all his colleagues thereon? Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much, Mr. President, I am certain that after Sunday, after the convention, all of them will be in St. Ann‟s. [Loud laughter] EXPIRATION OF QUESTION TIME The following questions stood on the Order Paper: GATE Programme (Details of) 27. With respect to the Government Assistance for Tertiary Expenses (GATE) Programme, could the hon. Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education indicate to this Senate: 412 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

(i) what is Government‟s policy on GATE funding for both public and private tertiary institutions; and (ii) whether any new programmes have been approved for funding since June 2010 for both public and private institutions? [Sen. T. Deyalsingh] On-the-Job Training Programme (Details of) 28. With respect to the On-the-Job Training Programme, could the hon. Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education state: (i) what is the Government‟s policy in this regard; and (ii) what moneys have been allocated for this fiscal year towards the running of this programme? [Sen. T. Deyalsingh]

UTT, Bachelor of Science in Criminology (Details of) 29. With regard to the Bachelor of Science in Criminology programme offered by the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT), could the hon. Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education state: (i) what was the cost incurred in developing this degree programme inclusive of local and foreign accreditation fees, advertising, promotion, lecturer recruitment and training; (ii) what was the commencement date on this programme; (iii) the number of students enrolled in the programme; and (iv) the expected length of time for completion of the degree? [Sen. T. Deyalsingh]

National Physical Development Plan (NPDP) (Details of) 40. With reference to the requirement under the Town and Country Planning Act (Chap. 35.01) that a fresh survey of approved development plans is to be undertaken every five (5) years, and given that the last National Physical Development Plan (NPDP) was approved in 1984, could the hon. Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs indicate: 413 Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday March 15, 2011

(a) what arrangements are in place for the preparation of an updated NPDP; (b) when will a final document be submitted to the Parliament for its consideration; and (c) whether any consideration is being given to updating the legislation and institutional arrangements governing land use in the country? [Sen. Dr. J. Armstrong] Question time having expired, questions 27, 28, 29 and 40 were not dealt with. ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Mr. President, thank you very much. I beg to move that “Committee Business” be taken before the “Bills Second Reading” for today‟s proceedings. Agreed to. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT Parliamentary Accommodation (Adoption) The Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Mary King): Mr. President, I beg to move the following Motion standing in my name: Be it resolved that the Senate adopt the First Report of the Joint Select Committee appointed to consider and report to Parliament on essential guiding policies related to Member and staff accommodation during the restoration of the Red House Project. I will now read the Chairman‟s report. This Red House that we are now in is the home of Trinidad and Tobago‟s Parliament. Despite a very turbulent history, this listed monument, listed by the Organisation of American States (OAS) stands today as a symbol of the persistence and strength of our democracy, grounded in the heart of a nation and built with its sweat and tears. However, it urgently requires restoration and adaptation to modern use. This first report of the Joint Select Committee on accommodation 2010/2011 session, focuses on Member and staff accommodation during the intermittent restoration effort. However, it raises very serious concerns about the state of the 414 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M KING] building that has been battered and neglected for far too long and reports the committee‟s observation about the condition of the building and the spaces currently occupied by Members and by our parliamentary staff. 2.20 p.m. Mr. President, at its first meeting held on Friday, November 12, 2010, the committee elected the Minister of Trade, the hon. Stephen Cadiz as the Chairman. At that meeting, it was also agreed that a quorum would comprise five Members, to include one Member from the Government, one Member of the Opposition and at least one Independent Member. I would like to congratulate all members of the committee—of which I was one—on the work done and to also thank the Parliament staff, Ms. Keiba Jacob, particularly, Procedural Clerk Assistant, (House of Representatives) and Ms. Chantal La Roche the Legal Officer as Assistant Secretary to the Committee. Mr. President, the Red House was originally designed and built as the courthouse and the legislative building and was completed in the 1840s. Following the devastating fire during the water riots of 1903, the Government enlarged the building making it more monumental in the process. Over the ensuing decades, the Red House was adapted to also house numerous Ministries of the Executive branch of State. However, within the last nine years, only the Parliament has actually occupied this space. In the course of time, the physical structure of the Red House has deteriorated and today desperately needs restoration. Such works became more critical due to the damage which was caused by the attempted coup in 1990. Mr. President, over the years, incomplete planning and the execution of ad hoc renovations have resulted in many problems with the building, which include:  random modifications of the original design,  some ad hoc renovation and haphazard appearance of the red house,  loss of the building's historical features,  the use of unsuitable donor replacement materials, and  inappropriate design/location of services. Mr. President, this inadequate maintenance of the building has resulted in problems, including: 415 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011

 an increase in the number and the severity of roof leaks,  inadequacy of services and space to fill all the users‟ requirements,  deterioration of the building‟s structural and architectural elements, and  we now have insect infestation in many neglected areas. Despite this, Mr. President, the Red House and the adjacent Woodford Square provide a constant reminder to Members of Parliament as well as the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago of the responsibility vested in our system of democratic governance and in those elected to office. It followed, therefore, Mr. President, that for quite a while now it was acknowledged that the Red House requires urgent restoration. In a recent decision, this Cabinet has agreed that the Red House should be restored and dedicated to the sole use of the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. President, the committee met three times. During its last meeting held on Friday, February 4, 2011, the committee undertook a comprehensive tour of the Red House. The committee took careful note of the state of the Red House and the conditions under which our staff are required to work in this building. Mr. President, the main objective of the Parliament‟s administrative staff is to enable the Houses and their Members to carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. The duties of the 240 permanent, contracted and seasonal employees of this Parliament are quite varied and they take great pride in their work and for that we must congratulate them. Both Houses offer unusual hours, more so the House of Representatives, but due to the high regard that the staff has for the Parliament as an institution and their strongly developed sense of public service, there has been even an emphasis on completing work to the highest standard, on time and regardless of formal office hours, Mr. President. During that tour that the committee took of the Red House, the committee recognized that the space currently allocated for parliamentary staff in this building is untenable, as is the space available for the legitimate use of Members. Additionally, members of the committee observed a number of serious health, safety and emergency issues. Mr.President, the committee determined three options: Option 1: This proposal would require the restoration effort to be broken into phases while the Parliament continues to occupy the building. This would have 416 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M KING] meant, however, that we would have occupied the building whilst work was going on, which would have made life very, very difficult, especially for the parliamentary staff. Option 2: The committee also considered the possibility of the relocation of the entire Parliament to another building in order to enable the unimpeded progress of the restoration effort. The third option we considered, Mr. President, was a partial relocation. The partial relocation was considered by the committee, but however, that would have created future problems with the Chambers being used and then the parliament staff being in another building which was really and truly not at all practical. The recommendations, Mr. President, of this committee: The committee felt that the time was long past for the unhindered restoration of this very important and historic building, and recommends the early commencement of works in this regard. There was unanimous agreement that all efforts should be taken to ensure that the Red House restoration project is completed within the absolute shortest possible time. The committee recognized and acknowledged that restoration efforts are fraught with uncertainties, and given the present condition of this Red House, there will be tremendous costs associated with the project. It is against this background that the committee recommends that all necessary steps should be taken to minimize costs and, therefore, option 2 was the preferred option by your committee, which is the relocation of the entire Parliament, including the parliamentary staff. The committee believes that this option would allow a faster, more efficient and a cost-effective completion of the restoration project.

Moreover, Mr. President, the committee is very much concerned about the present condition of the building as well as the safety of our Members and staff during the restoration effort which will be commencing soon and, therefore, recommends strongly, that both Houses of Parliament be temporarily relocated to a safe and healthy environment as a matter of utmost urgency.

Mr. President, there was one dissenting view, presented by Dr. James Armstrong, who actually supported the complete renovation of the building, but suggested that the building be put to an alternative use. As I said, the Cabinet has already agreed that this will remain the seat of Parliament in this country. 417 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011

In conclusion, the report has the following main recommendations: all efforts should be made to ensure that the Red House restoration project is completed within the shortest possible time; that there should be a complete evacuation of the building during the restoration exercise; and that the appropriate accommodation should be identified and suitably outfitted for Parliament purposes during the restoration project. Mr. President, I beg to move. [Desk thumping] Question proposed. 2.30 p.m. Sen. Faris Al-Rawi: Mr. President, I am pleased to join in this debate, and on a very unique occasion of being able to state at the outset that the Opposition fully supports the recommendation of the committee before the honourable Senate. Mr. President, I would think that today is an auspicious occasion, because we are discussing the measures to preserve an historical treasure of Trinidad and Tobago, and what more fitting time to discuss preserving a treasure when one reflects upon who that treasure is to be preserved for. Mr. President, I speak to the youth of the nation. On that basis, I am warmed to notice in our audience in the public gallery, a bevy of very young, beautiful students, our visiting students from—I did not quite catch the school yet, because their uniforms are too far away from me. I wish, through you, Mr. President, to state that we warmly welcome their presence in this House [Desk thumping] and that the short Motion before the Senate at this point is really in their interest. For all that we know, we may very well have many young parliamentarians sitting amongst us in days to come. Mr. President, in supporting this Motion, I note that there is unanimity in purpose and that this was definitely a non-partisan effort. The unanimity in purpose is essentially driven around, I think, a complete desire to increase the efficiencies in Parliament, for the very restoration project that we speak of drives to the heart of previous debates in this Senate as we relate it to the efficiency of Parliament in itself. I wish on behalf of the Senators that populate the Opposition Benches to express our admiration and pride in the parliamentary staff that have operated in this building. [Desk thumping] Mr. President, not only was the committee very 418 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] ably assisted by excellent persons that populated, including Jacqui Sampson, who is the Clerk of the House, members of the Clerk of the Senate‟s team as well, but we were also ably assisted by every member who took the time in the tour that the committee undertook to explain the use and operation of the building as it is currently constituted. Mr. President, I note also with pleasure that the nation is ably assisted by the investments into capital infrastructure that the country as a whole has expended over the last 10 years, because the task of the committee was made somewhat easier by the fact that there is ready accommodation available for the move that Parliament intends to make in adopting the second recommendation which your committee has proposed for consideration by this Senate. Mr. President, I wish at this moment to reflect upon the tragedy that has occurred elsewhere in the world, and to extend on behalf of all Senators present, through you, our sincere hope for wellness to the people of Japan. We have witnessed, as a global community, the effects that the earth can have upon its inhabitants. They were stricken not only by the terrible tremors of an earthquake, but also by a tsunami, and by the devastating effects that are unfolding in relation to infrastructure as it prevails on energy. I speak specifically about their nuclear plant which is used for their energy production and which is in some difficulty right now. I raised that in the course of this short debate in noting that we do have a golden opportunity, as a nation, in seeking to renovate this Parliament back to its stated desire—I would not say original purpose, because we do not intend on refitting courts here—but I wish to take avail of the opportunity of noting that in preserving this historical building, this listed monument, we must pay careful attention to the vagaries and the vicissitudes of nature, and that is we should look specifically to the engineering purposes of the building and its suitability to withstand natural disasters. Mr. President, I do not propose to be much longer, save to say that the work of this committee has been an excellent job. There was unanimity of purpose in summary; there is unanimity in direction and the Opposition strongly supports the very noble recommendations of the committee as a whole. With those very few words, I thank you. [Desk thumping] Sen. Dr. James Armstrong: Mr. President, thank you. As indicated by Sen. King, I have actually signed on to this report but, as also indicated, I was very much opposed to the approach that was actually adopted, and I think that since 419 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 these meetings, I have been misquoted in a number of places and I think I would like to first clarify my position. I have also learnt from marriage, that if you cannot win the opposition then you join so that was, in fact, my position and I do support the Motion. However, I felt that the decision that was taken really to retain the building itself as the seat of Parliament should have been part of the terms of reference. In other words whether, in fact, the building is suitable to accommodate a modern Parliament, and not to make that decision as a policy decision and then say, “Okay, you now determine whether you can accommodate the Parliament while the renovation is taking place.” Mr. President, I also felt that Port of Spain is a very dysfunctional city. It has been developed in recent years by “vaps”; “Do this here, do that there.” I felt that it was an opportunity really for us to look at the city and to see whether, in fact, this building could play a more significant and catalytic role in the development of the city. Having arrived at some sort of compromise and having agreed to support the Motion, what I would like to emphasize is that every care be taken not to deface this building by trying to force into it a function or functions that may not be appropriate. Some suggestions have been made that any functions that are required that cannot fit into this space could be out-posted, could be put elsewhere. That is fine, if it is found to be efficient and cost-effective and we want to go that route then fine, as long as we ensure that what we are doing with this building is securing the integrity of the design, of the structure and to also ensuring that—Sen. Al-Rawi mentioned a while ago and recognized the students that were here, and I want to see students traversing this building every day. It is an iconic building. I would like to see buses—not once in a while—with students coming here; let this building be open to the public every day. It was with that in mind that I thought, perhaps, a museum of the Parliament; a museum of ourselves would have been more appropriate. Right! The other matter has to do with cost. I was looking at the Sunday Guardian dated March 13, 2011, and it mentioned in an article there that the original estimate for the renovation of this building was $80 million and that, in fact, we had already spent something like $200 million, and you see what we got for that. We have scaffolding and so on outside, and I do not think that we have made significant progress. The estimates that are being given to complete this 420 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. ARMSTRONG] renovation are that we should spend another $200 million. Minister Cadiz, in responding to a query, indicated that it might even be more than that, which means that by the time we are finished it could be in excess of half a billion or maybe a lot more than that. So, the other thing that I would like to urge us to do is that if they are going to be spending this type of money, which is a significant amount of money—it is not a small amount of money—is that we also give recognition to the fact that we try to utilize the professional expertise that we have in this country. [Desk thumping] I am talking about our architects—we do have expertise in this area; our engineers and all the technical consultants that would be required to work on a project of this type. I am urging that we think about engaging our contractors. Only yesterday or the day before, I listened to the President of the Contractors Association indicating that the construction industry is actually functioning only at about 25 per cent of capacity. As we restart these projects and bring new projects on stream and plan to spend this type of money, I am urging, I am begging and I am pleading that we recognize the technical expertise that we have in this country, and that we give consideration to jump-starting the construction sector and bringing a lot of people back in to work. Therefore, as I have said on occasions in this Chamber, the issue for me will not be about local content, but that it would have to be about foreign content to complement that which we do not have, and which we should determine that we need to have that expertise in order to carry out—whether it is the restoration of this building and we need specialized services, then we will determine the question of external assistance or foreign content. Very often, we tend to go for foreign expertise, and then debate the need to try to quantify what local content should be. I want to urge that should not happen on this occasion. We should also use this project, if we have to bring in external expertise, to build up our own expertise in areas where we find that it might be deficient, so that in due course we can move comfortably from the renovation of this building to the renovation of all those buildings that we have around the Savannah, to the renovation of the President‟s House and a number of buildings that we have in this country. So, let us start with this—that is my compromised position—and do the best that we can on it and, at the same time, develop expertise where we feel that we need it. So if you are coming in here to do something, you must transfer knowledge and technology and the expertise that we do not have. 421 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011

One other point that I want to make has to do with procurement procedures. I know that is a matter that is also before another joint select committee. As I said, we are talking about a vast amount of money. In reviewing some of the information on this, I noticed that the famous UDeCott was actually in charge and a number of contractors were engaged. 2.45 p.m. I want to also urge, Mr. President, that we use this and a number of other projects that we have been talking about that are in the pipeline, to begin to streamline our procurement procedures, to make them more transparent, to give local companies, contractors and so on, a fair chance, and this can be done, Mr. President, if we, from up front, are very transparent in terms of what we are going to do, what we need to do it and invite locals to participate in that process. In concluding, Mr. President, the only other thing that I want to mention is that when we conclude this exercise and we return from the building where we are supposed to be relocated, that we still look at some of the things that I am very concerned about in the city of Port of Spain. This city is the window to the world for us. The Mayor is now struggling really, talking about vendors, an evacuation plan, parking, flooding, transportation, and therefore my request is that we look at these things in an integrated manner, in totality of what a city is and how a city should really function. I thank you, Mr. President. The Minister of Public Administration (Sen. The Hon. Rudrawatee Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam): Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to join this debate to support the Motion moved by my colleague, Sen. the Hon. Mary King, Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs. Mr. President, now is really not the time to detail the utter failures of the previous administration to restore this historic building, listed by the Organisation of American States (OAS), as such. Regardless of the use for which it was intended, whether the location of future office of the Prime Minister of the day or for the Parliament of this Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, what is critical here, Mr. President, is to condemn the failure of the last administration to restore this historic site. I think that is one of the major issues at hand. Mr. President, this non-action―which is also an action, is reflective of the psyche of a group of persons in not understanding the importance of the history of a people, the history of our people. Those of us who ignore our history and treat it flippantly, are doomed to be like a ship sailing aimlessly without any port of destination. It is extremely important that we understand the importance of our history. 422 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. NAN GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] This building that we are currently sitting and standing in really represents the foundation of the history of Trinidad and Tobago and I think we have to place on record that we just cannot treat our history like this. I hope from now on we will think about our history in a real and positive way. Any citizen of this country, who has a sense of pride, would deplore the legacy inherited given the condition of this Red House. “A cow pen” covering the seat of our Parliament―these are not my words, Mr. President, let us get it right, not my words, Mr. President, but your own words, as reported in the media. Mr. President, I also take the opportunity that we must not forget to put in this mix, the President‟s House, that collapsed about a year ago, another shameful and disgraceful sight to behold, both in terms of not how we treat our history and artifacts alone, but the respect we confer on our leaders, a leader who occupies the highest position of this land. I am not sure whether the President, our current President, has ever occupied that building or whether it is being used as an office. And therefore, Mr. President, it is critical to understand―and I give this background for us to understand―the importance of treating with this building with a great sense of urgency. Mr. President, I was a member of this Joint Select Committee which considered this matter, in fact, I think it is necessary to re-emphasize for the record and let the Hansard reflect this, that the policy of this Government, our Government, the People‟s Partnership Government, as stated by the hon. Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, is that the Red House will remain the seat of Parliament of this Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. It is a fait accompli; it is a decision. In pursuance of this policy, Mr. President, Cabinet has agreed as early as July 2010, that a committee of key stakeholders be convened. This committee was chaired, as we know, by the hon. Speaker of the House. Representatives comprised persons and stakeholders in this project and they include representatives from the Parliament itself, representatives from the Office of the Prime Minister, representatives from the Ministry of Public Administration, representatives from the Ministry of Finance, representatives from the Ministry of Works and Transport, and representatives from the Ministry of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs. Mr. President. These ministries were mainly represented by their Permanent Secretaries and senior technocrats. 423 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011

A full consideration of this committee was given to the previous policy option for the continuation of the restoration and adaptive reuse of the Red House, including its financing, monitoring and project management strategies and the best strategy for achieving this goal. So, Mr. President, we see here, that a committee was appointed, a committee that deliberated over a long time, a committee that took care in determining some options, or providing us with some options, to determine which is the best among the options given to us. So, Mr. President, this report of the work of this Joint Select Committee, cannot be viewed in isolation, but as part of a total effort of this Government to deal expeditiously with a problem that was thrust upon us when we assumed office. So, you know, it is like what has happened with Japan. Poor Japan; I mean we really empathize with our people there but it is having a State like that and you have to come now and clean, just clean. Well we are about to clean, Mr. President. Mr. President, I agree with and support the recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee. Having said that, I have to advise this Senate that I dissent from the dissenting view on the use of the Red House, in the seat of Parliament as expressed by my dear colleague, who I really respect as a great planner, a distinguished planner, for whom I have the greatest respect, our Independent Senator who just spoke. 2.55 p.m. The view expressed by Sen. Dr. Armstrong was well stated and reasoned. However, the premise on which this view was taken from my perspective, from our perspective is a little bit ill-founded. Sen. Dr. Armstrong is now requesting that some reconsideration of the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee be amended to include the actual suitability of the building and the site for the accommodation of the modern Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. I would have been very happy when our Independent Senator spoke just now, if he would have been able to articulate in some way what the characteristics of a modern Parliament are. So hanging in the air, through you, Mr. President, I am not sure what our goodly Senator meant by a modern Parliament. I know modern could be equated with contemporary, a contemporary Parliament, but then, what do we mean? This is a moot point since there has already been a determination by the Government that the Parliament, the Red House, is to remain the seat of Parliament. So it is a matter of discussing how we go about preparing the Red House to be the seat of Parliament. 424 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. NAN GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] The Senator also relies on the view that form follows function and I totally agree, one hundred per cent, with Sen. Dr. Armstrong on that. We all know that form walks behind function. We determine what functions the Parliament engages in and then the functions are going to determine the type of jobs and the number of persons and then that is going to determine the structure, the form; I totally agree. This Government agrees with that statement. The Parliament did give us their needs. I recall in the meeting we had Members of the Parliament who represented the Parliament, and they spoke to their needs and I am pretty sure, Mr. President, that those of us who took a tour of the Parliament some weeks ago, I think we recognized if not, almost a half, at least a third of the Red House, is not in use; the south wing, Mr. President, totally dilapidated, no one is there. And this is why when we took the tour we realized that staff really had to be cramped. So those staff whose offices were on that side now had to come and share space with employees probably in the middle and on the northern wing. At this point in time the entire Red House is not occupied and therefore, after we do our retrofitting renovation and I am pretty sure we will be able to spread ourselves again and be a little more comfortable. However, it is also misguided to believe that consideration of the needs of a modern Parliament has not been taken on board in determining the way forward. And when I say modern here, what we term to be modern, the use of technology to support our functions in the Parliament. Those issues probably ensuring that your building is air-conditioned and so on. When the Red House was constructed those things were not in place, the way we do business, the way we set our work stations, the way we move on the processing line, in keeping with contemporary human resource management practices. So, from that angle that is the way we are seeing it. The Senator spoke to the issue of a parliamentary museum. Well, I would like to assure our goodly Senator that a parliamentary museum has been considered and agreed in principle even before the advent of this administration, long before we came into office. With respect to his proposal for a helipad, I wish to also advise our Senator that a helipad is already available atop the Police Headquarters building just one block away. For those of us who do not know, we do have a helipad there. Mr. President, our Joint Select Committee toured the Red House before compiling this report, so we got first-hand information of what we should do and what we should not do. So yes, it is quite clear that the present conditions are cramped and we empathize with our staff; we know the conditions under which 425 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 you work, we walked and we saw you, very committed, one hundred per cent, in very, very difficult circumstances and we really empathize with you. Thank you so much for continuing to work so hard under these conditions. [Desk thumping] And quite possible we may be even violating OSHA; who knows? But what is also clear is that a lot of space remains unutilized in the Red House especially the southern wing. Those of us who have not seen the southern wing I invite you when you get some time to go and take a look. I am pretty sure you will run as fast as you entered. We believe that if this building is fully restored, Mr. President, there will be sufficient space available for the needs of our Parliament for the foreseeable future, that is the future that we can see. If in fact it becomes necessary to have additional space in the Parliament and for parliamentary services, which do not necessarily have to be housed within the Red House building, I have no doubt that mature consideration will then be given to acquiring and occupying buildings adjacent to the Red House for use by the Parliament. We are already surrounded by government buildings. So, this Government, Mr. President, our Government, the People‟s Partnership Government, must not allow itself to be paralyzed by the fatal disease that we all know—how do we call it Senator, analysis paralysis? Yes, analysis paralysis, it is time for action. We believe that because of the historicity of this building and the multicultural composition of the population this structure must remain the seat of Parliament and as a contribution to the recognition of the development of our parliamentary experiences dating back to our pre-independence era. Mr. President, our Government has no doubt that in pursuing this goal, the Red House restoration project, it will be the nucleus for the total redevelopment of Port of Spain, the city, and I believe I heard Sen. Dr. Armstrong point to fact that Port of Spain is a very dysfunctional city. Mr. President, our learned planner knows very well that Port of Spain was developed organically based on the needs of the city and the port but we must fix this train while it is in motion. So, while we fix the Red House, we also have to fix the city and that is when we speak about taking a systems approach to development, while we fix one part, we have to be concerned about the other parts as well and see how we can juxtapose one with the other so that they can come into harmony to bring about a city, the contemporary, and modern city that we are talking about. So the restoration of the Red House to house the Parliament can also help us to achieve that broader objective. 426 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. NAN GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] 3.05 p.m. I have no doubt that in pursuing this goal, the Red House restoration project is going to be the nucleus, as I said, of the city of Port of Spain. As such, Mr. President, we have no choice but to respectfully accept the recommendations of the report of the committee and to move very swiftly in restoring the Red House to the stature we would like it to be and to function in the way the Government has already determined that it should function. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Sen. Basharat Ali: Thank you very much, Mr. President. [Desk thumping] I intend to make a very brief intervention on the subject and to say beforehand that I am in full support of the report of the Joint Select Committee from the point of view of what they see as this step. Mr. President, I have always looked at this building as a heritage building. I passed from my school days going up Frederick Street and have always looked across here at the Red House. If I give some dates that is from 1945 to 1951; those were my days at St. Mary‟s College. I was always walking from the railway station all the way to the top and towering over all of this was this building. So even from that time there was a certain sentimental attachment to this building. But the bigger sentimental attachment to the Red House and its surrounds occurred a little later on, and that would be on August 22, 1958. I remember that date well because that was the date I underwent a civil marriage in the Red House. I believe the Registrar General‟s Office was in the Red House at that time. In fact, I did get married in a mosque—the Jinnah Memorial Mosque—which also looks like a heritage building in St. Joseph, two days after on August 24th. So our marriage has withstood the test of time—52½-plus years—just like the Red House has withstood the test of time. This building as I say, to me is a heritage building and has to remain that way. We have squandered away a number of them already and this one, I think, is one to be restored to all its glory. My connection with this Red House does not end there, because in the 70s when I joined the public service as a contract officer I came here quite often, not this Chamber, but I think the other Chamber, because I was a consultant to the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries and I sat through many debates on policies with respect to energy, et cetera, in this building. Then the final stint here is from, as I said, quite recently, from June 2003 to present as a Temporary Senator and then as a full-fledged Independent Senator. So my heart is in this building and I have always supported any effort. I 427 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 did not sign, as you may know, in the period around 2004 when there was a petition going around for the Red House to be retained as the seat of Parliament. In fact, it was a dangerous thing for a public servant to sign it, because if a public servant signed that, because of the then administration, they were blacklisted. I know that for a fact, and I even spoke in June of 2004 in a debate about a person at that time who was on retirement and could not get anything worthwhile to do, all because of the fact that that person chose to sign the form saying the Red House should be retained. I am strongly in favour of this Red House remaining the seat of Parliament, now that it is the only activity that really takes place here. But, Mr. President, in going through the documentation, there is a lot of talk of restoration, but I have one serious concern and that is with respect to the integrity of this building. There is mention of it in this report under Item 16 on page 14 and it says: “Seismic studies by CEP”—I think that is Consulting Engineering Partnership Limited— “confirmed the need for seismic reinforcement of the building.” I have very serious concern about that state, because being an engineer myself, I am aware that standards have been developed for engineering codes, and very strict ones too, with respect to earthquakes. I remember, I think it is the Caribbean Council of Engineering Organizations, (CCEO), had very, very stringent recommendations at the time—it may be even law now in certain other countries—for Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean to have, what is called, a Zone IV code for earthquakes. That is about the most severe code. It is a code, for example, on the west coast of the United States for buildings. In many of our process plants—I have worked on that side of it—we have insisted that the highest code be put there to avoid catastrophes, and we are seeing it now, Mr. President. First of all, from the point of view of older buildings, I noted when the New Zealand earthquake took place there were two categories of buildings that fell down, strange enough, the tall buildings and the churches. The churches, of course, are buildings which have been there for a long time and do not have, probably, that seismic strength in their foundation, et cetera. That stuck with me and last night I went to Google and looked at it and there it was, information about the churches in New Zealand, and when I looked at the television on this particular activity there in Japan— a very unfortunate thing. Japan is a beautiful country. I have been there many times and I have done one project there, and as one colleague was saying the discipline that is there is inherent in those people and they do it for everything. Therefore, when a catastrophe like that happens it must be extraordinary when they cannot really cope with all of it. 428 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. ALI] So that is what bothers me only about this building, how much integrity is there in the foundation of this building. I tried to get this report which was cited here but I have not seen it, so I cannot comment on it. But I know the engineering organizations here have always been very concerned about it. I certainly was concerned about it when I built my home in Haleland Park. My home has been built on Zone IV codes, because as an engineer they advised me to do so. So I would have liked to see this CEP report. I did try to get it today because today was the first time that we were going to do this and it is not available around the Parliament in any of the offices. So that is the only thing that I looked at and said that we have to be careful, because when you look at what earthquakes can do—and they do not come with warning. I have been listening to the people at our Seismic Research Unit and they keep telling us that we are in an active earthquake zone and sooner or later we are going to get a big hit. Listen to the head of the Seismic Research Unit anytime and they would say that. They do not know when, but when it happens it is quite possible that it is going to be big. So I want to be assured that in restoration we do not only look at the externals but that we go and do the foundation. I have not established, in fact, whether it is feasible to have the foundations necessary to make sure that this building will stay standing in anything, in, say, an earthquake of 6.0 on the Richter scale as such. We hope we never get an 8.9, but if we do—you cannot design for everything. This is my view on it. I would hope that all of this takes place in a very timely manner, and of course, we would have to start looking at a budget, because that budget should have the question of the restoration of the structural integrity of this building as one of the prime factors. If you do not have that, then I am afraid that we are running the risk of having a collapsing building as we have seen even with the best of engineering techniques. So that is one item which I think when we do terms of reference for a consultant and a contractor for this project that we would have to pay very close attention to. As I say, we even have to look at the feasibility, because if they say feasibility means you can do it in an economic way, it does not mean that it cannot be done, but economics come into the picture then. This is as much as I would like to say. I would like to see us get going very, very soon and if we are to move I think that is the best approach of the options chosen. If we are to move then we must do so in a very timely manner and we must get going on the restoration and it can then be going in parallel, everything 429 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 can be going in parallel. I wish that I would live to see the day when this building would be a heritage building, not only an OAS monument, a heritage building and a building which is serving the democracy of our country. Thank you very much. The Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Mary King): Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank Senators Faris Al-Rawi, Dr. Armstrong, Ali, and of course, the Minister of Public Administration for their valuable inputs and suggestions as to going forward with the restoration of this historic building. Sen. Ali, I think your point has been very well taken and it has already been recorded that in the original design which was done some years ago for the restoration, before the design for a Prime Minister‟s office, the original design, there was already an indication that there was a need for a seismic assessment of the building and that is certainly on the cards and part of the discussion that is ongoing. There is a committee established by the hon. Speaker and a council of Ministers, as the Minister of Public Administration alluded to. I want to also mention that, yes, there was an original cost, Sen. Dr. Armstrong, of TT $80 million. The fact that we have already spent TT $200 million with very little effective results just indicates again the wastage and the lack of oversight and accountability that occurred during the last four years or five years in this restoration project. Of course, that is not the only project where we have seen such cost overruns and lack of accountability and very little to show for it all. So we do note that going forward there is a need for proper procurement which obviously is one of the standards by which this Government has already stated: that all projects would have proper tendering processes, proper procurement with proper accountability and oversight so that we can effectively manage funds and that there would be no wastage; that we can ensure value for money which is one of the hallmarks of this Government. [Desk thumping] I also need to thank, Dr. Armstrong for his review of his position and that he agrees that this is the best option given that we want this building to be the established State and seat of the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. As a public building I agree also that this should be a place where the public could visit at anytime, of course within normal working hours and there should be encouragement for all schools to be able to visit. The museum aspect that we have talked about is in the making, and therefore they would not visit only the current seat but they would look back in history and see what went on here, who was here and what their work has been. So I think that is certainly well taken care of. 430 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M. KING] 3.20 p.m. Now, it has also been recorded that the estimate going forward could be more than $200 million. As a matter of fact, the estimate going forward is a little more than that. The committee has actually asked for a review of that situation, and also to ensure that the work will be commenced as soon as possible, which is now, and that we will be back in this House within two years. So, I think that is a very positive statement and a strategic plan, which will be monitored, so that we ensure that the work is done as quickly as possible and that we are back in this House within two years. [Desk thumping] This Government has very clearly stated that it is our mandate and our responsibility to ensure that we use local expertise where it exists. So that point, Dr. Armstrong, we know, we have recorded it ourselves, we have put it into all our working plans, and it will be only where there is a case that we do not have the local expertise, that we will have to then employ a foreign expert. Of course, we will put in place the processes so that there will be people working alongside the foreign experts, so that we do have the required transfer of technology and the next time around we will be able to do it totally locally. That is our plan, Mr. President. I think we have already talked about the procurement process and value for money. But talking about the length of time of this renovation—since it started to now—I recall very vividly, when I was on a Public Account (Enterprises) Committee in this House, when we called before us the UDeCoTT Board and Management and we asked Mr. Calder Hart to explain exactly why this process of restoration was taking so long. His response to us then, was that he needed to find the expertise because it was not available locally and we told him “utter rubbish”. But, of course, nothing happened until now. But that was the excuse at that time, that was their plan that they would bring in foreign expertise to be able to effectively restore the Red House, and we know we do not need to do that. We know our local talent. We know we are very capable of having most of the restoration done, we know our talent here. We have been talking about using local experts possibly for the last 10, 12 years. [Interruption] Local experts, yes. We know our talent, I said, we know. So that will not happen under this plan to restore the Red House. I think we all are appalled, Mr. President, that the house of our President of the Republic collapsed. I do not think that we want to dwell on that but it was sad to watch it collapse, whilst a Prime Minister was building his palace. [Desk thumping] That is utter, utter, utter disrespect— 431 JSC Parliamentary Accommodation Tuesday March 15, 2011

Sen. Panday: Utter disrespect! Sen. The Hon. M. K. King:—for the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. We are ashamed, but we have also decided we have to move on, we have to get on with going back now to also restore President‟s House as well as the neglected Magnificent Seven. You are all aware of the state of the neglected Magnificent Seven. But the days of neglect, Mr. President, are over. We are here, to—and we will, Mr. President,—serve the people and I want to ensure the Minister of Public Administration, that when we move back into this Red House in 2013, we will have a modern, intelligent building. [Desk thumping] That is what we mean by getting into the age of the 21st Century and what Dr. Armstrong mentioned, getting into the age of modernity, and intellectual buildings are the way to go. Not only the cabling and whatever for the computers and the Internet, but also the solar, the heating, the cooling. We are intent on being able to get those aspects of modernity into our buildings going forward, Mr. President. So with those few words, I beg to move. [Desk thumping] Question put and agreed to. Report adopted. ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Mr. President, I humbly seek leave of the Senate to revert to an earlier agenda item, namely, No. 11, Statement by Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries in order for the hon. Minister of Health to make a statement. Agreed to. STATEMENT BY MINISTER Nation’s Health Care System (Update of) The Minister of Health (Sen. The Hon. Therese. Baptiste-Cornelis): Mr. President, I wish to provide this honourable Senate this afternoon with an update of the nation‟s health care system. The People‟s Partnership Government—which I am very proud to be part of—remains committed to providing high quality health care to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. In fact, Mr. President, we are making significant strides in this area. 432 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. T. BAPTISTE-CORNELIS]

This weekend, on Sunday exactly, ANSA McAL UWI survey was published in one of our nation‟s leading newspapers, at which point we saw that 68 per cent of the respondents gave an approval to this Government‟s management of the health care system. [Desk thumping] This 68 per cent approval ranged from fair to excellent. Yes, Mr. President, our Government has managed to achieve an excellent rating by some of our nation‟s respondents. Mr. President, I took up the role of Minister of Health about nine-and-half months ago, and as I said today at another press conference: “The baby has been born and the baby will grow to fruition.” With a sense of urgency—which was sometimes mistaken by others—to combat the myriad of issues that was left for me to fix by the former administration, the People‟s Partnership identified two immediate objectives for our first 120 days. One of these was to look at the immediate challenges of each hospital and act immediately to see what was needed and to establish the $100 million Life Fund for the life-saving surgery for children to be administered by an independent board. Mr. President, within three months of being in office we had achieved the objectives of the 120-day plan. The immediate challenges of all hospitals were examined, and a Quick Wins Plan for infrastructural improvement was developed and executed by all Regional Health Authorities. We the Ministry of Health beat the 120-day deadline and within three months we had more beds available at all Regional Health Authorities, more incubators “procude”, and more sterilization units fixed. The Policy for the Life Fund was developed, legislation was drafted and the Children‟s Life Fund Act, No. 12 of 2010, Sen. Hinds, was passed in the Parliament. [Interruption] Sen. Hinds: Did I hear you say “procude”? Sen. The Hon. T. Baptiste-Cornelis: Procured, sorry. I lime with you too much. The Ministry of Health completed its one-year action agenda. The first quarter status report is under preparation and the development of a five-year strategic plan covering 2011—2016 was completed in February 2011. The Ministry of Health is cognizant of the fact that sustained strategic actions are required to produce demonstrable improvements in the national health outcomes—something the previous administration could not do—and related indicators that will have a long-term positive impact on our development. In this regard, and in accordance with the mandate of the People‟s Partnership 2010 document—which the Opposition have as their bedside reading material—the Ministry is in the process of finalizing its five-year strategic plan. 433 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011

3.30p.m. As part of the Ministry‟s one-year action agenda, the following strategic lines of action were identified for this fiscal period: (1) improving health care management; (2) meeting the tertiary care needs of society‟s vulnerable; (3) supporting patients‟ rights and services through healthy quality standards, policies and legislation; (4) improving the physical infrastructure of our public health care facilities; (5) reducing the prevalence of communicable diseases, including HIV/AIDS; And in this, I would like to update the nation that as of today a decision was made in concurrence with CAREC where it came to my attention that the Ministry of Health had previously sought to have a vaccine for chickenpox made available to our nation‟s children, but it was perceived by previous administrations as being too expensive. But when you look at the cost of saving these children from such a disease, the cost of saving our population from having to go through that disease, and the productivity effect, nothing should have a cost on it, and it was agreed that will be implemented. [Desk thumping] (6) addressing chronic disease and mental health. In this regard, the Ministry is cognizant that not only do the citizens deserve first- class health care as provided by the State, but that they also need to conceive health as a personal investment and their individual responsibility. As such, the Ministry of Health has, over the last nine-and-a-half months, placed particular emphasis on wellness and health promotion to promote healthier lifestyles and self-empowerment. We are encouraging corporate bodies to come on board and we are leading by example. At our Ministry we established a weight loss health promotion initiative for all members of staff and are working towards the establishment of a Ministry of Health head office gymnasium. Moreover, the establishment of a universal, all-inclusive health care insurance system is just one of many ways in which the Ministry is seeking to institutionalize the values of equity, compassion and efficiency, something previously unknown, in all areas and at all levels of health care throughout our twin-island State. [Desk thumping] I know, Sen. Hinds, you are in awe, but I will continue. 434 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. T. BAPTISTE-CORNELIS] Some of our other achievements to date have been:  All of the Regional Health Authority Boards have been appointed. Service level contracts for the financial year 2010—2011 have been signed between the Minister of Health and the RHA boards under their appointment. These agreements identify the levels of service each RHA is required to deliver given its specific budget allocation, as well as the several key performance targets and development projects for their execution. The Annual Service Level Agreements are being monitored very closely on a quarterly basis to ensure compliance. Meanwhile, every single month, on the first Monday of the month, I meet with the chairmen of all boards, including the Tobago Regional Health Authority Board, which has come on board with us, and every second Monday my permanent secretary meets with the deputy chairman to look at fiscal measures and we host monthly RHA briefings on what is going on. We tell the nation what we are doing. We are a transparent and accountable Government. [Desk thumping]  A committee was established to urgently review the list of drugs under the CDAP and make recommendations as well as to review the performance of the Blood Glucometer Programme. Mr. President, you may not be aware of this, but the previous administration via the Minister of Health had seen it fit to give this Blood Glucometer Programme to only citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, ignoring the naturalized citizens who have been here. This decision has been changed and we now will supply even our naturalized citizens, because we are in preventative health care, something they did not understand. [Desk thumping]  Additionally, through the Central Tenders Board, we are in the process of selecting an independent consultant who will be mandated to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the CDAP to include assessment of: - the degree to which the objectives of this programme have been met; - the programme‟s equity of distribution; - prescribing practices of some of our doctors; - inventory management and dispensing practices of these pharmacies; - procurement, storage and distribution of drugs; 435 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011

- additionally, the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago which represents the People‟s Partnership Government, always in the interest of the people, has approved the establishment of an Expanded Programme on Immunization Unit to better manage our national immunization programme. [Desk thumping] This, again, has been applauded by PAHO and CAREC. We have formed a 100- day action plan currently and each RHA board, together with their workers, is working to fix things that one would have thought that anyone who had eyes would have seen needed fixing. But alas, apparently this did not happen with the previous administration. The four chief executive officers of the RHAs have also finally begun to work together as a team and they no longer see themselves as competitors. Given the move from that appalling blood chit system that was in existence, I have seen it important to ensure all CEOs share their blood status among the various RHAs. My choice of wearing red today, a colour I know alarms the Opposition, is not a coincidence, but a deliberate attempt to bring to focus to our citizens the need to voluntarily donate blood. Red is the colour of blood and those who choose to wear red will therefore be going on my blood donation campaign. We have launched, as of today, an intensive media blitz to bring this awareness forward. I even met today with Dr. Charles of the National Blood Transfusion System regarding extended hours to be available to collect these donations from our citizens. [Sen. Deyalsingh shows card] Very good; you are a blood donor; that is very good. I encourage all Members of this House to give blood. Do your duty to your society. We will remain faithful to the basic tenets of our manifesto, despite sometimes the seagulls that keep coming from that side. In this regard, the Ministry will work towards the development of a five-year strategic plan and over the fiscal period we will focus on the following strategic lines of action: improving health care management—as I said, meeting the tertiary care; supporting patients‟ rights and services; improving physical infrastructure; reducing everything that needs to be reduced and improved. The Ministry will implement institutional strengthening initiatives aimed at building this capability, regulating, setting standards, guiding and supporting the management of health care. We are going to be looking at evaluation and revision of the organizational structures at my Ministry. Just recently the Cabinet approved 436 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. T. BAPTISTE-CORNELIS] an increase in the structure of the CMO‟s office, a very vital office which, when I entered, had a staff of four personnel to deal with the entire health system of Trinidad and Tobago: We are going to be looking at: decision-making and approval granting processes—change is coming still; assessment and analysis of the human resource talent and the identification of gaps in our organizations. This is consistent with our recently completed training and strategic plans, facilitated with the Ministry of Public Administration. We collaborate between ministries in this Government. We get numerous reports of patients complaining of delays in treatment because files could not be found or have been misplaced. Health facilities will adhere to standard operating procedures and other health standards. We will ensure that this country move to one patient, one record. This would be achieved through the acquisition of a Health Information Management System, which has been approved for procurement by the Cabinet. iGovtt has been engaged to procure this from the appropriate vendor via the proper tendering procedures. The Ministry of Health is cognizant of the fact that sustained strategic actions are required to produce demonstrable improvements in national health outcomes and make this long-term impact. As part, again, of our one-year agenda, we have done many things, as I outlined before. Yesterday, at our monthly Ministry of Health RHA update press conference, I announced that the South-West Regional Health Authority board has done something that many other boards, other Ministers, have been scared of doing. They have advised me that they have made a difficult but necessary decision to suspend the team of medical personnel involved in the untimely demise of one of our nationals at the San Fernando General Hospital. This was not done very easily, but based on the preliminary report and the autopsy they received, it was deemed necessary. As I said, this was not meant to put a stain on the reputation of those involved in the process, but it allows the level of transparency and accountability that our nation has demanded and has voted this Government into office for. [Desk thumping] This Government must restore patient confidence in our delivery of health services with specific reference to maternal health services. The Ministry of Health, via the CMO, has compiled an investigative team to give me a detailed report in two weeks, outlining all conditions and policies that were adhered to or not adhered to in such cases. As Minister of Health, my focus is supplying the best possible health care services that our nation richly deserves and which our hon. Prime Minister has promised to this country. 437 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011

With specific reference to maternal and child health, we have been focusing on institutional strengthening. The Prime Minister, the hon. Kamla Persad- Bissessar, announced last week the opening of a new EYE/ENT ward at the San Fernando General Hospital, something that was in the coffers for 50 years. Fifty years people were begging for this?  The Prime Minister, at that opening, has established a committee to review the O&G services provided by all of our health institutions and this committee will be chaired by Dr. Lackram Bodoe, Chairman of the SouthWest Regional Health Authority. Dr. Bodoe is a renowned gynaecologist. This committee will include persons appointed by the Minister of Health and it should be noted that the Ministry of Health has long established and constantly reviewed for best practices standard operating procedures for O&G for all our health institutions.  The Ministry has also undertaken a review of the National Maternal and Child Health Manual in collaboration with key stakeholders.  A Maternal and Child Health Manual is being finalized.  A National Standard Operating Procedures Manual for Obstetric and Midwifery Services is being done in collaboration with key stakeholders.  An Adverse Event Policy was developed and stakeholder workshop conducted. Further, we have facilitated the implementation of the WHO Clean Care, Safer Care initiative at all major health institutions. A WHO Safe Surgical Checklist was adapted and is now being implemented at all operating theatres of all major health facilities. We have introduced a Health Care Associated Infection Surveillance system which includes staff training by PAHO experts from Washington DC. This surveillance system is aimed at reducing the incidents of hospital acquired infections. You would remember we had such incidents, sadly, with the previous administration. The National Infection Prevention and Control Policies and Guidelines for Health Care services are being done with the assistance of PAHO. We have conducted audits. As this honourable Chamber can see, the People‟s Partnership Government is working assiduously to address the ills of the health care system. Many of these ills, I admit, will take time to address, but we are cognizant of the important role we play. 438 Statement by Minister Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. T. BAPTISTE-CORNELIS] The people of our beloved nation deserve first-class health care. Our Prime Minister told us to serve the people; serve the people; serve the people. We are serving. Then she said to deliver, and we, the People‟s Partnership Government in the Ministry of Health, are delivering. In closing, I want to note that we, as a Government, are deeply saddened by the recent developments in Japan. It would be remiss of me not to inform the national community and this honourable Chamber that the Cabinet has agreed to the establishment of a Safe Hospital Committee along PAHO Guidelines. This committee will strengthen the infrastructure of all our health facilities and make recommendations for improvements. This will be a blueprint we shall follow in the construction of all our new hospital facilities. Additionally, all RHAs have developed disaster and emergency plans and have been requested to appoint disaster preparedness coordinators. As Minister of Health, I will serve my people, as my mantra, and I will continue to serve them despite attempts by Sen. Hinds to stop me. It is a long journey but we are well on our way to first-class health care in Trinidad and Tobago. Thank you, Mr. President. [Desk thumping] 3.45 p.m.

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS BILL Order for second reading read. The Minister of Public Administration (Sen. The Hon. Rudrawatee Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam): Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move, That a Bill to give legal effect to electronic documents, electronic records, electronic signatures and electronic transactions be now read a second time. The history of this Bill is well known. It was first piloted in the Parliament by the party then in power, which is now in Opposition, and sent to a Joint Select Committee on February 18, 2009, but lapsed. It has been since revised to constitute a proper organizational and governance framework, to accommodate and adapt to the effects of rapid and technological changes, and to reflect the evolution in the law and international precedent in the sphere of electronic transactions. 439 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President, the Bill consists of 10 parts and 66 clauses. It seeks to provide a legal framework for the conduct of electronic transactions in Trinidad and Tobago. The legal framework for conducting electronic transactions is an enabling one, which will facilitate the continual growth of electronic commerce, electronic communications and electronic transactions, including the delivery of government services electronically, referred to as e-government. The Bill‟s primary intention, in this regard, is to provide for the application of existing principles of contract law to transactions that are mediated in an electronic environment. Accordingly, the Bill clarifies the rules related to the formation of an electronic contract, the use of electronic originals in place of the physical originals, and also provides for the use of automated programmes in the formation of contracts. The Bill does not, however, treat with the operations of the national payment system that facilitate the transfer of funds between parties. The Bill is therefore, not meant to either replace contract law or to usurp the authority of existing institutions with oversight of financial transactions. These provisions are required to ensure that Trinidad and Tobago‟s legal regulatory framework keeps abreast of international developments in the laws of e-commerce. In addition, by harmonizing our laws on electronic transactions with international developments, businesses and individuals in Trinidad and Tobago will not be prejudiced or disadvantaged by differential standards for local and international transactions. This will prevent difficulties arising from different definitions and rules involved in conducting local and cross-border electronic transactions. The promotion of this Bill is also in line with our international commitments such as those arising under the European Commission and CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement, that is the EPA, which recognizes that electronic commerce increases trade opportunities. Under article 120 of the EPA, parties have agreed to address the regulatory aspect of e-commerce including those related to the recognition of electronic signatures, and those dealing with intermediary service providers and the protection of consumers. This Bill would therefore be an important piece of the matrix that would enable Trinidad and Tobago to take advantage of opportunities created through market liberization, and to establish a baseline upon which we can implement international standards in exchanging communication, transferring documents and authenticating users in the electronic environment. 440 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] Across the region model frameworks have been developed such as the outputs of the recently concluded “Enhancing competitiveness in the Caribbean through the Harmonization of ICT policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures Project” also called the HIPCAR Project, sponsored by the European Commission and implemented by the International Telecommunications Union. The HIPCAR Project is geared to assist in the creation of a harmonized approach across the region, by the development of model legislation and giving technical assistance in the implementation of such legislation. I am happy to announce that this Bill has leveraged the outputs of this body of work in the process of its revision. Within the Caribbean region Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Barbados and the Bahamas have all enacted electronic transactions laws. The establishment of such a framework is of vital importance to Trinidad and Tobago given the increasing use of the electronic medium for communications and transactions locally, regionally and internationally. Increasingly, Mr. President, consumers are opting to participate in the online shopping experience. In Trinidad and Tobago the financial and services sectors, as well as manufacturers and exporters, already conduct some aspects of their business electronically. Given the substantial growth in the global e-commerce trade, it is imperative that the business sector in Trinidad and Tobago embrace electronic transactions as a means of engaging their trading partners and customers so as to remain competitive and progressive in regional and international markets. It has been conservatively estimated by globally renowned financial services firm, J.P. Morgan, that the global value of e-commerce amounted to some US $572 billion in the year 2010. The Government also needs to transform the way it does business in order to remain able to provide its services to the public in a cost effective and efficient matter. This Bill supports the Government‟s effort to deliver services to the public in a faster and more efficient manner, and will allow for the greater use of e- documents and e-transactions in individuals‟ and businesses‟ interactions with public agencies. Under this Bill, Mr. President, which binds the State, public bodies can gradually migrate to conducting business using an electronic platform. For instance, under Part VII of the Bill, when one is transacting business with public agencies, information can be submitted using electronic forms in the manner 441 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 specified by the agencies. These provisions will allow public agencies to design electronic forms suited to online transactions. The possibilities for increased efficiency in the delivery and accessing of government services are limitless. These provisions are to be considered within the context of contemporary trends and international best practice in the use of electronic documents. As advance technology becomes available to safeguard the integrity of electronic documents, it has become increasingly common for businesses and individuals to convert and create their paper-based records and original documents in electronic form. This is a more efficient method of record keeping since paper documents are bulky and generally cost more to physically store and manage them. Mr. President, I now turn to the intent of the Bill. This Bill is a key component in fostering a knowledge-based economy. This is consistent with the Government‟s policy to use ICT as a pillar of development. You see, Mr. President, the People‟s Partnership Government took the decision to anchor its strategy for sustainable development on seven interconnected pillars, one of which is information and communication technologies connecting Trinidad and Tobago and building the new economy. Another is that of a more diversified knowledge-intensive economy building on the native genius of our people. So, Mr. President, one can easily see how this Bill fits into the Government‟s developmental goals for our nation. In doing business electronically, or online, as opposed to face to face, one needs to have the assurance that the person with whom the individual is transacting business, is in fact, the person he represents himself or herself to be, and that the validity of the documentation associated with the transaction can be relied upon. In other words, trust and integrity are critical components of a sound e-commerce platform. To provide the foundation for this trust and to ensure the integrity and authenticity of electronic transactions, this Bill will establish the regulatory framework to administer a new segment of endeavour in the economy; that of the third party, electronic authentication service provider who will serve the public and the business community. 3.55 p.m. This function is critical to assuring that the particulars associated with an electronic transaction are, in fact, as reliable as those provided in a paper-based transaction. This Bill is only a part of the platform necessary to facilitate domestic e-commerce. There are complementary laws, systems and institutional arrangements that must be put in place to complete the mix required to achieve 442 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] this goal. These include amendments to the Exchequer and Audit Act which I am advised have been laid in the other place, regulations to accompany the amendments, the Data Protection Bill is another one; an Electronic Payment Bill, a Cybercrime Bill, as well as amendments to the Evidence Act. All of these must act in harmony and we must address each one of these. Mr. President, for such an enabling legal framework to be effective, one needs to ensure that it remains aligned with global standards on the rules of conducting electronic transactions and be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to meet the growing demands of constant change within a rapidly developing technological environment. We are, after all, part of the global network, and technology continues to revolutionize what goes on in that medium. Nevertheless, in drafting the Bill, we have sought to employ the internationally recognized principle of technological neutrality, whereby the Bill will not be tied to any particular technology, but will adopt a broad-based approach to capture further technological advancement. Mr. President, I now move on to the second principle employed in the drafting of this Bill, that is, media neutrality. Under this principle, there is recognition that electronic transactions falling under the purview of this Bill should be treated the same by the law to all intents and purposes. We have functional equivalence. This is another principle which is adopted, and this principle actually flows from the first two principles just mentioned. It means that as a result of technological and media neutrality, actions that are facilitated in electronic transactions ought to have an equivalent effect as that of actions in paper-based transactions, so that there is no discrimination between these two forms of transactions. Mr. President, I now turn to the exclusions of the Electronic Transactions Bill as they are exceptions to the rule. It is important to note, that the Bill does not apply to all forms of electronic documents and transactions. Certain classes of documents and transactions are excluded. Such exclusions are commonly adopted in other jurisdictions and are detailed in clause 6 of the Bill. Suffice it to say, the particular documents or circumstances identified, are those where there is deemed to be considerable intrinsic value associated with the existence of a singular unique copy of the document or agreement. A major premise for the use of electronic documents is the ease with which copies can be made, transmitted or stored. The nature of the exception is therefore based on the concept that where there is intrinsic value to the existence of a single or limited copies of the document, inclusion into the general framework established by this Bill would work counter to the interest or the objectives of 443 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 these types of documents. It does not mean, however, that this is cast in stone. Given the rapid advances in technology, I am sure that we can envisage revisiting this list in the not too distant future. So, Mr. President, it is within the context and background of this Bill, that I shall now elaborate on the 10 parts of this Bill and, of course, the key provisions under these parts. Mr. President, I now turn to Part I of the Bill entitled, Preliminary. Part I of the Bill comprises the preliminary clauses and contains seven clauses dealing with the commencement, definitions, interpretations, applications and exclusions under the Bill. Clause 1 provides the short title, and provides for the commencement of the Bill upon proclamation by the President. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the interpretation of key terms in this Bill. Some of these are hereafter considered in providing further clarification. One would find that throughout the Bill three types of electronic subjects are frequently referred to namely, electronic information, electronic records and data messages. One may say that all of these terms are subsumed under the term electronic information. As records provide evidence of a transaction or communication between parties, an electronic record achieves this purpose, albeit, created or stored by electronic means. The data message refers to the electronic package that is transmitted or shared between at least two parties such as e-mail or a file downloaded to a user or uploaded to a server. Mr. President, I now move on to discuss the technical core of the Bill related to the necessity of the electronic signatures and its correlation to the feature called digital certificates. In the case where the parties to be engaged in an electronic transaction know each other, either one can take steps to verify security aspects of the electronic transaction through, among other things, the exchange of digital certificates between parties. A certificate is an encryption technology product used to verify the electronic identities of parties to an electronic communication. However, in the case where the parties do not know each other, an independent entity can bridge this gap by providing verification of the identity of both parties. The certification service provider achieves this by issuing digital certificates to each party, and acting as the independent authenticating body that verifies that a given certificate is associated with a particular person. In the world of e-business, the term certification service provider refers to that trusted third party, service providers, discussed earlier in the context of building trust and confidence in the electronic transactions. 444 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] The term electronic authentication product is the general term which refers to products such as digital certificates. This generalized term is used to distance the terminology from something which is strongly associated with a specific technology, such as Public Key Infrastructure or PKIs. In this way, when new technology emerges—which is similar in function to the digital certificate—the more abstract term can be readily applied without compatibility issues. The role of the electronic authentication service providers and administration of such entities is addressed in Part V of the Bill. Through the enactment of this part, the regulatory environment is now set to facilitate the entry of such providers in the domestic space. Moving along, may I point out that the definition of electronic signature does not specify a particular technology, and this is consistent with the principle of technological neutrality of which I spoke earlier. In this way, an electronic signature can legitimately vary from unencrypted typed letters at the end of a message to the output of complex encrypted schemes utilizing authentication logarithms and systems. The term electronic transaction is also defined to reiterate that the transactions contemplated by this Bill relate to the information of records, resulting from communications between parties. A transaction is still deemed to be completed electronically even if payment for and delivery of goods are not facilitated by electronic means. I take this opportunity to highlight the term intermediary. This is a person providing services that relate to the storage, forwarding or performance of other defined operations on information or the content within a data message.

Mr. President, clause 3 of the Bill provides for the State to be bound by the provisions of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that a public body is not required to accept or issue any document by electronic means. In other words, a public body is not compelled to use electronic documents on the enactment of this Bill, and notwithstanding the default provisions in Parts II, III and IV, such public body can do so when it is ready. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the matters to be considered in the construction of the Bill. This, of course, will aid in the interpretation of the provisions of the Bill, and clause 6 elaborates on the exceptions to the Bill which I have previously alluded to. 445 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President, I now turn to Part II of the Bill, Requirements for Legal Recognition. Part II of the Bill contains 11 clauses and provides a general framework for the recognition of electronic documents for any purpose, be it the creation, transmittal or storage thereof. This part sets out the requirements to be met by electronic information, records or electronically mediated contracts, so that they can be legally recognized as valid as their paper equivalent. The provisions of this part collectively build on the key functional aspects of a transactional paper-based document or record of transaction, by first confirming that documents which are created, transmitted or stored electronically may have legal recognition, and then defining basic requirements necessary to support the use or storage of such electronic information. Clause 6 of the Bill, therefore, provides that an electronic record or information under this Act shall not be denied legal effect simply because it is in electronic form. Clauses 9 to 13 of the Bill go on to provide for the circumstances in which the legal requirement to have information, a record or data message presented, retained or submitted is met. Clause 12 is noteworthy, in that it makes the integrity of the information, record or data message an important factor in satisfying the criteria for its acceptance. In the electronic environment you can have so many copies generated, that it is important to set the ground rules to give some assurance that you have the real McCoy. Even where you have the provision for copies to be made as under clause 15, again, the provisions of clause 12 relating to integrity remain applicable. There should be no distinction made between original or electronic information and its copy, once the integrity of the information is confirmed. 4.10 p.m. Mr. President, clause 17 of the Bill provides that an electronic record or data message shall not be deemed inadmissible in evidence simply because it is in electronic form or on the basis that it is not in the original non-electronic form. Clause 18 of the Bill provides for the recognition and notarization of documents by electronic means. The clause is not intended to alter the statutory requirements of a notary public‟s duties and responsibilities in undertaking his function. Instead, it merely provides for an electronic equivalent of the properly executed document to be valid. It should also be noted that the electronic signature of the electronic notary must also comply with the requirements outlined in clause 31(1) of the Bill. 446 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] Mr. President, I now turn to Part III of the Bill which contains contract formation and default provisions. Part III of the Bill contains ten clauses, that is, clauses 19 to 28. These default provisions arise where the parties have not agreed on the particular issue, for example, place of business. The default provisions are important in promoting clarity and certainty in electronic transactions. The Bill outlines how the main principles of contract formation, namely, offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to enter into legal relations will be applied in an electronic environment. Clause 19 of the Bill provides that the mere fact that a contract is formed electronically does not affect its enforceability. Clause 20 of the Bill focuses on the basic principle of offer and acceptance in contract law and establishes that unless parties agree otherwise, an offer or acceptance or matter related to the formation of a contract may be expressed in electronic form. This clause also seeks to recognize that the action of clicking on an electronic icon or some other action undertaken in the electronic environment may be deemed to be an acceptance of an offer. Clause 21 of the Bill provides for the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through the involvement of electronic agents. In accordance with international best practice, this law clarifies that contracts may be validly formed through automated agents. The two scenarios outlined in this clause are in coherence with the contemporary nature of e-commerce in business. Clause 22 of the Bill provides that an electronic contract is void in the instance where a material error is made and no opportunity is given to prevent or correct the error or, where notification of the error takes place, no reasonable steps are taken to correct the error and no material benefit or value is received. Clause 23 of the Bill prescribes the circumstances in which an electronic data message or record shall be attributed to a particular person. Clause 24 of the Bill sets out the time when an electronic data message or record is considered to be sent. This provides clarity as in the process of conducting electronic transactions. The times of sending and receipt may become an important factor in the event of a dispute. Clause 25 of the Bill treats with the reverse situation of clause 24 and sets out the time of receipt of information or data message in the electronic form. The time of receipt of a message can be an important issue in contract formation. For example, if an offer is expressed to be valid for a certain period, the time of 447 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 receipt of a message in relation thereto would be of importance in determining whether the deadline to submit a tender in response to a request for proposal has been met. Clause 25, is in alignment with international best practice and recognizes receipt as occurring when a message becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by that addressee. The inclusion of subsection (2) recognizes that the nature of e-commerce and e-business is such that the information system used by a business may not be located in the same address as that business. For example, consider a small business in Trinidad and Tobago using online services such as Gmail and Yahoo to provide email services; while the location of information systems, that is, the email servers may be somewhere in the United States of America, the place of business of the small enterprise remains within the confines of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Clause 26 of the Bill sets out what should be taken to be the case if the actual situation is unclear with respect to the sending or receipt of information, a record or data message, unless the parties otherwise agree. Clause 27 of the Bill provides the default provisions for the determination of place of business. This is another important concept in the formation of contracts and resolution of disputes in relation to contracts including matters of jurisdiction. Clause 28 of the Bill provides that where there is no place of business or the originator or addressee of a communication, the habitual residence of the originator or addressee is the relevant address for sending and receipt of communications.

Mr. President, I now turn to Part IV of the Bill, Electronic Signature. Part IV of the Bill contains four clauses, that is, clauses 29 to 32. It provides the overarching framework for the recognition of electronic signatures which can include electronic symbols, quotes or attestations which would have the same effect as a personal written signature. Notably, this part does not identify a particular type of electronic signature to be adopted and this is quite consistent with the principle of technology neutrality I spoke about at the beginning of my presentation. This enables the Bill to accommodate any particular form of technology and will result in the continued applicability of these provisions as the technology evolves over time. 448 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] Clause 29 of the Bill provides for the parties to agree to the use of a particular method or form of electronic signature unless the law provides otherwise. The parties cannot, therefore, exclude the applicability of the law by making an agreement with respect to signature if the law prescribes a specific method or form. Clause 30 provides that where the law stipulates that the signature of a person is required, such requirement is met by an electronic signature that satisfies the minimum standards of reliability and integrity as outlined in clause 31. Clause 31 elaborates on the criteria to be used in determining the reliability and integrity of an electronic signature. Clause 32 provides an electronic signature that is associated with a qualified electronic authentication product issued by an accredited electronic authentication service provider, is deemed to have satisfied the requirements of reliability and integrity set out in clause 31 of the Bill. This clause introduces the concept of the trusted third party provider of signature and signature verification services. In doing so, clause 32 clarifies that the products and services of such service providers are to be in compliance with the reliability and integrity criteria set out in clause 31 of the Bill. 4.20p.m.

Mr. President, I now move to Part V of the Bill, which deals with electronic authentication service providers.

Part V of the Bill contains 17 clauses and it enables the framework that will guide the regulation of persons who provide accredited third-party authentication services to the public. These persons are called the electronic authentication service providers. This part does not envision the regulation of electronic authentication service providers who either: (i) do not provide services to the public, or (ii) do not issue products which meet the requirements set out in clause 31. The Minister charged with the responsibility for information and communication technology is identified as the Registration and Accreditation Authority in Trinidad and Tobago. These responsibilities may be delegated by the Minister to an appropriate body or authority. 449 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Clause 33 of the Bill prohibits the issuance of an electronic authentication product or the provision of related services by anyone to members of the public, unless that person is registered as an electronic authentication service provider under that Act. The private sharing of electronic authentication products between parties to a transaction is not prohibited. The trusted third party must assure all parties that they operate their business in accordance with best practice standards in information security and encryption technology. This Government is of the opinion that registration provides the appropriate balance between limiting the regulatory barriers to entry of those trusted third-party service providers, the need to maintain administrative predictability and transparency and the need to maintain the trustworthiness of the ICT ecosystem that is being developed. I would like to state at this juncture that much ado has been made about the appropriateness of the Bill in identifying the Minister as the Minister for these functions. In the other place, the Opposition lobbied for the delegation of this function to some other administrative body. What has to be reiterated is that this function will be undertaken within the context of the administrative functions of the Government within the relevant Ministry. The framework proposed in this Bill is testament to good governance that provides for authority, but constrains it by regulation. I am also advised that the right to approach the court for redress, if there is any failure to register, once the criteria are met, is provided as an additional safeguard. The “Minister” means the “Cabinet”. I want to make that point absolutely clear. Clause 34 of the Bill sets out the prequalification requirement for the registration of an accredited authentication service provider. The clause confirms the requirement that a person must be accredited before registration is completed and further clarifies the separation of the registration and accreditation activities. Subclause (3) of clause 34 provides that the Minister may prescribe regulations specifying the procedure for registration and the information required for that purpose. Clause 35 of the Bill sets out key accreditation requirements relating to the conduct of the business of the electronic authentication service provider. Again, these legal requirements are intended to provide protection to the public by putting mechanisms in place to ensure the integrity of the operation of the provider and by extension promote systematic integrity. 450 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM] Clause 36 of the Bill provides for the registration of the providers who satisfy the requirements, while clause 37 empowers the Minister to recognize qualified electronic authentication products that are issued outside of Trinidad and Tobago. Clause 38 of the Bill requires the Minister to maintain a public registry of electronic authentication service providers. Clause 39 of the Bill requires the electronic authentication service provider to annually provide an updated notification of compliance. The administrative approach adopted by this Bill is co-regulatory in nature, as it places the onus on the provider to essentially engage in its own compliance audit on an annual basis. Clause 40 of the Bill empowers the Minister to conduct audits on accredited electronic authentication service providers, if only to validate its report of the compliance notification. Again, these audits would focus on the efficacy of service providers‟ operations in light of its statutory obligations which I alluded to earlier. Clause 41 of the Bill requires the electronic authentication service provider to cooperate or offer reasonable assistance during a compliance audit. Clause 42 of the Bill provides for the requirement of confidentiality on the part of any person performing duties or functions in the administration or enforcement of this Bill. Clause 43 of the Bill empowers the Minister to deal with an electronic authentication service provider who no longer meets the requirements to issue qualified electronic authentication products. This clause empowers the Minister with a variety of options up to and including the deregistration of that service provider from the registry maintained in accordance with clause 38. Such removal from the registry would effectively debar the service provider from continuing to provide services to the public. Mr. President, clauses 44 to 46 outline the obligation of the electronic authentication service providers that have been commonly identified in the international practice, to ensure the continued integrity of the public authentication product sector. Such services include, but are not limited to, the use of pseudonyms, the maintenance of a directory of valid issued products and the provision of a revocation service in accordance with customer requests. Clause 47 of the Bill sets out the liability of an electronic authentication service provider for damage or loss caused to anyone relying on an accredited electronic authentication product, where the damage or loss is due to the service provider‟s failure to meet the requirements of clauses 31 to 35. 451 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Clause 48 of the Bill provides that an accredited electronic authentication service provider who issues a qualified electronic authentication product may be exempted from liability if the service provider can show that the injury or loss arising was not caused by his own negligence. Subclause (2) further elaborates on this premise by exempting the electronic authentication service provider from liability where the qualified electronic authentication product is used in violation of any limitations of use that have been specified by the service provider. Clause 49 of the Bill provides the Minister with the option to require an electronic authentication service provider to pay the costs reasonably incurred in the performance of an audit for registration and for notification of compliance.

I now turn to Part VI of the Bill, Intermediaries and Telecommunications Service Providers. Part VI of the Bill treats with the responsibilities of intermediaries and telecommunications service providers and contains three clauses, clauses 50 to 52. Clause 50 of the Bill provides that the intermediary or telecommunications service provider who merely serves as a conduit for the transmission of data messages, records or information in electronic form, shall not be liable for their content except in the circumstance outlined therein. Clause 51(1) sets out the takedown and notification procedure for an intermediary or telecommunications service provider who has actual knowledge that the information contained in the data message or electronic record gives rise to civil or criminal liability. Provisions such as these are increasingly important to the development of the ICT sector, particularly with respect to issues such as online piracy or intellectual property. Subclauses (2) and (3) treat with the situation where the intermediary or telecommunications service provider: “…is aware of facts or circumstances from which the likelihood of civil or criminal liability in respect of the information in a data message or an electronic record ought reasonably to have been known...” Clause 52 of the Bill provides for compliance on the part of intermediaries and service providers, with codes of conduct and service standards developed by the Minister. Mr. President, I now turn to Part VII of the Bill which deals with— [Interruption] 452 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President: Hon. Minister, it is now 4.31 p.m. I propose that the Senate break at this point and we resume after tea at 5.00 p.m. The Senate is now suspended until 5.00 p.m. 4.31 p.m.: Sitting suspended. 5:00 p.m.: Sitting resumed. Mr. President: When we took the break, hon. Senators, the Minister of Public Administration was on her legs and I calculate that she has another 14 minutes of speaking time. Minister. Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: Thank you, Mr. President. Before I continue on Part VII of the Bill, I would just like to make a little correction that I spoke to in Part V. In Part V of the Bill I indicated that Minister means the Cabinet, it is only in that section Minister does not mean the Cabinet, in the rest of the sections, Minister means the Cabinet. So I want to make that correction quite clearly. Mr. President, I now turn to Part VII of the Bill, which deals with Government and other public bodies. Part VII of the Bill contains two clauses which set out provisions aimed at facilitating effective delivery of e-government services. This Bill would support e-government efforts by enabling the use of electronic documents in the transactions undertaken by public bodies with citizens and businesses. Clause 53(1) provides that where a public body gives notice that it intends to treat with its client via electronic means as provided in clause 4, those functions can be carried out by electronic means notwithstanding anything to the contrary in such written law. Subclause (2) provides that when the public body decides to perform any of its functions by electronic means, it may specify the manner and format in which such information, documents or records in electronic form shall be filed, created, retained, issued or provided and other required attributes for documents, record or information. Subclause (3) provides for the Minister with responsibility for ICT to specify the type of signature required when information, data, message or record in electronic form is required to be signed for different legal purposes. The discretion of the public body to specify a particular signature or technology will be circumscribed by the regulations made by the Minister. This provision has been inserted in accordance with governance arrangements necessary to ensure 453 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 uniformity and predictability across the public service, of the minimum appropriate standards or technologies to be deployed with regard to electronic signature solutions within the public sector. Subclause (4) provides for public bodies specifying the type of electronic documents that it would accept in respect of filling of the forms or retention of any other documents. Clause 54 of the Bill clarifies that documents required to be inspected by a public body may be presented in electronic form for that purpose.

Mr. President, I now turn to Part VIII of the Bill, which deals with customer protection. Part VIII of the Bill deals with issues relating to consumer protection— it is consumer protection not customer, Mr. President—online transactions and contains four clauses, clauses 55 to 58. Clause 55(1) provides that persons using electronic means to sell goods and services would be required to provide accurate, clear and accessible information on a number of particulars including their legal names and the address for service of legal process. Such information should be provided at the initial stages on interaction with the prospective customer, for example, on vendor‟s commercial website. Subclause (2) requires the accurate presentation of all relevant information on the goods or services offered in the transaction. Subclause (3) requires the presentation of all relevant contractual information to the customer before proceeding to the conclusion of the transaction. It further requires the vendor to provide a copy of the contract to the customer for their own records. Under clause 56 of the Bill, Mr. President, the electronic authentication service provider is obliged to provide the client with certain information before entering into a contract for the issuance of an accredited authentication product. This clause obliges the electronic authentication service provider to adhere to general principles of disclosure, when entering into a service agreement and this includes the provision of information on its accreditation status under paragraph (d). Clause 57 of the Bill entitles a customer who is not provided with the information required under clauses 55 and 56, to cancel the transaction within 30 days if the customer has not received any material benefit from the transaction. 454 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM Clause 58 of the Bill requires persons who send unsolicited emails to provide the receivers of such emails with the option to opt out of receiving future communications. Unsolicited communications or Spam is a recognized practice of solicitation for sales of goods and services. Clause 58(1) provides the opt out mechanism for the receiver thereby indicating that the individual does not wish to receive future communications. Subclause (2) makes it an offence to contravene subclause (1).

Mr. President, I now turn to Part IX of the Bill, which deals with contravention and enforcement. Clause 59 of the Bill makes it an offence for a person to file false or misleading information required to be filled hereunder. Clause 60 of the Bill makes it an offence for a person to make false or misleading statements to persons carrying out a compliance audit pursuant to clause 40. It is also an offence, Mr. President, for the person to obstruct or otherwise hinder the persons carrying out such an audit. Clauses 59 and 60 are applicable primarily to electronic authentication service providers, their agents or directors. Clause 61 of the Bill makes it an offence to breach the confidentiality obligations under clause 42. Clause 62 of the Bill provides that where a corporation commits an offence under this Act, any of its officers, directors or agents who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in the commission of the offence, is party to and commits an offence and will be liable to punishment. This clause provides for piercing the corporate veil with regard to the imposition of fines and penalties against officers or directors of firms. It is thought that this would be a disincentive to act outside the ambit of the law. Clause 63 of the Bill sets out the penalties for offences committed by a person or a body corporate. The penalties prescribed are substantial in monetary values and together with custodial sentences affirm the commitment of the Government to encourage a culture of accountability and transparency in this emerging economic sector. Also, subclause (3) provides for the determination of civil liabilities in conjunction with the criminal penalties. Mr. President, I now move to Part X of the Bill which deals with miscellaneous provisions. Part X, of the Bill contains three clauses. Clause 62 imposes duties on directors and officers of a corporation. 455 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Clause 65 sets out the jurisdiction of the court under this Bill and finally, Mr. President clause 66 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the requirements of this Bill, and such regulations are subject to negative resolution of the Parliament. Mr. President, having dealt with the Bill, I now turn to further developments. It should be noted that regulations are required to be developed for the full implementation of the provisions of this Bill. Such regulations shall outline among other things the criteria to be met by a person applying to be registered as an electronic authentication service provider. It shall also identify the types of electronic authentication products which are associated with specific legal purposes. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise that this Government has initiated the process through which we are assured that such regulations shall be before this House, before the middle of this year.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to briefly touch upon how the provisions of this Bill shall impact on the way business is carried out in Trinidad and Tobago. In providing legal equivalence, this Bill facilitates the true implementation of electronically enhanced Government services delivery or e- government, as all applicable aspects of collection, processing and provision of Government services can now be legally undertaken in an electronic form. This will facilitate the use of powerful computer tools to expedite the processing of Government services as well as enhance monitoring and reporting on products and efficiency. The private sector will also benefit from this Bill as the opportunity will now be provided to optimize the use of new channels of service delivery. Further, Mr. President, in the absence of the framework established by this Bill, the domestic ICT sector has been constrained in the way in which it can participate in the provision of adjunct online services. This framework will encourage the repatriation of such innovative entrepreneurial activity to bolster onshore economic activity, the targets of potentially global base. 5.10 p.m. Mr. President, this Bill, not only benefits businesses big and small, but the framework herein proposed is also geared to the consumer and developing a culture of transparency and efficacy in the interactions of businesses and their customers. 456 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. N. GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM Contrary to popular belief, e-commerce in Trinidad and Tobago is happening and has been happening for quite some time now without an appropriate regulatory framework. With the passage of this legislation, the stage will be set for the application of more robust consumer protection systems related to transactions completed over the Internet. Mr. President, in bringing this contribution to a close, I entreat hon. Members of this House to recognize the potential of this framework to support the diversification of the economy to the benefit of all of us. In light of the foregoing, I beg to move. Question proposed. Sen. Dr. Lester Henry: Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to contribute to what I consider, once again, a somewhat not-so-well-done piece of legislation on the part of the Government, simply because the stated objectives of the Bill and some of the conclusions espoused by the hon. Minister really do not match what is in the actual Bill. Without reference to other supporting legislation, my main contribution to this debate is that this Bill will not cause the kind of effect that the Minister so eagerly hopes for. It will just not happen simply because of this Bill. Let me remind you, Mr. President, of the stated purpose of the Bill at the outset. I know some of us may have gotten bogged down in the numerous clauses of the Bill—I think there are 66 or so and the hon. Minister took great pains to go through every single one. Let us be reminded of the big picture. This is basically to enable the application of information processing and technologies to streamline and optimize activities of e-commerce both in and out of government. That is one of the stated objectives. Two, it is to provide protection to the end user and create a level of confidence and legitimacy to online activities. Once again, that is a very noble objective; and to satisfy obligations from prevailing trade agreements. I believe the Minister mentioned that this was one of the driving forces behind this legislation from the outset and it had a lot to do with the UN and some of the other stuff she mentioned, the HIPCAR initiative towards the harmonization of ICT policies and so on. 457 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

The Bill in itself is well intended so we have no problem with that, but without the other supporting pieces of legislation that were barely mentioned if at all, the Bill itself does not go very far. I will explain why I say this. By way of background, what we have in terms of e-commerce and e- governance that this Bill seeks to enhance the presumption that the absence of a regulatory environment is somehow a major deterrent. As the Minister pointed out in her summation, e-commerce and electronic activities have been going on for quite a while in this country, since the 1990s, and we had no major legislation back then, but it developed. All the commercial banks developed e-banking without any appeal or without waiting for any particular form of legislation. In several jurisdictions, individuals and corporations have tended to base the development of e-commerce on existing contract law and other initiatives. So they have been willing to engage in electronic transactions in the absence of specific legislation. We have seen that here in Trinidad and Tobago. One of my contentions is that the legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient. For example, we have known for years that people buy stuff on Amazon and companies order supplies; commercial banks engage in e-commerce and so on. We, therefore, know these things already exist and are now putting the framework in place to put the right context for these forms of business, which is long overdue and very much needed. On the other hand, to jump to the idea that because you put legislation, these things will suddenly take off is not a proper assumption and may not work the way you think. I have been involved in studies on the issue of e-commerce and Internet shopping for several years. In fact, my first published paper on the topic was back in 2001, over 10 years ago. Since then, I have also published other papers on the subject, such as the Digital Divide, and Issues, relating to online shopping. So I am quite familiar with some of the issues and key elements that lead to the development of e-commerce in many jurisdictions, especially here in the Caribbean. My colleague from the Development of Management and I have engaged in online surveys and so on and I am sure my esteemed colleague opposite, Sen. Prof. Watson, is quite aware of this work. We had somewhat of a small collaboration some years back on a particular project. I only mention this to give you the assurance that I know of what I speak. One of the good things about the Bill is that it gives explicit legal weight to electronic records which we clearly need because in today‟s modern world we need such provisions. Basically, it is catching up with what is already out there; some legislative housekeeping. 458 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. HENRY] One of the positives of the Bill is that it gives the Government the ability to engage in e-commerce, which the hon. Minister took great pains to point out and also to boast about what is going to happen because of this Bill. Right now, apparently, the Government cannot engage in electronic transactions. In other words, it cannot accept payment for taxes and fines and so on by credit card or debit card, so we need legislation to make this happen before e-governance can become effective. That is why my colleague on the left cannot buy a ticket for the ferry online in 2011, because we do not have the enabling legislation to allow the Government to receive electronic payments. I will get back to that towards the end. One of the problems with the boast that this Bill will promote e-governance is that it gives the Government an out. I listened attentively to this part of the Minister‟s presentation in which she said that each arm of the Government could basically choose when it will adopt this e-governance and accept e-payments, so that they basically leave a bit of a loophole in the legislation in which there is no pressure on different elements within the Government to adopt and to make use of e-governance and electronic transactions. Basically, the words spoken were significantly “when and if” they are ready. That could be another thousand years or it could be next week. It could be any time. There is no pressure on them. As we know, there are several government agencies that are not necessarily happy that the 21st Century is here and we may need a little more pressure than that to get them to move up to the plate on which the Minister wants them to be. Given the seriousness of the stated goals of becoming a knowledge-based economy and so on, why would we still leave that there or not put something stronger to force or cajole—I am trying to look for a nice word—to get all the government agencies on board and not leave it up to them so that they could choose when they are ready? If you leave it up to them, they may never be ready. We have a clear problem in this country, as in many other Caricom territories and small jurisdictions, that most of the e-commerce takes place between domestic consumers and businesses, what we call B to C e-commerce. So buying online and signing up through Hotmail or Facebook and so on is a foreign interaction. Many of our buyers do not buy anything locally online. Based on the surveys that I have been involved in, very rarely do you get someone going online to buy something domestically. Basically when they go online it is to buy something from Amazon, eBay and so on. I am sure many of 459 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 my colleagues in this House would have engaged in such. So the terms of service of these interactions are basically what is perhaps much more important than how our legislation addresses these issues.

As far as I am aware, this Bill will not cover that interaction. There is nothing in there that seeks to address this issue, which is the majority of what is there. For our citizens shopping online, it means buying from abroad. This was the result we knew beforehand when we did a survey some years ago.

One of the conclusions we came to—the results we found, suggest that the trend towards purchasing abroad is likely to persist into the future with the consequential impact on foreign exchange and shipping services as we have seen in recent times. Local companies in particular need to work hard at convincing residents that they are reliable suppliers because many people feel somehow that they can give their credit card information to Amazon or eBay, but for local businesses around the corner, they feel somehow they cannot trust them and keep their cards in their pockets. I know there are some issues about authentication that are supposed to be developed because of the Bill and were touched on by the Minister. We still have to address certain key issues in order for this to be successful in the way that it is hoped. —So, these things by themselves as I keep saying do not. 5.25 p.m. Now one of the things that plague our local domestic efforts at developing e- commerce—because it should be a two-way street; we buy abroad and foreigners should buy from us as well. One of the problems in enhancing our ability to develop that aspect of e-commerce where we actually sell to foreigners has to do with shipping cost. As we know, shipping your container from Miami to down here where there are economies of scale and so on, can be much cheaper than shipping a small item out of Trinidad and Tobago, to some foreign destination. And we have issues in terms of how we go about getting those products out because one of the facts of our existence—especially throughout the Caribbean in these small territories—is that many containers come to this country full and they leave empty, because we do not have such a wide variety of exports and that diminishes our ability to reap economies of scale and we run into significant cost problems. 460 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. HENRY] I personally had the experience of buying a Sony TV from Amazon online and when it reached my home it was cracked, the whole screen was messed up, totally “shot”; well, useless. [Crosstalk] Sen. Hinds: Like the Government. Sen. Dr. L Henry: So what happened, I e-mailed the company, told them that, well the TV is no good, took pictures and so, sent it back to them and they immediately said, well no problem, we are a reputable company and we will give you a new TV. [Crosstalk] Sen. Hinds: “We want a new Government!” Sen. Dr. L. Henry: Of course, free shipping and everything but to Miami. And the one condition that they insisted on was that I must send back the busted TV, and it cost me twice as much to send it back as I paid to bring it here. [Crosstalk] Sen. Hinds: Waiting for you. The same difficulty people are having with your Government. Sen. Dr. L. Henry: So I am just alerting hon. Members and the public at large to some of the significant issues involved in e-commerce on a practical level. Okay? [Crosstalk] Sen. George: Listen to him. Sen. Dr. L. Henry: Now one of the other problems that we cannot ignore— and I alluded to it before, when it comes to the implementation of e-commerce and the development of e-governance and all of that—is that the culture of the organizations tend to be a very limiting factor. In fact, some of my colleagues believe that it is the single largest obstacle for the proper implementation of all the good things that this Bill is supposed to be aiming at. Because there are many people who are resistant to change and if you do not put a proper change management programme in place to go along with these things, you get very few results. In fact, you will waste a lot, you can waste millions of dollars putting systems in place, setting up all this electronic infrastructure and so on, and if you do not have the right attitude and the progressive management in these organizations, you will find yourself being back to square one. Think of our situation down at, for example, the licensing office. I am sure the hon. Minister of Public Utilities would be quite fully aware, being a former Transport Commissioner himself. How many years have we heard of the 461 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 computerization of the licensing department? Twenty, thirty years? What has happened? Year after year we find the same old backlog and the same old accusations of corruption and very little gets done. Many, many years—and, Mr. President, all different types of governments have come and gone and we have had the same problem continuously. And they all come in with good intentions and say “We are going to change this;” when they leave office the mess is still there. So even if they paid some money for new cameras or high tech computerized systems, we see problems persist. Even in the private sector sometimes, you have resistance to change, so it is not necessarily just a Government issue. In fact, locally, there was a tremendous resistance to computerization of the stock exchange, on the part of quite a few individuals involved. Jamaica, Barbados, and some of these places with a lot less capital, a lot less income and a less developed market, computerized many, many years before us, embarrassing us, but our so- called efficient private sector kept resisting computerization. Now the Electronic Transactions Bill of course, as I say—even though I am criticizing it—is a necessary piece of legislation, but I insist that by itself it will not create what the Minister wants to see happen. We say that it is the legal framework for electronic transactions and so on, to occur in Trinidad and Tobago, and to keep us grounded in the rapidly evolving digital age. Now many experts have looked at this both locally and regionally and the Minister alluded to some of what we need to develop in order to really get to where we ought to be as a progressive nation. Some of the issues that the Minister touched on: the creation of a trusted business environment, the creation of privacy/confidentiality—I know that is a separate piece of legislation— Sen. Panday: Coming next week. [Interruption] Sen. Dr. L. Henry: —coming next week—encryption, authentication and so on, accessibility of electronic data messages in court; to clarify marketplace rules. Also, one of the areas which I think we often overlook locally is in fostering the competitive environment for e-commerce and other areas of electronic activity. We are taking it for granted and what it speaks to is our lack of legislation in terms of competition policy. As we all know, just several years ago one cable company was allowed to buy up all the others and no one said anything about it. So, we have essentially a monopoly in cable, you know, when in the early period each area had a specified 462 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. HENRY] cable company, just to give you an example. There seems to be a lack of urgency or a lack of foresight in terms of developing proper competition policies and fostering a very open marketplace when it comes to these issues. It is as though people assume that the market will take care of itself and we know it never really works that way. Without the proper legislation you always will get monopolization and centralization of economic activity in the hands of one or two businesses and we see the dangers that could lead to many times over. 5.35 p.m. Intellectual property protection is another area and increased participation and fostering of the Government as a model user. These are some of the issues that we also need to address. In terms of competition policy and so on from my earlier work—I could make it available to anyone who is interested—we have addressed these issues.

We can look at the OECD countries in terms of how they dealt with the development of e-commence and electronic transactions in order to avoid the monopolization, because what is in this Bill—the Minister alluded to hiring a particular agency to do a particular task, and what would protect us as consumers—the consumer could be individual or business—from one company developing the monopoly on electronic verification and so on? These are some of the concerns we must address. Now, seeing that a good way to analyse any Bill is to see if the stated objectives of the Bill will actually be delivered by its contents and, in this regard, I find the Bill in its current form somewhat lacking. So, the Bill seeks to harmonize the legal environment regarding electronic transactions with Europe and other developed countries, and nothing is wrong with that, but apart from that, it really does not do very much else by itself. As we have seen, the banking sector and people are engaging in e-commerce, as we speak, without needing to look at this legislation. One of the pieces of legislation that clearly needs to be passed in order to help achieve what the hon. Minister wants, is the Exchequer and Audit Act. I believe the original Act was in 1959. I believe also that it was introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 18, 2011 in the Lower House, but it was not debated. I am not sure what happened then. Why was it not debated and passed or given the priority so that the Government could start receiving electronic payments? That is the main purpose of that Bill. 463 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

So, if you are serious about e-government and allowing people to interface with the Government and pay by credit card and debit card and so on, that piece of legislation should have come hand in hand with this. I am a bit surprised that the Minister made no reference to that piece of legislation, which is so critical for bringing this current Bill to life, because this will not happen without the Exchequer and Audit Act being amended to allow the Government to receive— [Desk thumping] Sen. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: Mr. President, I did make reference to the Exchequer and Audit Act. I am pretty sure that the goodly Senator was sleeping at the time. [Crosstalk] Sen. Dr. L. Henry: All right. Well, I stand corrected, but my point was that given the importance of that piece of legislation, there should have been much more analysis. [Desk thumping] As I insisted, this Bill by itself cannot do anything without the amendment to the Exchequer and Audit Act—[Crosstalk] The problem is that the impression was given that this Bill would cause e- governance to take off. Sen. Hinds: That is right. Sen. Dr. L. Henry: That is the impression that was conveyed in this Senate. [Desk thumping] [Crosstalk] That is the point I was making, in case anybody on the other side—they have accused me of sleeping. To give the impression that this Bill by itself would do that is just not correct, and we know that. So, if you are serious about this, bring the Act. Of course, the Bill was put forward on February18, 2011, nothing followed up after that. In the summation, you will get your chance, hon. Minister, to tell us when the Bill will be brought forward and so on. In other words, when will this Bill actually have any life? As I said, some of us have been involved in studies and working in this area for a while. I would not bother to go through all the nitty-gritty of the issues pertaining to e- commence. The Minister herself mentioned quite a bit of it, so I would not bother to repeat. With these few words, I thank you, Mr. President. [Desk thumping] Sen. Dr. Rolph Balgobin: Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to make a contribution on this timely piece of legislation, the Electronic Transactions Bill, 2011. I should really begin by recognizing the good work that has been done to bring this piece of legislation forward, simply because there is a very great deal that has to be done where legislation of this nature is concerned, and I think that Trinidad and Tobago as with so many things, is probably a little further behind than we ought to be when we are contemplating matters such as these. 464 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. BALGOBIN] Mr. President, for example, just by way of data—I think we have had much discussion so far on views and so on and some feelings—but Ericsson and Intel estimated that by 2020 there will be 50 billion devices connected to the Internet. That is a tremendous amount of microprocessor power far in excess of the human population even projected at its height. Very interestingly, that is up from five billion devices connected to the Internet in 2009. So the growth has been and will continue to be exponential. Digital records by 2020 are estimated to consume as much as four times the amount of data storage capacity as is currently being employed in the world. By 2010, e-commerce in the United States of America accounted for about $140 billion. By 2010, in the rest of the world, the United States of America included, e-commerce was valued at US $407 billion, or thereabouts. So, we are dealing with a form of transaction that has grown significantly in size over the last several years, and it is expected to grow and grow. So, in that kind of context, how does Trinidad and Tobago look? Well, in 2009/2010 Trinidad and Tobago was ranked 79th in the world. Out of 133 countries, we are ranked 79th in terms of global IT readiness, according to the World Economic Forum. I should say out of those 133 countries, we are ranked 100th in terms of our legal framework and our readiness for ICT and electronic transactions. So this legislation will presumably help us to redress that imbalance. There are some other telling bits of information. If we look at what the current research says about Trinidad and Tobago, for example, our mobile phone subscriptions rank 39th in the world. At the last count, we had 117 mobile phone accounts/subscriptions per 100 persons in Trinidad and Tobago. That means you have more mobile phone accounts than people in Trinidad and Tobago. Some people have of course, a green and red phone and so on. We are ranked 57th in the world for personal computers and 63rd in the world for broadband Internet subscriptions, and we are probably going to be higher than that when research results come out later this year. What we are seeing is a country that is very much set squarely in the middle in terms of a normal distribution curve in the world. Where are we? How do we look? Well, we look pretty much average, but, we are actually considered, in comparison to many of the other countries in the world, a medium to high income country now. Now, that may be that our image is galloping ahead of the reality a little, and it is probably because of our economic performance in the recent past. 465 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Notwithstanding that, one cannot deny that we do have a reasonably good telecommunications infrastructure. [Desk thumping] You have more and more choices being delivered in Trinidad and Tobago now. You have Internet TV that is being launched by TSTT that is competing with FLOW, so you are no longer locked into one cable provider; take it or die. You have FLOW offering telephone services to compete with TSTT. Well bmobile and Digicel are perpetually locked in battle. I think that the country has benefited largely from this; both in terms of lower telecommunications cost, better deals, and I think both companies—not so much FLOW, and one wonders why—Digicel and TSTT spend a fair amount of money trying to do good and support worthy causes and so on to raise their profiles. Whether they are entirely worthy all the time is open to debate, but that is not the subject of this. My point is, we have a small country here, and we have the beginnings of an infrastructure that can be used to propel Trinidad and Tobago forward, if we approach the use of this infrastructure in a reasoned, objective and sensible way. I think that this Bill goes some way toward beginning to do that. In researching the Bill, what I have found is that it is actually quite similar to other models of Acts that exist in the Commonwealth and in the Commonwealth Caribbean in particular. It seems, however—although I missed this in the Minister‟s presentation—to aim to accomplish broadly five things and first of those five things would be, to begin to establish a clear legal framework for electronic transactions. 5.50 p.m. A second objective would be to provide a legal basis for e-commerce and electronic transactions. There is a difference, because you can append your digital signature and so on. We will come to that in a little bit because the Minister did speak about that and the Bill does address it; this notion of digital signatures and so on, that can even have effect for non-commercial transactions. The third thing that I think is important for us to recognize, which is not mentioned in the Bill, is that there is a United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, which is driven by UNCITRAL, so there is in fact some sort of global standard that attempts to speak to how legislation like this ought to be structured and presented. The fourth thing that this legislation, to my mind, would appear to seek to do, is ensure technology neutrality. Now, the Minister caught that, but her terminology is slightly different because she speaks of media neutrality. If she is 466 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. BALGOBIN] speaking also of technology neutrality then I think that it is appropriately captured. I think it is important that we recognize that there is a distinction between the two. The fifth aspect, really is, to my mind, the most powerful and it is one that I would certainly have liked to hear a lot more about, particularly from the Minister. It is not her core area of responsibility but it falls within her Ministry and it actually has the capacity to dramatically revolutionize how this country is run and that is, the Bill seeks to establish a basis for e-Government. And by that, what I mean is, it has begun to take us down the road to a place where we now can do transactions electronically that we would have previously had to go to a government office for. Now, of course, there are some profoundly irritating exceptions. For example, you would still have to go to the passport office when you get an appointment and so on, and these are covered in clause 6 of the Bill. But, yes, and I think that is perhaps for me, one of the most important aspects of a Bill like this in a developing nation context and that is, it is beginning the process of permitting government to change the way that it interfaces with its citizens―and very shortly, I propose to come back to that—but I think that is very important because as a developing country, I do not share the view that we should define a policy position on how we are going to manage e-commerce, e-business, electronic transactions, the use of ICT in dealing with each other and dealing with Government, simply by legislation and have policy sort of being deduced from that. I think that it would have been very useful; I know that there are a number of other Bills coming before us and it would have been useful to have some overarching articulation of how these things all hang together, simply because there is a fair bit of detail in Bills of this type and in looking at them, there are going to be hooks that are essential and more important the hooks that are not entirely obvious but that we should not miss. So, it is to my mind key that we encourage the Minister and the Government to bring forward, as well, an overarching position on how these pieces of legislation hang together so that we understand from a strategic point of view, whether there are any gaps or not. Again, Mr. President, I would say that we are in some instances significantly behind the curve where this legislation is concerned. For example, in 1998, 1999, as far back as then, 11, 12 years ago, a debate―and draft legislation was put forward in Hong Kong about electronic signatures and electronic transactions. 467 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Early in the new millennium, Australia and New Zealand entered the dialogue and entered the debate, so again, we are very far behind. Even the US, which for all its innovative capability can sometimes be quite slow, has an Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act, which gives electronic signatures the same legal standing as handwritten ones. And this is one of the things that this Bill purports to enable and in that regard, I think that it is a very important step forward. In terms of asking the broader question: is this Bill the way to meet our needs? The answer would be, yes, maybe. There are some areas that bear further examination and some places in which it can and could go further. I know that there is legislation to come before us in terms of privacy and the things that are attendant to issues and concerns of privacy. But, Mr. President, the debate on data and data privacy has moved well beyond notions of protection of data. You now have in developed countries an evolving dialogue on what is called the Personal Data Ecosystem and that really treats with data, its generation, use, transmission and storage, even its destruction as a value chain in the same way that the economists in the industrial organization paradigm would look at a value chain in a sort of Porterian logic in the 1980s, and so on. There is now an emergent view that personal data as part of a personal data ecosystem, is becoming an asset, some aspects of which are entirely tangible, an asset both to the person or the organization about whom or about which the data refers but also to the owner of the data, and I make a distinction. I make a distinction because the Bill is silent on that and that is a critical aspect of ensuring that we have a modern, logical approach. I actually think the Bill is probably two or three years dated. 6.00 p.m. I got the impression from it—because if I look at the Antigua Bill for example, which is 2006, it is broadly similar except that they have established an authority and here that power is given to the Minister for certain aspects. So I think that there are aspects to this that have moved on since this must have first been drafted. I know that there have been some changes to it but in my view the changes are probably insufficient to bring it in line with the current state of affairs when we are talking about ICT. And it is not a criticism, it is just an observation. But coming back to this notion of privacy for a second and I would like to say, who owns your data is something that the Bill might want to speak to. Who owns data? 468 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. BALGOBIN] Mr. President, I would say that the person who owns the data really is not necessarily you, even if the data is about you. Now, that sounds odd to most of the people listening or watching, a person saying, well if there is data about me, that data belongs to me. Well, not necessarily and we already have several instances where data about individuals does not belong to individuals. Think about a credit history, a credit score in a developed country, or locally, think about a criminal record or medical records. So, the question of ownership of data, particularly as it relates to citizens who are meant not only to be enabled to do electronic transactions by this Bill but also protected, I think that is something that the Privacy Bill presumably will address. But I would like to know that between the Privacy Bill and this one that we recognize this notion of personal data ecosystem and we understand very clearly that we should not close off opportunities for business and for the tailoring of products and services simply by saying that all the data about a person belongs to a person because of course, that is not and has not ever been the case. The other issue here that we ought to think about that the Bill is silent on, really speaks to something way down in the legislation in Part VI clause 51(1)(b), when it talks about procedure for dealing with unlawful and defamatory information and so on. I was a bit perplexed about why the Minister would need to be notified of such a thing. If it is unlawful or defamatory the police are the people to tell. So, “notify the Minister… and the appropriate law enforcement authority” does not really work for me. My view is that the Minister should not be involved in there at all. [Desk thumping] If I go further down in clause 51(2)(b) again it says: “If an intermediary or telecommunications service provider is aware of facts or circumstances from which…civil or criminal liability…” can result, the intermediary shall follow the relevant procedure set out in a code of conduct and tell the Minister. Again, that is not consistent with what a law-abiding country should do. If a telecommunications provider—because again this rubs right up against the Interception of Communications Act. This rubs right up against that. This is why it is so important for us to see, kind of an overarching policy framework that tells us how these pieces of legislation fit in with each other because a telecommunications provider, under the Interception of Communications Act, cannot intercept any telecommunication of any kind across its network, unless it is in service of a warrant. 469 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Section 6 of the Interception of Communications Act permits authorized persons to intercept telecommunications but without the assistance of the telecommunications provider and therefore, the law that exists in the Interception of Communications Act really does not envision a situation like this. If you are saying a telecoms company is aware of civil or criminal liability they ought to tell the Minister and follow a code of conduct that presumably the Ministry would put forward, I think that the easier thing to do would be to say this ought to be subject to any written law and paragraphs (a) and (b) ought to come out and say just inform law enforcement. I do not think there is a place there for any Minister. The other thing that the Bill is silent on would be this question of media neutrality. Now, media neutrality and technology neutrality and those things are very fine intellectual concepts but when they are being operationalized they can actually pose grave risks to a government, to a business organization and so on and I will tell you why. They pose risks for the very reasons that the neutrality we are attempting to protect in the Bill, is subject to the fact that the media changes, the technology changes, but we must find some way to ensure that adequate or appropriate systems or mechanisms are put in place, not just to protect people‟s data from access by unauthorized persons but to protect it against the passage and the ravages of time and against technology risks. There are, Mr. President, instances in the world, in recent history, where companies have stored massive amounts of data on tape, had a meltdown and they found that they did not have the technology to restore the data that they have on tape. It has happened. It has happened in the multinational environment. So, when you are creating a legal framework that is allowing people to store information about other people and you are allowing people to transact or conduct business and store those records as if they were as good as paper, then we need to ensure that the storage systems are appropriate and that the media types that are being used are appropriate. I think that there are some things to think about where that is concerned but perhaps the code of conduct or the regulations as envisioned by the Bill will treat with that. But I think if you are going to do that certainly, for Government agencies and so on, some sort of appropriate standard ought to be set for how data is captured and managed. The other thing I did not understand about the Bill, Mr. President, was this notion of an electronic authentication service provider, because an electronic authentication service provider according to the Bill, clause 33(1), must be registered as such by the Minister or by an authority designated by a Minister. 470 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. BALGOBIN] 6.10 p.m. Perhaps my understanding of what this is, is not consonant with that of the framers of this piece of legislation, but this is something that happens globally. Now I know where this comes from. It comes from the US legislation. [Interruption] The US legislation requires people to register as electronic authentication service providers in order for electronic signatures to have legal force in that jurisdiction, but this is not the US. If you do a search on the Internet and you look at the biggest service providers—I do not know if they have any in Trinidad, you know. I am sure it is probably a service that the local telecoms industry could provide or something like that, but I think it is something that we ought to think about in relation to 33(1), because there are several global operations that offer this service. I do not know the extent to which some or any local operations are geared to provide this service at present, so to give life to this—and there is no reason why a foreign service provider cannot do it, in my view. I am not sure what capability the Minister or a designated authority would have to make a judgment on their suitability, save and except to do an audit which could just as easily be done of any foreign operator or player. To what extent would they want to come and register with our Ministry? I really do not know. It is something to think about, especially, in the context of 34(4), which appears to my mind somewhat circular, because it says, where an applicant has no accreditation, the Minister has to ask you to submit to an audit of operations and systems to ensure compliance. How would you demonstrate compliance if you do not have any customers? But you cannot get any customers unless you demonstrate compliance. I think I understand what they are trying to say, so perhaps in committee stage or somewhere else we could just tighten that up and ensure that there is a clear causal chain, as it were, and not so much the circular one. Mr. President, most important to my mind is this notion of e-services and how a government relates to its people. I think this is really, for me, one of the most critical aspects covered by the Bill. Most people would probably focus on the fact that electronic signatures are now permitted. To be sure, I think the Bill is insufficiently clear on the distinction between an electronic and a digital signature, because an electronic signature is an email—I say I agree with this and I put my name and away that goes. I could if I wanted to and the legislation permits for it, put a graphic: scan my signature and put it there and send that along. That is an electronic signature. That is generally viewed to be extremely 471 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 unsafe, and is not recommended at all. The generally accepted model would be for key transactions to employ a digital signature, which employs modern cryptographic measures, which ensure the authenticity of— [Desk thumping] Sen. King: Same thing. Sen. Dr. R. Balgobin: Sorry? Sen. King: It is the same thing. Sen. Dr. R. Balgobin: No, it is not. It is not clear. Again, it is not a destructive criticism. What I am seeking to do is to ensure that we permit the right thing, because what you do not want is people transacting business in the way of everyday communication and somebody else holding that up and saying we have a contract. I have a contract with you because you said go ahead. I think that we ought to be careful about that. A digital signature has the same user experience, almost, as a handwritten signature, in that you go through a bit of trouble in order to do it. That is important when you are thinking about transactions that involve critical things like land, money, inheritances, contracts of a certain size and so on. So, Sen. King this does not say “digital”, it says “electronic”, all the way through and I think that there is an opportunity— However, in the Minister‟s defence, she did appear to blur the distinction in her presentation, so I am quite certain that the framers of the legislation would have contemplated digital or may have vacillated a bit in their understanding of the two concepts which are significantly different. I would, of course, advocate use of a digital as opposed to an electronic signature; so it needs definition and clarification. If you look at the definition section, Mr. President, to the front there on page 3, well on page 2, you would realize that there is no definition of digital signature because—[Interruption] Sorry? Yes, but on page 2 there is nothing for digital. Hon. Senator: Read the legislation. Sen. Dr. R. Balgobin: On page 3, the “electronic signature” says, “information in electronic form affixed to, or logically associated with a data message which may be used to— (a) identify the signatory…” So there is an opportunity, I think, to tighten this. Well, probably a necessity to tighten it to ensure that the signatory‟s approval as they suggested here is genuine. I can tell you that the other day I allowed my son to play with my ipad and it was a costly mistake, because I downloaded a free game, but of course, as with 472 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. BALGOBIN] many things that are free, there was an element where you could have paid for a top-up of crystals or something like that, and he authorized it all by himself and spent £86 or something like that. [Laughter] I was reeling for a minute, but when I went to the Apple store website, they said, no, that is an electronic signature, you have approved it, you cannot get your money back. I deleted the whole application. Whether you play the game or not is irrelevant really, money was spent and my son has since moved on to other things. [Interruption] Not monetary, hopefully. You could actually have people—because many of us have email accounts that our assistants or other people use to just read or clear our email and so on. So, this notion of electronic signature, Mr. President, is very important and there is an opportunity for clarification. However, what I was saying is that there is a significant scope and opportunity for us to talk more about e-government; not just in an esoteric way. You look at the transport problems that people have in this country and we heard about some of them today. We heard Sen. Panday speaking about some of the challenges that people have with transport and so on, but the fact is even for a small country there are some places that are very remote in this island. PROCEDURAL MOTION The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Mr. President, In accordance with Standing Order 9(8), I beg to move that the Senate continue to sit until the completion of this matter or until 10.30 p.m., whichever is earlier. Thank you. Question put and agreed to. ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS BILL Mr. President: Senator, just before you—I am not meaning to participate in the debate, but the definition of electronic, you might want to look at it specifically—the word “electronic”. Sen. Dr. R. Balgobin: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. [Sen. Deyalsingh shows Sen. Dr. Balgobin document] Oh yes, I know it quite well actually. What they are doing here is that they are using it as a synonym, but in actual fact they are very different notions, and an electronic signature is not a digital signature. A digital signature is actually a very secure creation that has to be explicitly done by an authorized user using an authorized service provider and it is decoded on the other end by someone who 473 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 has a key that permits them to decode it. This definition of an electronic signature is talking about general transmission of data which would identify a user under— if I bridge from electronic to electronic signature—but, of course, I would never get into a legal argument with you since you are a lawyer and I am not. [Laughter] But what I would say is that in the industry there is a significant distinction and it is probably one that ought to be paid attention to. Mr. President, what I was going to say next and probably finally, just to sort of speak briefly on this notion of e-Government, because I think Trinidad and Tobago has some very serious problems when it comes to the delivery of Government services to its people and that runs right across the board. Pretty much all Ministries and Government departments, I think that—I think that I should verbalize something that many people, I think, feel, but, perhaps not enough of US say out loud, and that is that the standard of service that most citizens receive when dealing with the State is awful. It is really, really awful and our citizens do not deserve that, because our citizens are paying the salaries of the people who are routinely rude and dismissive of them and to them. I think only in Trinidad and Tobago could we have any kind of discussion about an improvement in pay packages without the word “productivity” anywhere in the sentence or the paragraph. I do not understand, and whenever I say that I am roundly attacked in some places, but that is okay. In a modern society we have to find ways around this and the public sector, the public service is in very urgent need of transformation and somebody needs to bell the cat on this one. Somebody needs to do that. And maybe this is a way to sort of protect our citizens from awful service by providing them with an opportunity to access those services when it is convenient to them. This is what I applaud in the Bill, because if you have to deal with anything to do with the Government, with the State, Mr. President, take a day off. Take a day! Take a day! 6.25 p.m. Sometimes if you read the letters to the editor—I read one a couple of days ago where someone went to the Licensing Office in San Fernando and had a very rough day there. But, if you have to take a day keep in mind, Mr. President, that if there are 20 working days for the month, one day is 5 per cent of your productive time. It is a lot of time. And every time you have to do something with the Government you have to take a day. You will be very lucky if you took half day. 474 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. DR. BALGOBIN] Mr. President, I went to renew my passport some years ago, this was before you had to make an appointment. We did not have the machine readable ones then. So I walked into the passport office, as I opened the door—I went about 9.30 a.m., I opened the door and everyone turned around and looked at me. I walked in with my wife—[Interruption] Hon. Senator: Were you in a red shirt? Sen. Dr. R. Balgobin: No, I was not in a red shirt, nor a polka dot tie. I was however, with my spouse and we went in there and everybody turned and looked at me. We kept their gaze until we took a seat. So I sat there for five minutes with everyone staring at us, and someone strolled over and said, “You have a number”? I said, “Well, I did not know I needed a number.” “Yes, you need a number”. He said, “look there; that thing there, go get a number”. So I walked over to the thing and guess what?—no number”. So I am thoroughly perplexed by this thing now because it is 9.30 a.m. So I tap on the glass and the lady there of course ignores me and continues to—I pound and pound and pound and eventually she said, “What”? and I said I have to take a number but this thing has run out of tickets. And she said, “Well that means that you have to come back tomorrow. At 9.30 a.m! Sen. George: When? Last year this time! [Laughter] Sen. Dr. R. Balgobin: No, it was a few years ago. But, when I talk to people now, or when I interface with the Government—I want to make the point given that timely interjection by my hon. friend, that this is a problem that spans governments and one of the ways of tackling this hydra of a monster is using electronic platforms for government to get services out to its people. I think that there is more than enough opportunity for us to do that. According to this—not if you want a passport, but everything else seems all right and I think that there is a real chance for us here to make a difference and perhaps start unfreezing the ossified structures of the public service to make it more relevant, more modern and more supportive of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, who really are the customers of the public service. It is funny because you hardly ever find service in the public service—and maybe there are just a few people who do not do what they ought to do, but wow, do they ever tarnish the many. I think that, Mr. President, is really the underemphasized, significant opportunity of this Bill. I called for a number of things in my discourse, but I would again call for the fourth or fifth time for some sort of overarching policy framework that says how we are going to deal with all of this electronic stuff, all of this ICT stuff, so that we 475 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 can have them locked in and articulated with each other, so that we can see also where the gaps are. So if we are leaving a gap we are at least very clear on the fact that we are leaving a gap. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. [Desk thumping] Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving me this chance to take part in this debate on what I consider to be a piece of legislation that is way, way, way overdue and that I think has come out from the other side. [Desk thumping] I think to the extent that it is being introduced now, and if indeed some of the shortcomings that have been pointed out are there, I would expect that that is indeed going to happen in a situation like this, because this electronic revolution is quite what it is. It is very explosive, it goes in all directions and it is a question now of trying to tame it and pull it in, because we have been operating to a large extent like the “Wild West” as far as this thing is concerned. There have been many interventions in the past, by previous administrations on the development of ICT in Trinidad and Tobago, some of them involving—I have a document in front of me—millions of dollars. There is one in particular that I am looking at here involving a memorandum of understanding between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the Government of Singapore, which was signed in December, 2008. One of the intentions was to develop the whole concept of e-Government; I suspect as well e-commerce, and so on. And yet it was done without an enabling framework. [Desk thumping] So I think, if anything, this current administration has to be complimented for trying to bring some order into what could turn out to be a messy situation, because, whether we like it or not—I think my good friend and colleague, Sen. Dr. Henry, used the words “legislative housekeeping” and I like the expression— it is a way of bringing up to date some of the things that we have been sadly lacking. We are not going to accomplish everything in this one Bill, I have no doubt about that, but this is a start. We have to start somewhere and the fact is, if we leave it as it is, it is going to become even messier as we go ahead and we do not want that to happen at all. This explosion has taken place, notwithstanding—and some of the activities that we have been talking about are going on whether we like it or not. Again my friend and colleague, Sen. Dr. Balgobin made a lot of discussions about the electronic signature and I want to develop and say a lot on this as I go along, because I could understand how the confusion takes place. I do not know to what 476 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] extent time will not make it a semantic discussion, because at this point in time what he is calling “electronic” happens on a day to day basis. When I use my credit card to pay for an airline ticket, it is an electronic signature, by his definition, but it is binding and I am not sure how his son managed to buy something from Apple without having access to his credit card information. If he is allowing his son to have access to his credit card information, it is not the iPad that is the problem—[Interruption] Sen. Dr. Balgobin: My son is five. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: Okay. I do not know—I do not know how it happened. I really do not know how that could happen, because in order to buy something from Apple or anybody for that matter, you need the credit card information. Sometimes they ask for that little number at the back, the three digits,—and that you should not do. [Crosstalk] So I am giving you some advice for free. [Laughter] So that in a way a lot of what is happening, a lot of what we are trying to legislate here, is already upon us. We are in the world where everything is happening. When I think of my own life, how it has developed—I was born into a family by no means poor, but we did not have a telephone, we did not have a fridge. I remember when a fridge came into my house. I remember when a telephone came into my house. Now every member of my household has a telephone. Some, nearly everyone of us has a laptop computer and it is not by passing the Common Entrance Examination that they got it—and everybody is communicating—[Interruption] Hon. Senator: SEA. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: SEA, sorry—in all kinds of activities, and it is a reality that we have these things—e-commerce, we all have dealt in some way or the other with e-commerce. Amazon.com is a big one that people have talked about. 6.35p.m. My good friend, Sen. Dr. Henry, talked about the absence of e-commerce in Trinidad and Tobago, but there is one store that I am sure he would have gone on to—and I certainly have gone on to—called “Trini Tunes” where I buy my Soca music legally. I mean, it is true, for some reason or not, I pay in US dollars. They quote the prices in US dollars. It is 99 cents, generally, for one tune. It is a well known reputable store and you could phone them, I think in St. James when you have a problem. 477 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

So there is this reality that is before us and we have to begin to bring order to it. The fact that the overarching legislation is not yet with us, I want to assure those on the opposite side, including the Independent Bench, that that is coming. It is going to happen. This is but the first step in that direction and we want to make sure that it is something that we see to. To the extent that other things are not with us yet—I just want to give you some stories about how, in the context of Trinidad and Tobago, sometimes problems could arise because of people‟s unwillingness to deal with transactions. I am not going to name the airline, but I was in a foreign country a few days ago and I had to change my date of return. Most of you would know that that involves a penalty fee. I was then told by the person who did it for me that I must voyage to the capital of that country to verify that the credit card is the one that I am using. Now that is extremely inconvenient, especially as I was not near the capital city at the time. And when we try to blend these things in a way like that and we do not want to go the whole hog, which is what I think this legislation is attempting to facilitate, we do what a colleague of mine calls, “paving the cow path”. We simply throw some pitch over where the cows used to run and think we have a highway, and that is not true. A highway requires some more definite action; it requires some more thinking on it, and we have set about in this activity in not trying to pave the cow path. The question of the digital signature, it is true—and I am not a lawyer; I know there are many distinguished lawyers in this House, Sir, including your good self, but I would like to believe—again, this is part of the paving of the cow path. I certainly believe that if you write an email promising to deliver some legal services to me and it comes from an address that I know to be yours, whether it is your son who did it or not, I am going to assume that that has come from you, and I would like to believe that I have a legal document. My own feeling is even if that is not true now, that is heading to be true along the way, and a lot of people want to continue in the old way. Even in the place where I work, I sometimes get an invitation to a meeting, and that is not a contract where the person takes the time; they type up the letter on a word processor; they print it; sign it; scan it; send it as an attachment to the email. It is now four megabytes big, when it could have been four kilobytes in sending it, taking up a lot of my storage space simply to tell me that I am invited to a meeting. Why? Because in the 1970s that is what they did; they sent a memo around that was signed. 478 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] To the extent that that is also now going to spill over into the way we do business, and we are doing it, electronic or digital or not, when I buy my Caribbean Airlines ticket online, it is paid for without a signature. They do not ask for a signature, digital, written or otherwise. Sen. Al-Rawi: It is an EDI transaction. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: Yes, but it is done and if somebody should go on—and this is the case. If somebody should know my information, Caribbean Airlines, for instance, would have no way of saying that it is not me. They are going to issue the ticket in that way, and there is a lot of evidence of fraud of that nature that has taken place, so much so that some of the banks in Trinidad and Tobago are very, very cautious about going in that direction. I do not know if this has ever happened to you, Mr. President, that you have been away; you have gone to a foreign country without informing your bank and you try to use your credit card and they stop it, because they think that you have no right to be away without telling them. It is a practice that they have, and that is because there is a grave difficulty of people coming into the 21st Century. Many of us are coming, screaming and kicking into this era. That is another reason I think this legislation is extremely important. It is important that John Public, the ordinary person—there are some people who will confess to you, almost with pride—I mean, I must say I do not understand it; they are usually around my age—that they are computer illiterate and they have no use for computers. But the reality is, this thing is upon us and I think, at best, I am hoping that legislation like this will give comfort to such people that they could conduct their routine activities online. There are so many things that can be done now. People still go in bank lines to pay telephone bills. You could do that from home now. There are difficulties associated with it. I had a serious problem the other day in paying a T&TEC bill. It actually got paid into somebody else‟s account and then I was threatened with disconnection and I had to do all kinds of things. These are the teething problems that we are going to have, but it is comforting to know that as I get older I do not have to go into a bank to pay a T&TEC and a telephone bill. [Desk thumping] WASA is not yet on it, as far as I know. Hon. Senator: Yes, it is. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: Oh, really? 479 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Sen. Ramkhelawan: I thank the hon. Senator for giving way. He did make mention of payment via credit cards as opposed to electronic versus digital signature. While I cannot claim to be an expert on it, what I can say is that with regard to credit card payments there would be limitations as to the extent of remittance and that limitation, of course, would be limited to the facility that you may have. It may be $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 as the case may be. When we start to talk about contracts being signed electronically, it may be for millions of dollars. When we start to talk about the financial sector, the remittance of funds for payment of shares in Singapore or wherever, we are starting to talk about millions of dollars. Therefore, the authentication and verification for those matters would be vastly different. So that just for purposes of clarification, there are certain levels which would apply and that is why the legislation is very important. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: I want to thank the hon. Senator, but the Bill deals with exceptions at this point in time. The Bill does deal with exceptions, precisely exceptions of that type. I do not know that they talk about money but they talk about, for instance, contracts for land, for passports and wills. I specifically remember that. That is specifically stated in the Bill. But I will add, very hastily, that that may be necessary today because there is need while we get our act together, to ensure that the relevant security is put in place, otherwise it could become a runaway horse, and the problem that Sen. Dr. Balgobin faced will not face all of us. We have to do these things little by little. There is an expression that the hon. Minister used when she was presenting the Bill. She said that some of these exceptions are not cast in stone and we are willing to look at them as the technology develops more. I interpreted that to mean that as the technology becomes more advanced and the EASPs—I get tied up when I say the electronic authentication service providers—they become more and more sophisticated and are able to intervene in a meaningful way in protecting you and providing that kind of assurance that you would want to have in doing the bigger transactions. I have no doubt in my mind that sooner or later, what is now a serious distinction—and I agree with the hon. Senator when he said it—between the electronic and the digital—and I still believe that somewhere along the way there is going to be need for it. For instance, let us take the credit card transaction. When I started first to use credit card transactions, it was sufficient for me to give the numbers that appeared on the front of the card. I do not know if everyone has faced this. It is now a requirement that the three digit numbers behind, in many cases—if you go through something like PayPal, which is a secure site, which is something like a 480 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] EASP, these are people who have made a name for themselves in running conferences, and I would like to get into that; I enjoy that right when I am about to go abroad. I pay for my hotel using PayPal; I pay for the conference; I pay everything, using PayPal, but they assure me about the security of the site, and apparently PayPal has developed that reputation. I am sure most people who know of the service will not hesitate to use the PayPal service, because they feel secure in using it, and they require that you give that extra little number. I do not know to what extent they will then begin making demands on the credit cards a little bit more sophisticated. That may mean the time may come when what Sen. Dr. Balgobin is referring to as an electronic signature, will become as good as a digital signature. I have no doubt in my mind that this technology is not going to stand still and it is going to go on. And in a way, what is the unfortunate thing is that the practice—that is one of the problems of regulatory legislation; we are always behind. We see a problem and we jump at it and by the time we deal with it, another problem arises. That is how it is going to be and we are going to have to then intervene to deal with it. It is very necessary at this point in time that the process be regulated, and that is another feature of this Bill. I use the words “Wild West” to describe how we were operating up to now. With the passage of this Bill we may still have a little bit of “Billy the Kid”, and so on, around, but we would have taken a step in the right direction so that the “Dodge Cities” of the Internet, and so on, will disappear. I think it is extremely important that we take that step. Everyone who has spoken has mentioned that these Bills resemble some of the better Bills around, and I take Sen. Dr. Balgobin‟s point that it may be that we are behind. But that is the nature of the beast when you are doing regulatory work. And, indeed, tomorrow, we could come to change the relevant clauses, because the things will change. I give you some examples of how hard it is to change mindsets, because I think that one of the things I would like to see this do is change mindsets. At the place where I work I have—because I head an institute—to sign off on the computer. My own understanding, based on—and it follows in a logical sequence with what I have been telling you about electronic signatures—is when I use my password to get onto that site, that, in a way, is my signature. When I get onto the site and I approve a transaction, a few days afterwards a whole heap of paper comes to me for signing in several places. Now, I would have thought that the 481 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 idea behind that electronic transaction was precisely to save on paper. I mean, it is tidy; it is neat and it is pro-environment. Why is it you have now made my work harder? In the old days I used to sign the paper anyway, now you have me going onto the computer and signing the paper consequently. I really cannot understand that. Now, even if there is some reason behind that—and to a large extent I think it is people‟s unwillingness to live without seeing a signature—why is a signature so important? In the old days Kings put their mark and now we have the privilege of the Kings by putting our mark, which is our signature. Our stamp is going to be that electronic gateway and not necessarily the digital stamp which now is required. The point at which the technology is, we have need of that encrypted type of thing, but for relatively small things, like my promising you to deliver a particular good, I think—and I am speaking to you as a lawyer, Mr. President—that that should be a legally binding document; that through my email account, I indicate that I would do something with you. It does not have a signature on it. It is as good as if I wrote it on a letter and signed it, just as how verbal agreements could come into being, agreements via email, with the understanding that that is your email. And it is true that somebody could invade it, but it is also true that somebody could forge your signature or forge the King‟s seal. All these things could happen. And just as we had to know how to deal in the 19th Century and the 20th Century with signature frauds, we have to learn how to deal with electronic frauds in the 21st Century. That is the reality. And this Bill goes a long way in dealing with that. 6.50 p.m. I have no doubt that people are going to find more sophisticated ways to deal with some of the issues, and be as fraudulent as they would like to be, but the fact is—and I heard Sen. Dr. Balgobin say it again—we are way, way behind, and we must take the first step if we want to go forward. So I really wanted to say a few things about the electronic signature. What I like about this Bill here in reading it—and yes, it is true I am on the side of the Government, but I pride myself in being objective in some of these issues. I thought it blended caution in the sense of bearing in mind that we are coming from a past where people did not operate in an electronic environment and it blended caution with necessity, the necessity to come into the 21st Century. You should not do that in a rush because some people will lose confidence in you. 482 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] There are some people who have a lot of prejudices about the “electronic thing”. They are accustomed to signatures, they are accustomed to writing. Somebody gave me the gift of a fountain pen the other day. I was most delighted and I walk around with it as an artifact. I am trying to find a bottle of ink for it, by the way, and it is nice. I remember when I was in secondary school, in spite of the fact that the ballpoint pen was taking over the world, my teachers insisted that I write with a fountain pen. I am sure that is not the case in secondary schools at this point in time. Sen. Oudit: Up to primary school. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: Really? I did not know, I stand corrected, Mr. President. I really, even at that time, could not understand why we were advancing technologically with the ballpoint pen, and people were insisting that I write with a messy fountain pen which often led to blotches on my shirt and so on. And I know that by the time I wrote my advanced level examination which was in 1970, I was writing with a ballpoint pen. That is what I remember; at least that is my memory. Certainly, when I was in university, I did not own any fountain pens. People have a great difficulty in coming to terms with technological change, and this legislation, I think, will help in facilitating that. It will give people a certain amount of comfort and it is important that on our side we should make the legislation, and we should respond to the concerns raised both by the Opposition and the Independent Bench about getting the overarching legislation in place, so that people could see it and could feel there is a confidence in what they want to get done. Mr. President, I want to say one little thing on the question of the e-commerce. It is true that as a region, as a country we are behind time on it. My learned friend, Sen. Dr. Henry, did not seem confident that it would result in a burst of e-commerce, neither do I; I do not think tomorrow people are going to jump at it. But already, as I indicated, there are some firms of local origin that are involved in it. I know the “Trini Tunes” as one for sure; I suspect that others are there. I saw something being advertised for children the other day and they asked me to go online, and it is a Trinidadian firm—a learning instrument—it is something that is happening more and more. I heard Sen. Dr. Balgobin plead with the Government. He gave an example of a manual system. Now I want to plead for something that can be done following on this, that I could apply for my passport online. And the electronic signature—I see my learned friend Sen. Corinne Baptist-Mc Knight shaking her head. I will give you another illustration. 483 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight: You could fill out the form but they do not accept it. Sen. Prof. P. Watson: No, I know they do not. I am saying that we want to do it. I filled out, finally, my Integrity Commission for 2009 a few days ago. I was threatened with being put on a blacklist so I hurriedly went—you have the same problem Shamfa, so you better hurry up. So you could fill out the entire blank— and you know what is good about that when they ask you for 2010, because I am a poor man and that is not going to change much, I could send in the 2009 you know just changing as the Latin‟s says mutatis mutandis—that is a nice expression for you. Sen. King: Did you save it? Sen. Prof. P. Watson: Of course I saved it. [Interruption] I mean, I thought you meant if I saved the document. Yes, the situation will probably alter a little. What is nice about it, all my assets, the very few that I have, they are there, and to the extent that they change a little, it is easy for me to do. So I do not have to go and fill it out again. It is really a painful exercise filling out the return for the Integrity Commission, but going online and doing it and filling it out—and is in a PDF format and it is nicely done and you could cut and paste as you wish, and you can store your 2009 form. If they had allowed me simply now to send it by e-mail, I would have done it. Do you know what I had to do? I had to get somebody to go down to the Unit Trust, carry it upstairs; I think he got a receipt for me. But it would have been so much easier because it is a document that is vouched for by the fact that it comes from my e-mail, and in that sense the electronic signature that we are talking about. I had to then print it out, sign it and send it by snail mail. Well, I had someone do it for me downtown, but at least it is an advance, that I could fill it out online and keep it. Similarly, in the case of the passport you cannot fill out the form online because it is in a PDF form, and it does not allow; you have to print it out and I had the misfortune of printing it out on a letter size paper and it was supposed to be printed out on the old A4 which lawyers use. I know the A4 and I almost got rejected when I went to do it because it was on the letter size paper, although it fitted very nicely but it was not on the standard A4. It would have been a good idea if I could have done that online and even if I had to print it out afterwards, it was all nicely done, I used the word processor. If I make a mistake I do not have to scratch it out, which always happens when you 484 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] fill something in the wrong place. I will tell you what I did, the person who I wanted to vouch for me; I filled out his information only to realize that he had to fill it out for me; all the writing had to be done by him. Had I done something like that on the electronic form I would have simply removed it, that is not a big thing to do. But I do not understand why manual intervention should take place there anyway. And I have no doubt that the time is going to come—and if we are talking e-Government we are going to have—and I heard someone talk about the Licensing Division—I cannot remember who, I do not know if it was Sen. Dr. Henry. The problem with bringing people into the 21st Century is really problematic. My learned colleague who presented the paper is responsible for that to some extent, and I am hoping that it does happen and the pain that we cause to fellow citizens and to ourselves when, we do not have things in an ordered fashion, and order can be facilitated by the computer, that is the way I look at it and by using things online. This does not necessarily have to mean Internet, but using the stuff online: filling out the forms online, doing business, paying your lands and buildings taxes online. I think that is coming or has come, I am not sure. But why do I have to walk there and line up to pay this thing and when I go there they want me to pay with a credit card, anyway? That is another thing I had. I went into the Chaguanas Office and if I did not I have a credit card I would have had to walk down to another place to pay the cash and then return. Luckily I have a credit card and I paid with that. And this is the kind of thing that could be done online. It is an annual transaction that you do; it is a simple thing to do, and they do not need a signature for that. I do not remember signing anything when I paid, expect the signing of the credit card. That is something that could easily be done online, just as you could now pay your telephone bill, you could pay your electricity bill. I understand WASA as well; I did not know that because I still pay WASA through the ATM. I do not like to go into banks at all, Mr. President, and even when I am going away for a little while, I use the airport to withdraw about US$200, so I would have some change on me and I use my credit card otherwise, because I do not like to go into the banks and line up. It is a long queue, it is a waste of my time. I much prefer to spend my time useful and this is what electronic activity does for you. 7.00 p.m. Mr. President, I want to close on a somewhat unrelated note. We had a discussion here on the efficiency of the Parliament, and I think it was my good friend, Sen. Deyalsingh, who mentioned the use of the computer and I want to add 485 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 to that. I see no reason why every week somebody should spend gas to drop this in my office. In fact, sometimes I think it is e-mailed. Nearly every document that I have before me, I know it exists in some form or the other in electronic format. Send it to me by e-mail, and if I want to print some of it I would print it selectively. The cost in saving is that you do not have to pay someone to come up the road and drop it. That is gas being used; that is a person‟s time being used; I may not be there when it is dropped off and it causes a lot of trouble; not to mention the negative impact doing the people‟s business has on the environment of the country. We should be setting the example on having less paper inside of here. Again, if I bring my laptop you might put me out, but I see Sen. Dr. Balgobin with something equivalent to a laptop. I am not saying you should put him out, Mr. President, but he is using an instrument that appears to be a flat surface and we do not have to worry about it. I think we should be allowed, and the time has to come when as part of this and related exercises, we be allowed to come in here with electronic devices so that—we are not going to be the first Parliament to do it [Desk thumping]—I could look at this document online because I do have it and I do not have to print it. That is a monumental waste of paper. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for allowing me to intervene. [Desk thumping] Sen. Shamfa Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Electronic Transactions Bill, 2011. This is intended to give legal effect to electronic documents, electronic records, electronic signatures and electronic transactions, in essence, we are making the necessary changes or putting things in place to facilitate a growth of e-commerce and to promote e-Government in an effort to deliver goods and services to the people of Trinidad and Tobago in a more cost efficient and effective way.

This Bill is also intended to bring us up to speed with our brothers and sisters within the Caribbean region and our international counterparts. Of course, we have all agreed that we are living in a technological age, and these times call for falling in line with what is going on as it relates to technology. The exploration of the use of electronic commerce, both by consumers and by the private sector is tremendous. I can speak for myself. I am an avid online shopper. You use the Internet to pay bills, to transfer funds and to purchase goods and services. It saves us time, it saves us money and it exposes us to a wider 486 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] variety of goods and services. So this benefits the consumers, and it also benefits the private sector. The private sector can use e-commerce to widen markets and have access to a larger customer base, and have some access to an ease in how transactions are being done. So it does not just improve our standard of living, socially, but it can also improve our economy. Mr. President, as it relates to facilitating e-Government, the use of the electronic medium and technology can help us as parliamentarians—can help the Government also—to reach out to the citizens in an easier, more efficient, more effective way to provide goods and services; to allow you to make appointments online to see your Minister or to speak to the technology people, or the people you need to interact with in the Government.

I want to also speak on what Sen. Prof. Watson talked about, relating to the use of paper and using the Internet and technology to offset costs, within our businesses in the private sector and within Government as it relates to filing of forms. Sometimes you go to some Government departments and you ask about your gratuity, or you ask to see your personal file and they just cannot put their hands on it, or it was at this office this week and it is at another next week. If this kind of information were available online, then it would be easier to access, easier to store. We have a culture in this country of having to pay drivers and messengers to take documents up and down to get several signatures. So you are paying for the cost of the vehicle, you are paying salaries to the driver, you are paying for gas, and you are wasting time because that same person could have been utilized to do something else within the Ministry or within the department. So e-Government and using the Internet and technology to improve a way of life and the way we do business, is very important today. It eliminates unnecessary expenses and, I think it makes life less cumbersome and that is why this legislation is so important. I have been enjoying the debate so far, and I think we all, both on the Opposition and on the Government side, even the Independent Bench also take this legislation very seriously. I want to commend the Government for bringing this legislation to the Senate for debate. The Government has identified that this whole idea of using e-commerce and e-Government is a key component of creating a knowledge-based economy which is consistent with the Government‟s policy to use ICT as a pillar for development. I think it is the fourth pillar in the Government‟s Seven Pillars Development Plan 487 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 and, that fourth pillar resembles very much—I found it very interesting that it resembles Pillar No. 1 of Vision 2020 of the previous administration, which speaks to developing an innovative people. So I am glad that the idea was brought forward and we are both working to achieve the same thing. Mr. President, we all know the history of this Bill. It was brought in 2009 by the People‟s National Movement, and for several reasons at that time the UNC Opposition did not support it. They felt that it was not important at the time, that the legislation was severely flawed, and it was sent to a joint select committee for work to be done. I recall from reading the Hansard records, that the Member for St. Augustine who is now a Member of this Senate, and I think the Member for Oropouche East, were saying that the legislation was irrelevant, it was a waste of time and more serious legislation could have been brought to Parliament. But this Bill has returned today, almost in its original state, and if I may add, some of the changes that were made would have made it more flawed than it was before. I am not here to be destructive. I think we are all working to achieve the same goal as it relates to trying to bring our country up to par, up to line, with our brothers and sisters. [Desk thumping] So, I am not opposing just because I am sitting on this side. I am here to point out my concerns, the things I would have read that would have piqued my interest, and I want to urge the Government to listen to the Opposition and the Independents so we can make this legislation the best that it can be, so we could accomplish all the wonderful things that the Minister has spoken about. Mr. President, because of what we all are trying to accomplish, we have to try our best to get this right. We must start somewhere. According to Sen. Prof. Watson, I think it is a step in the right direction. But I think at this time if we are going to do something, we are either going to try to do it to the best of our ability or do not do it at all. This is a good start, so we have to find a way to tighten the legislation to make it work for us. Instead of us working for the legislation, we need to make it work for us to do whatever it is that we want to do or to accomplish the things that we want to see achieved. Electronic commerce is so important that we cannot afford to go half-stepping or half-hearted with this. If we are going to create legislation, we need to create proper legislation because of the implications of electronic commerce and e- Government, and all the good things that it can mean for the Government and the economy. Mr. President, electronic commerce can create the possibility for additional international commercial transactions. It reduces costs, it increases the competition among the producers, and that is all healthy for an economy like ours. It can help to reduce prices and to increase international demand. This kind of 488 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] business allows you to access goods and services that would have been impossible without the Internet. For instance, medical services, consulting services, counselling and therapy could be accessed over the Internet.

I have a friend who lives in the OECS who takes counselling. She had to move to Europe, but still wanted to keep in contact with her therapist or the people she talks to. So, they would speak over skype and they would pay. So there is a way for her to receive that therapy even though she is living in another country. So I think that is the direction that we are trying to move to. We have to create the necessary legislation and we have to have the supporting infrastructure to make sure that this kind of thing happens. Now, e-commerce can also compliment the traditional means of conducting trade. For instance, you can use the Internet to advertise for market research and to make payments. I remember working on a case when I was in school, where senior citizens would purchase groceries online. They would select the groceries that they wanted; they were put in a basket; there was somebody at the grocery store taking the orders, dropping them off to the person‟s house; and that person would pay with that little electronic machine like you use in LINX or pay with credit card. If we can do that for senior citizens living in the rural areas— Sometimes you are busy at work, we are here in Parliament up to this hour and by the time we get out, probably ten or eleven o‟clock, who knows, probably two or three o‟clock in the morning, the groceries will be closed and there might be something you might need to get. So we are stepping in the right direction, and we are trying to achieve some good things. Now, this is not just for the customer, but also for the producers, the small and medium enterprises within our country. The traditional drawbacks that we would have had being from the Caribbean and so far away from the major markets, like Europe and the United States, because we are not within a close physical contact, sometimes it is difficult to sell products to them or advertise to them. In trade, we talk about market access and developing countries usually fight and battle for market access, but after you have access to the market, how do you get your product off the shelf? How do they know about Tobago “farine” or different things that you may sell? 7.15 p.m. Sometimes I see saltfish and different things on the shelves in the US and my American friends do not know what they are; I am able to tell what it is, but they can go on the Internet and research them and probably try them. It allows us to 489 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 reach consumers that we would not have been able to reach without the Internet. Mr. President, this gives the consumer access to a wider range of products at lower prices due to competition. Sometimes you get better and faster delivery of your products.

I think this whole concept of e-commerce and e-Government is very important for Tobagonians also because very often we have to travel to Trinidad to access some goods and services. Sometimes you have to pay a fee to a specific ministry for a specific service or to pay a business and you have to come to Trinidad just to make that payment. For instance, recently I ordered contact lenses and Ferreira Optical already knows what my prescription is but in order for me to make that purchase, I had to come from Tobago to swipe my card just to make the order. Mr. President, when you consider the price of the airplane ticket, the money I would have used for ground transportation, depending on the time of your appointment, you may have to spend money to stay here overnight. All of that adds up to the actual cost of the goods or the services. I know some Tobagonians come to Trinidad to go to Pricesmart and take the goods back to Tobago. Some of these things, especially for non-perishable goods, could be done over the Internet. I remember trying to check out the cost of a treadmill. But in order for me to see the treadmill, I have to come to Trinidad and go to the store just to see it. So, this is very important for our economy because it gives people, who have businesses but do not have access or are not located close to the consumer, the opportunity to sell products and to sell goods to the consumer, giving you better economies of scale and you have a larger number of consumers to sell your goods to. So some of the things we used to complain about—as small island states, living in the Caribbean and so far away from the market could be eliminated. We could knock out the cost related to having a middleman when you are exporting to a foreign country and you have the ability to advertise over the Internet. For instance, hair products; you go online now and you see a video as to what the product can do for your hair and you just buy it. Mr. President, another good opportunity that will come out of really embracing e-commerce is access to foreign direct investment. Because once we create the right business climate where foreign investors see it fit to come and invest in information technology, then we will have more foreign direct investments and all the good things that come after that. 490 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] Mr. President, I remember watching BET and there was a church that was accepting tithes and offerings electronically so you can use your credit card and have your tithes paid every month. And I found that very interesting that even the churches, a place that you would not expect to have that kind of service available, they are catching on to this whole idea of e-commerce. I think that as a country, we need to tap into these things. Mr. President, I can go on and on about the good things about e-commerce and the benefits that could be brought to this country and other developing countries should they embrace the whole concept of e-commerce, but we cannot enjoy any of these things or we cannot enjoy the full gamut of all these things unless we have the right legislation to show the producers that we are serious about this, to show the consumers that we are serious about this. In addition to the legislation, we must have the right resources. Also, we must be able to bring our people on board with us because we can have all these grand ideas as to what we would like to see happen and if your consumers or your electorate or if the public is not on board with you then we would not get to see the results that we want to see. I remember reading the Hansard in 2009 and at that time, the Member for St.Augustine, Mr. Vasant Bharath, voiced strong concerns relating to the availability of the requisite infrastructure and platforms for allowing electronic transactions and that kind of thing. So I am asking the same question today, I have the same concern today. We can have the legislation, yes, but if we do not have the resources and the infrastructure to back it up, then we are pretty much wasting time and that is always my question whenever I make a contribution. That is the one thing that you can always expect from me. My question is always: how is this thing going to work for us? What are we doing to make sure this works for us? How do we bring the legislation to life? I think one thing we need to look at is educating our people about the importance of advancing and understanding the Internet and how to use the Internet to our benefit. I used to work at the bank and today, there are still people who are afraid of owning an ATM card, they are afraid of using an ATM card. They come into the bank and pull out a passbook—you know, we used to have the record, a little passbook—they bring this passbook that is really, really old and they want to see the balance written in the book, when you can go and push your card and get a mini statement; you can call and hear the balance—so many different ways that you can get—you can go online and see your transactions. But some people believe that that Internet thing, there is something fishy about it, they 491 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 are really skeptical about it and they argue about it. They say their money goes down faster when they use the electronic medium. So I think there is a serious need to educate our people as to the importance of it and how using the electronic medium is just as good as going in person. I think that is what this legislation is trying to accomplish. I think we are saying that we are trying to accomplish a number of things but the legislation itself is sort of open; it is not tight enough or not strong enough to bring the kind of benefits that we are looking for. Mr. President, we need to educate people also as to how to protect themselves, how to have their privacy protected when using the Internet because it is not just up to the Government. We have a way in this country of calling on the Government to do everything, sometimes you have to take your own responsibility and protect yourself. For instance, right now there are some emails going around saying that you have just won this Green Card Lottery and you just have to enter your credit card number or, you have just won £7 million and this is appealing to some people. Then there is somebody from Nigeria or some country saying please contribute to this charitable event and you really think you are going here and giving help to somebody but you are actually getting yourself exposed to a great deal of trouble when you give your credit card information away. The one about the US Embassy, has the US seal on it so you feel that this thing is real but when you read it, the address of the person you are sending the money to is in the UK. 7.25 p.m. But there are some people who do not look into it and think: “Hey, I really got this Green Card and I am good to go.” We need to educate our people about this thing. The Internet is a very interesting thing, the more you use it, the more you communicate with it. The more you do transactions via the Internet, the more you feel that you need it and you cannot live without it. I know I cannot go—I should not say I cannot, but it is going to be very, very difficult for me to go a good three days or a week without access to the Internet. You feel like something is going on and you are just missing it. The Internet is like a basic need. I remember going to—it is very, very addictive. I saw on a reality show where they confiscated a guy‟s Blackberry phone. About the third day or so he was losing his mind and crying. He was feeling as though there were people who needed to contact him. It is a very addictive thing. There are some people who did not have—on their business cards, all they have is the email address. Sometimes 492 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] when you ask someone for their number it is better you say: “What is your Blackberry pin?” or “How do I contact you electronically?” We are getting more and more addicted to it. This is where communication with the private sector and the Internet service provider is very important. We need to get TSTT and the other people that provide Internet service on board with all of this, to buy into and follow the international standards, especially as they relate to universal coverage. I know the WTO has a basic requirement for people who provide public utilities to provide universal coverage or service in all areas, both urban and rural. That is still a problem for us here in Trinidad and Tobago. Sometimes in the rural areas when you try to access the Internet it drops a lot. I know, for instance, in Mason Hall and some of those places in Tobago, you cannot get broadband, you have to use dial-up, which is very, very slow. For someone who is addicted to the Internet and wants things to get done fast, a lot could happen in that couple of minutes when waiting for the page to load. For the kind of money that we pay, we want good Internet service, so we need to have the service providers come on board with us. It is not just for the consumer, it is for people who are doing business, the private sector also. Sometimes you are filling a form online and by the time you press “enter” or do the transaction, the time the page takes to load, it asks you to fill the form again from the top, and that is bad for business. We need to bring all these things on board and make sure that Internet becomes accessible to all the people who want to access it. I attended a conference last year in Spain and the young people in the United Kingdom were talking about having the Internet as a basic need. We are now moving to adding Internet to—man needs air, food, clothes shelter and Internet. I was so surprised because, “I was like, this has to be a joke.” These children are really serious about it; the Internet, then clothes, food, air. It was very interesting. The Internet is becoming a basic need. Apart from just accessing the Internet, we have to look at access to a computer in order to access the Internet. It is important that we subscribe to policy and embrace policy that supports having access to computers and having people know how to use a computer. It does not necessarily— Giving laptops to young children is good, but can we maintain it? How do we make this one laptop work? Probably we could have Internet rooms or computer rooms at schools or community centres, so that a larger number of people could have access to the computer. These are things that we can consider. Another very important thing is bringing people like the Customs Division and the Port Authority on board, because as you trade—one good thing about trading 493 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 especially when you do international trade—across borders, the Government still benefits from import duties and import taxes. For instance, when I order stuff online, and it comes to my home, I have to pay sometimes $400 or $800. The last time I would have paid $400 for the same dress that I bought, this time they charged me $1,000. There needs to be some kind of rule as to how you go about charging these fees, because it is difficult to purchase the same bottle of water and pay import duty of $5 and the next time you pay $10. You wonder what is really going on. There is need for some transparency and some kind of harmonization with their regulations. I do not know how they operate, but we need to look into improving our infrastructure as it relates to electronic data interchange and improving our specialized system as it relates to codes like ASYCUDA and the different codes that you use when you are categorizing goods at the border. We also have some work to do as it relates to standards and marketing and production capacity. Because, if we have access to this larger number of consumers across the world and I am selling “farine” from Tobago, or guava jam on the Internet, or calabash purses or leather earrings and people are seeing more and more of it and the demand goes up, it is good business for me, but I need to show that I am able to produce these goods in a large quantity and up to the international standards, so when I send it out they would not be returning it to me; wasting my time and money. These are things that we need to consider. It is critical that we bring the business people on board. Sen. Prof. Watson spoke about booking your ticket on Caribbean Airlines. Being able to book and purchase a ticket on the Internet is good. But what if I want to change my flight time? I may want a different flight. I may want to fly in the afternoon instead of the morning. I then have to call and wait for a long time, listen to “Honey do not cry, I am leaving” or whatever song they decide to put on, for a long time. Purchasing a ferry ticket online is impossible right now. While we move and create the legislation, the business people need to get on board and move with us. Paying your TSTT bill online, I would like to see us have more access to—I want to see the numbers that were last called, “that kind of thing”; a record of all the numbers that were called and the people I would have sent texts messages to. When I was in the US, I could have done that with T-Mobile, but I cannot do that here. All these are little services that consumers want to enjoy. With respect to roaming, when you are leaving the country you want to be able to put on roaming features for yourself, put on texting features or take off your voicemail so you would not be charged for voicemail while you are abroad, instead of having to go into TSTT, pick a number and sit and wait for a long time. 494 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] This whole concept of e-commerce presents opportunities for small and medium businesses and even people who want to set up a one-man business “kind ah thing”. For instance, it would improve the need—it would call for services in courier services and delivery services. There are ways for people to take advantage of this, but our producers must be prepared to face competition, because you are no longer competing with your local producers, you are competing with people abroad. Also, you have to be able to meet the standards and produce in large capacity. Mr. President, let me jump into the concerns that I have relating to this legislation. In order for us to achieve all these great things that embrace e- commerce and promote e-Government, all these things that we said it would do, in drafting the legislation we would not get everything right the first time because we are new to this and we have to take the public along with us slowly. We could do our best and put our heads together and come up with something that is strong, robust, clear and unambiguous, so that the public could understand; something that we can work with. There are specific parts of the legislation that pique my interest that were not very clear. I want to start with clause 17. I would try to run through this as quickly as I can. I do have 45 minutes, but I will try not to use it all. I have an extra 15 minutes. Mr. President, clause 17 reads: “Information or record in electronic form or a data message will not be deemed inadmissible as evidence— (a) solely on the ground that it is in electronic form; (b) on the ground that it is not in the original non-electronic form, if it is the best evidence.” This brings the question as to what is the best evidence. I move on now to clause 35. It reads: “An Electronic Authentication Service Provider that issues qualified electronic authentication products to the public shall conduct his or its operations in a reliable manner…” What is a reliable manner? I am also concerned about clause 35(a), which says: “employ personnel who possess the expert knowledge and experience required…” 495 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

I think somewhere in the debate of February 18, 2009, the Opposition was calling for the Government to state these qualifications or give some kind of idea as to what qualifications they were looking for as they relate to the same clause. I am asking the same thing today. Later on in clause 35(d), it says: “maintain sufficient financial resources…” What are sufficient final resources? These are the same questions asked by the Member for Oropouche East on February18, 2009. This is the same Bill that they were asked to send to a joint select committee—the Opposition at that time had questions and concerns about certain provisions within the Bill. The Bill was sent to a joint select committee because the Opposition felt that the legislation was severely flawed. Here we are today in 2011, with pretty much a piece of legislation that resembles the same Bill that was sent to a joint select committee, and we are dealing with the same issues that were brought by Members of Parliament in 2009, who are still Members of Parliament and Members of Cabinet today. This calls for serious concerns, in my opinion. Clause 35(f) speaks to: “maintain a prompt and secure system for registration and immediate revocation…” Who decides what is a secure system? 7.40 p.m. Mr. President, paragraph (i) of the same clause 35 says that: “comply with any other requirements established by the Minister or by Order.” Now, “any other requirements”, so the consumer does not know what he is getting into, the producer or the business person does not know what he is getting into, because here we are dealing with “any other requirements established by the Minister.” I think that we need to have some kind of guidelines, some direction to work with; the business person, the investor who wants to get involved in this e-commerce in Trinidad and Tobago, I want to know what rules I am working with, what rules I am playing by, Mr. President. So I think it is important that if we want to achieve the kind of things that were set out in the legislation about having all these e-commerce and all these transactions and these wonderful things 496 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] happening as it relates to our economy, then we have to have first the resources as I just went through, and we have to have the legislation to back us up, the legislation to support it. Some of these clauses especially that clause 35 that which has at least four areas of concern, these were the same areas of concern in 2009, so it makes you wonder what kind of work was done at joint select committee and the same questions and the same concerns the Opposition had in 2009, they should have them today in 2011. So you wonder, am I dealing with the same piece of legislation, or were any changes made? Why are we going through the same things that we went through in 2009 when the legislation was sent to a joint select committee? Now, Mr. President, there is another area of concern for me and that is relating to the intervention and interference by the Minister. Now when the Minister of Public Administration piloted the Bill today, the hon. Minister stated that “Minister” means “Cabinet”; that is confusing to me. Some may say that I am new to Parliament; Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis in her usually not nice way said, that is understood— But, Mr. President, let me go off on a little tangent for a minute. When the Government brings legislation to the Parliament, or to the House for debate or for consideration of the Opposition and for the Independents, it makes you wonder, are you really coming to hear the opinion or to even consider ideas of the Opposition and the Independents? Because sometimes they act in a manner that— in a way like, they do not want to take any corrections, they do not want to hear any corrections, they do not want to hear anybody‟s ideas, and if you made up your mind to pass your legislation as it is, you claim that you already have the numbers, you can do it without us anyway, do not keep me here after 6.30; I can go back to Tobago. And so many of us may have other things to do, not that the work of the Parliament is not important, but if you are going to come here and state to my face, well in a sort of way that I do not care what you have to say, I am going to do what I want to do anyway, what is the point? Anyway, Mr. President let me go on. My concern is the intervention and of the interference of the Minister. I have counted the number of times the Minister was mentioned in this legislation as having certain responsibilities, having certain powers as it relates to treating with e-commerce within Trinidad and Tobago, and I counted at least 21 references where the Minister was made responsible for different sections, different responsibilities or tasks relating to executing e- 497 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 commerce within Trinidad and Tobago. For ease of reference, I will direct this Senate to clause 34(1), (3), (4), and (5); clause (35)(i), clause 36(1) and (2); clauses 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 43; 49; 51(1); 51(1)(b); 51(2)(b); 51(3) and (4); and clause 52(1). Now, Mr. President, I will touch on a number of these things. I will start with clause 34(1). It says here that: “A person wishing to be registered as an accredited Electronic Authentication Service Provider shall apply to the Minister or the designated authority in the manner prescribed and pay the prescribed fee.” 34(3): The Minister may make Regulations specifying the procedure for registration and the information required for that purpose. 40 (1): The Minister or the designated authority may conduct an audit to verify that Electronic Authentication Service Provider has been or remains in compliance with the requirements of this Act. (2): In the performance of an audit the Minister may employ whatever expert he considers may be required. 41: An Electronic Authentication Service Provider shall co-operate with and offer all reasonable assistance to the Minister or the designated authority while conducting an audit and shall make available information necessary to satisfy the Minister or the designated authority regarding compliance with the requirements of this Act.” Now, Mr. President, this part is particularly interesting to me because it says “to satisfy the Minister”; it does not state clearly what the requirements are, what you have to do or what documents, or what you have to do to be in compliance, you just have to do whatever is necessary, whatever is reasonable to satisfy the Minister. Now it makes you question, what is required for compliance? Clause 43 states: “Where the Minister or the designated authority is satisfied that an Electronic Authentication Service Provider no longer meets the requirements to issue qualified electronic authentication products, he may— (a) cancel the registration of the Electronic Authentication Service Provider; (b) order the Electronic Authentication Service Provider to cease any or all of its activities, including the provision of qualified electronic authentication products; 498 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] (c) order the Electronic Authentication Service Provider to be removed from the registry; (d) take any action that he deems—” [Mr. President stands] Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President: The speaking time of the hon. Senator has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Senator‟s speaking time be extended by 15 minutes. [Sen. F. Hinds] Question put and agreed to. [Desk thumping]

Sen. S. Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. President, while I was just sitting I heard some Members on the Government saying no, do not extend her time. Anyway, Mr. President, I will go on with my contribution; I have 15 minutes. [Desk thumping] Now this Minister may: “make any other order that the Minister or the designated authority deems reasonable in the circumstances including, but not limited to reimbursement of fees and charges to the user of the services…”etc cetera, et cetera. Mr. President, clause 52(1) states: “Where the Minister has developed a code of conduct or service standards for intermediaries and telecommunications service providers, the intermediaries and telecommunications service providers shall comply with the code of conduct…” So you are getting involved in business and you do not know what the code of conduct is, because nowhere in this legislation or nowhere in the presentation that was delivered by the Minister, stated any of the requirements for compliance, any of the rules and regulations as to how this thing is supposed to work, and none of the—no reference was made. I do not expect it to be in the Bill, Mr. President, but I expect some reference to be made relating to this whole code of conduct thing. So you are getting involved—it is like playing a game and you do not know what the rules are. [Desk thumping] Whether you win or lose is up to the sole power of the Minister, to his satisfaction, what he feels like doing, whatever he deems comfortable or reasonable. 499 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

7.50 p.m. And that screams over and over, in over 24 references in this legislation, the same concerns that the Opposition had in 2009; the then UNC Opposition, now in Government, they do not have a problem with it. They brought it to this Parliament and they are quite comfortable with it and when we say we do not support the same things they had a problem with for which they sent the legislation to joint select committee, how is it that they do not have a problem with it now? They would say that at that time it was UNC and now it is the People‟s Partnership, but you have the same Members who were sitting in the House: the Member for St. Augustine and the Member for Oropouche East are still sitting in the Cabinet today and the same arguments are there on the Hansard record of February18, 2009. They are within the Cabinet today and the same concerns are here. Did this really go to a joint select committee? Did they listen to their own recommendations? It brings questioning. I think this is a significant amount of power to put in the hands of a Minister. Well, I think that the Government has not made up its mind whether it wants to say “Minister” or “Cabinet” or what, but the legislation says it is the Minister. [Interruption] I am dealing with what I see here. So no little policy that you created on your feet today can change that. I am dealing with what is here. So, Mr. President, that is over 21 references dealing with the interference and the intervention of the Minister to his satisfaction; to what he thinks is comfortable and reasonable, and I am saying, due to the importance of e- commerce in the development and the advancement of our economy, that cannot be enough; that cannot be right. You are asking me to play a game with you; you do not tell me the rule and whether I win or lose is determined by you. I would not want to do business with you and I would not want to play with you. So, I think, there is need for transparency and some sort of independent body to treat with these issues because there are some serious powers that the Minister has. He can take you off the registry; stop your business from operating and that kind of thing. You should refer to the 21 references; these powers of the Minister that he and he alone can treat with. What if the Minister gets up on the wrong side of the bed? Not that I know anything specific about the Minister that may be bad or proves that he is a dubious character, but you need those kinds of checks and balances when you are dealing with legislation; when you are treating with business; when you are treating with people‟s money. 500 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE] People want to know what rules and regulations they are playing with. Something so skeptical as e-commerce, most times you are buying on the Internet, you do not see from whom you are buying; you do not get the chance to look into their eyes to see if they are lying. Sometimes the description of the product on the Internet is not really what it is when you receive it. Then you have the Minister dealing with so much private, personal and confidential information: your credit card number, your shopping history, your age, date of birth and that kind of thing. And we know this Government‟s reputation as it relates to dealing with secret intelligence, private, personal and confidential information. As we read in the report when the Minister piloted the Bill both in the Lower House and here, confidence and trust is very important and putting that in the hands of one Minister, more specifically a Minister of this People‟s Partnership, UNC coalition, whatever you want to call it, Mr. President, in the hands of this Government with which we already have problems with confidence and trust, I do not understand. Mr. President, one thing that is different why I say that this legislation is even worse than the first is that clause 35 or 36 of the previous legislation in 2009 called for the establishment of a data commission, independent of the Cabinet and independent of political interference.

What we found was that this UNC Government has taken out all the references to the data commission and replaced it with “the Minister”. The data commission and the data commissioner were independent to treat with all of these issues. All these responsibilities would now be given solely to the Minister and that calls for serious concern.

For everything relating to e-commerce, you just talk to the Minister and he or she alone would handle everything based on his or her satisfaction and how he or she feels. We know that the Prime Minister has the authority to shuffle the Cabinet, so it could be he or she. [Interruption] Trust me, you have more serious issues you may want to solve instead of heckling me. Mr. President, the Member for Oropouche, in 2009, was very critical about having all this power placed in the hands of one person. He said that you could not put all this power in the hands of one man; put it in the hands of a tribunal. Nowhere in this legislation is there a committee or a commission—that very tribunal that the hon. Member at that time would have spoken about. 501 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President, this whole concept of e-commerce to treat with people‟s private information—as I said before, we do not trust this Government‟s ability to take care of anybody‟s private information.; we do not trust this Government‟s ability to employ or bring in some expert with no qualifications or anything stated in any of this. Mr. President, what qualifications are we looking for? Who is this expert that the Minister is going to bring in? How do we know about their qualifications? Did they really go to school or to college or have the experience that is necessary as with the whole Reshmi Ramnarine scenario? This is dealing with personal information. Mr. President, I want it placed on record that there is need to establish this commission, the data commission, to report independently to the Parliament and to deal with issues related to consumer protection. We also need to strengthen our legislation as it relates to consumer protection. There will be many disputes as it relates to e- commerce. We saw recently in the newspaper the whole scenario with Ship Ahoy and Vicky Boodram and the people who had paid their money and did not get their money‟s worth. There is need to set up the necessary commission and take all that power away from the Minister; have some checks and balances in the system to treat with all this. We need to treat with exchange policy, return policy; the handling of personal information and making sure that the public has confidence in the Government and in the system to treat with their personal information. On that note, I hope that the Government consider the recommendations from the Opposition Bench and the Independent Bench and take this legislation back to committee stage because the same mess it was in, in 2009, it is still in 2011. You cannot expect us to support it as it is. I support the intent of the Bill, what it wants to do, but the legislation is severely flawed. Sen. George: Same legislation from 2009. Sen. S. Cudjoe: That this Government in Opposition sent to the joint select committee and they brought it back today. I will not be distracted by the king of the seagulls and all his little friends. I thank you, Mr. President. Sen. Prof. Harold Ramkissoon: Mr. President, on a personal note, as someone who visited Japan and who had the honour of meeting His Excellency the Emperor of Japan, I would like to record my personal sentiments to the people of Japan. They are a resilient people and I have no doubt that with time they will overcome whatever hurdles and challenges they face today. 502 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON] Mr. President, my thanks to you and fellow Senators for allowing me to enter the debate on this Electronic Transactions Bill, which seeks to provide for the transfer of information and records. Both this Bill and the Bill to follow on data protection are meant to provide infrastructure and propel us further into the information or electronic age. This age is characterized by our ability to access and/or transfer information and related transactions. Both Bills are centred on three key words. These words are: information, communication and technology. The acronym ICT stands for information and communication technology, that is, technologies that are associated with information and communication, such as the Internet, the computer and the more sophisticated communication satellites. I commend the Government for bringing this Bill and the related Bill shortly to this Senate. I want to state that it is this ICT that is transforming our world in an unprecedented manner, at an unbelievable rate. What happens in any corner of the world, if it is of significance, is transported globally and almost instantly to our living rooms. The unfortunate, devastating and tragic effects of the earthquake and accompanying tsunami were seen as the example of something that was beamed into our living rooms minutes after they occurred in Japan.

It is this ICT also that is bringing to an end, in a dramatic manner, the authoritarian rule in some of the North African countries. It has been said that one of the revolutions have been referred to as the Facebook revolution, for example; another one has been referred to as the Twitter revolution. It is also this ICT that is transmitting to all corners of the globe what Edmund Burke once said, and I quote: Liberty is the birthright of our species.

It is this ICT that would force governments to become more transparent; to pursue good governance and to create a more just and equitable society; their citizens would demand no less.

The Bill, basically, deals with communication and associated technology or medium. Man or woman is a social animal and needs to communicate. We know, for example, of the social networking; but man has always been a social animal and has always attempted in his early days to communicate. 503 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

8.05 p.m. This generation today is more concerned about instant communication, they want faster computers, faster means of communicating. Many of them are not aware of how communication evolved over the millennia. Mr. President, when I was a student at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, about 50 years ago, it took approximately one week to get a letter from Trinidad to Jamaica, and many here, I am sure, could attest to that. It took one week and that was not by slow boat but by air. Mr. President, how did early man communicate with individuals in his own community? How did communities or villages communicate with each other? That history goes way back, way back. Man‟s first attempt at passing information was over 30,000 years ago through cave paintings. Man‟s first attempt at telecommunications—that is one village trying to communicate with another village— [Crosstalk] Sen. George: Smoke signals! Sen. Dr. H. Ramkissoon: —came after that in the Americas and in Africa through smoke signals and the beating of drums. Mails came in the 6th Century BC, pigeon post in the 5th Century BC and many would not understand what we mean by pigeon post. There were pigeons in a post that were trained to carry messages to another post—and you still see some of these things in movies. [Crosstalk] Sen. Panday: Hinds is a pigeon! Sen. George: Seagull! Sen. King: Seagull! Sen. Dr. H. Ramkissoon: But that was the 5th Century BC. And now, Mr. President, I want to jump straight into the 19th Century, in which telegram, telegraph, and radio, came into existence. Television came into existence in 1927. The advent of fax, cellular mobile phone, email and Internet in the latter part of the 20th Century, and this ushered in the electronic age. Sen. Hinds: Teach them, Professor. Sen. Dr. H. Ramkissoon: Many, Mr. President, are not aware that the Internet came into existence in 1969, but it came into existence as an academic telecommunication network of computers to ensure non failure of the system. It 504 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON] was not until 1990/1991, that the Internet came on stream, the Internet that we know of today. It came because of the World Wide Web which facilitated the access to information. We should also note, that commercial enterprise on the Internet was strictly prohibited until 1991. And even though online shopping started in 1994, it took about five years for the USA to introduce security protocols and electronic payment services. So, Mr. President, today‟s Bill is long overdue [Desk thumping] and hopefully would trigger off related Bills in quick succession. I want to spend some time briefly touching on potential risks associated with electronic communications and transactions. And I do so via the experience of three individuals. Some years ago, one of our well-known bankers from Trinidad went to the United States and paid for a bill using his Visa card. When he returned to Trinidad, he realized that he was not the only one shopping with that Visa card, someone else had gotten access to the information or a copy of the Visa card, whatever it is, and ran up bills on his Visa card. Fortunately, the gentleman had insurance coverage on his Visa card. Another gentleman, a friend of mine from Kenya, was not so fortunate. He had a similar experience in Europe; unfortunately, he had no coverage, he was not a banker, he did not have the banking sense. He gave up his Visa cards/his credit card and vowed never ever again to have another credit card. That, in this electronic age is a major challenge. Mr. President, I now want to talk about a personal experience, particularly in the light of what Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson said about honouring emails without signatures. I attended a meeting some years ago, in Abuja, the Federal capital of Nigeria, as and is customary, at the end of the meeting they passed around a list of participants with email addresses, for the benefit of those attending the meeting. Shortly after I returned to Trinidad, I realized that my email address was hijacked, that I no longer had control over my email address, that someone in some distant country now had access to my email address; obviously he was able to access my password, but he now had control over my email address, and having my email address, he was able to access all my messages, personal and otherwise, more importantly he was able to access the email addresses of all my friends and colleagues. What this goodly gentleman proceeded to do was to send out a message to all my friends stating, that I—pretending to be me—had lost my passports, my Visa card, my air tickets and was stranded in Nigeria and if they would be kind enough to send US $1,500 so that I could get out of Nigeria. 505 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President, it was an embarrassment but for the first time in my life I felt that my privacy had been invaded, that I was an individual standing stripped of my clothing. The good news, is that after some time, probably after a month or so—and with some effort I was able to regain my email address without any of my friends becoming poorer. [Crosstalk] Sen. George: You are at risk! Sen. Dr. H. Ramkissoon: So the message is that even with email addresses you are at risk. You are at risk! Mr. President, I relate these experiences to make the point that electronic communications transactions do not come without risks. And what individuals, the business sector, the private sector and Government need to do is to take measures to minimize these risks. We need to do everything possible to ensure security of transactions and privacy of data. Now, Mr. President, I finally turn to the Bill at hand. The Bill seems to be a fairly straightforward Bill, with no apparent hidden agenda. However, what I would have liked to see—and this was in fact voiced by two other Senators—was a more all- encompassing Bill dealing with e-commerce and e-Government. I was glad to hear some Members of the Government including Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson mention that we are going to be seeing an overarching set of legislation, what I hope is going to be the grand plan for the development of ICT, e-Government and e-commerce by the Government, and I look forward to seeing this. 8.15 p.m. Mr. President, I would just like to highlight some of the clauses that I think should be of interest to the public and make a few comments. Clause 4 makes it clear that public bodies are not compelled to accept or issue any document or information in the form of electronic records. Clause 7 states that the use of electronic transaction is voluntary. Clause 8 gives legal recognition to an electronic transaction, that it should not be denied legal effect simply because it is in electronic form. Clauses 29 to 32 deal with requirements in respect of electronic signatures. Now, this seems to be a potential area for fraud or computer crime. I have been told by the experts in the field, that they now have very sophisticated security measures to handle this situation, and we need to look into that. Clauses 35 to 49 deal extensively with electronic authentication service providers. I will give the acronym “EASP” for that, and that plays a critical role in the process. Now, I have heard the hon. Minister of Public Administration define an EASP as an individual, but it could also be a software system and it could be a 506 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON] company, so there is a broader definition for that. Of course, they verify the identity of individuals. Such providers are used for many electronic transactions such as online banking, where a banking website must verify the identity of a customer and an e-Government website must verify the identity of citizens. What is important is that EASPs need to ensure a high level of security, because they are often a main line of defence against identity theft, as well as theft of sensitive information. I think you need to take a note of that. The Minister or a designated authority approves or denies an application for registration as an accredited EASP. In case the application is turned down, I would like to suggest that the reason be given in writing. I think people need to know why the application has not been approved. Clauses 55 to 58 deal with consumer protection. In any electronic transaction, be it for goods or services, one has to ensure that the consumer gets what he or she is paying for. It is, therefore, important that adequate description be given of the goods and services. Now clause 55 talks about certain minimum information and that in my view seems to be very vague. It is almost the same as if it was not there. We need to attempt to strengthen that. Mr. President, let me state that electronic transactions such as e-commerce and e-Government—you have heard this before by Sen. Dr. Rolph Balgobin— have grown almost exponential globally over the years with the widespread use of the Internet. Any country that wishes to compete internationally must now have the basic electronic infrastructure. They must be fully wired. In 2008, only 18 per cent of our population were Internet users compared to 74 per cent in Barbados. That was in 2008; 18 per cent. If one assumes that over the last two years there was a 200 per cent increase in Internet users that puts us at 54 per cent, and that is not good enough, particularly if you want to create a knowledge-based society. We, therefore, need to make a concerted effort to bring a larger section of our population, particularly the poorer sector, into the system of electronic communications. Failure to do this will lead to a further widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots. This is certainly not desirable. I thank you most kindly, Mr. President. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Mary King): Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Bill, which I think is a very important Bill. I would also like to state categorically that I refute the 507 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 allegation of Sen. Dr. Henry that this is a bad Bill. I feel this Bill is timely, and should have come here a long time ago. We are also aware that the Exchequer and Audit (Amdt.) Bill and the Data Protection Bill will be following soon. I think Sen. Dr. Balgobin has rightly agreed that this is a very timely Bill. He has also given us some statistics which showed us that we are 79th in the world, as far as global IT readiness is concerned; 100th in terms of our legal framework and 63rd for Internet broadband subscriptions, but we also have to understand that we are 138th out of 139 when we look at our competitive innovative capacity. So this Bill is the beginning of taking us onto the platform of e-business and e- Government, and giving us obviously more global reach and global scope as well. I would have liked if we had taken the Data Protection Bill together with this Bill. They do have synergies, but I have been assured that the Data Protection Bill is not too far behind this Bill. So, in my view, this is a very important step forward. Mr. President, when we look at data generally, and given the fact that we have so much data being transferred across borders on a per second basis, and that we now have countries, institutions and big companies coming together and forming what is now known as “carrier hotels” where their data is protected offshore, and they have backups of the backups under very stringent security conditions and also in locations where they will be most likely hurricane proof, tsunami proof and so on, data is one of the most important things to a country and to an institution in today‟s world. I also wanted to let Sen. Dr. Balgobin know that the actual protection of the owner of data, which is one of his concerns, will be addressed in the Data Protection Bill. So that will be coming. It is not a part of this particular Electronic Transactions Bill. We have also had discussion on what is a digital signature. What is a digital signature? It includes being able to protect the message, whatever the message is. Today, when you are talking about signatures online, to the trade it is a digital signature, with respect to the authentication providers. So, in the context of using an authentication provider, the Bill is actually referring to the definition; the electronic signature and not an electronic scrawl which is also stored and transmitted digitally. So, it is known in the trade as a digital signature. I think Sen. Prof. Watson had also suggested that some companies will give you a PIN in order to identify you when buying something, but that is a far cry from what is actually the protection under this Bill and the authentication providers involved in the substance of this matter. 508 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M. KING] Perhaps, we could suggest that an amendment to the Bill be made so that we make that point very clear, that maybe the electronic signature of the Bill should be defined as “an electronic or digital message that identifies the sender and identifies the integrity of the main message”, that is a suggestion that we could possibly consider. I want it to be clear and to make it clear that all messages on the Internet are digital, so talking about a digital versus electronic makes absolutely no sense. Sen. Cudjoe, I appreciate your comment on the laptop issue. We were talking about ICT and you brought in the laptop issue—the first formers having the laptops, which are very good, but you also asked the question if the Government could maintain these laptops on a yearly basis. Now, we would like to inform you and the Senate that this Government is actually exploring the option and the costing of the Government “cloud” whereby many more persons from all different areas in the country—all regions, all schools and from all institutions—can have access to the “cloud” and, therefore, we may not have to wait too long to have that diffused access to all data and all Internet users. [Desk thumping] That is something that this Government is looking very closely at, and we are working with the Ministry of Public Administration on doing that actual review and analysis. So, we will have many more players accessing at a central point which will also be a protected central point. There was also a question from Sen. Cudjoe on clause 35 of the Bill. She questioned the persons to be employed who possess expert knowledge and experience required for these operations and asked who these persons were. Well, the actual clause goes on to spell out what expertise is required, and we are talking about management skills, technology skills, electronic authentication and security procedures. So, in my opinion, those skills are there and they are spelt out. We require expertise in ICT, engineering, inscription, security and management. Sen. Cudjoe, I think we all have a responsibility to pass the best Bills that we can possibly pass, and we must listen and learn from everyone in this Senate. This Government is of that view. [Desk thumping] I sat on that side for seven years and got the distinct impression that I was not being listened to and none of our ideas were taken on board [Desk thumping] and this Government does not do that. [Desk thumping] That is possibly one of the reasons that I am on this side, because I have been given the opportunity to implement those ideas that have been talked about for too many years on that side. [Desk thumping] So, the People‟s Partnership Government is a progressive Government. [Crosstalk] You are still not listening. [Crosstalk] 509 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

So, Mr. President, let me turn to some aspects of the Bill, which I think are very important from the point of view of the ICT policy, and from the point of view of planning and progress. The Ministry of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs has a particular interest in this Bill at this time. My particular interest focuses on the need for our economic transactions upon which our developing country depends to use techniques and technologies that are efficient and effective and that use standards that are acceptable worldwide. Of course, I think we all understand the benefits of the wider markets that we now have access to, which also will include wider markets for our manufacturers, our service providers, and obviously, give us opportunities to access goods at less cost and may be at better quality. We do have those benefits that have been spelt out by many Senators here today. 8.30 p.m. The payment problem, Mr. President, has been fraught with some degree of dangers of fraud. So it has mitigated against the benefits that can be accrued and therefore we are looking―and that is what this Bill is doing, protecting the transactions. For example, when you go to pay for online goods and services you have to give your credit card number and we have just heard some of the issues pertaining to that, some of us have also suffered from the same problem, and the person at the other end that you are doing business with, would like to be ensured that the person doing the business is you and not your dog Rufus or, the son of anyone else in the house. That is one of the things that this Bill does, it gives you actual protection because we have seen in many cases the hacking of databases and this does not foster confidence at all in the transaction that may be going on. We have also had the problem in Australia, this time last year, actually our card was stopped whilst paying at a restaurant because we had not told our bank we were in Australia, but luckily we had great friends around us, so we did not have trouble. So that is another issue that can come up and which we have to be aware of. Mr. President, in our case global business will be very important to us and, therefore, we have to engage in a system that uses computer and digital methods to create secure and reliable transactions, be it carrying out a financial transaction or any other transaction, even sending a document to ensure that its integrity is intact. This Electronic Transactions Bill seeks to implement a system that could ensure that our electronic transactions that will bind us are reliable, secure, efficient and effective. And we all know that signatures can be forged and therefore this is part of the issue on this protection Bill. 510 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M. KING] Mr. President, we are about restructuring this economy and we have to enlarge the global reach of our onshore business and we also have to enlarge our global reach with respect to doing business online, but we must ensure that our clients abroad know that it is us at the other end and not Rufus the dog. And therefore, the challenge before us is to craft or implement a system which is succinctly defined in clause 16 of this Bill and I quote: “A copy of a data message containing an electronic signature shall be as valid, enforceable and effective as a message containing a non-electronic signature.” From my point of view, I would say, it should be even more so protected. So, in order to do this, Mr. President, we require a system that will make an electronic signature totally watertight and even more so, than what has become common in the non-electronic business transactions of the past where we had the personal signature. That is done very effectively in the Bill. Part IV of the Bill, deals with these electronic signatures and in clause 29 it states that: “Parties to an electronic transaction may agree to the use of a particular method or form of electronic signature, unless otherwise provided by written law.” So we are providing such a written law and at clause 31(1), the Bill states, the method will be reliable and ensure the integrity of the electronic processes such that: “(a) the authentication technology uniquely links the user to the signature;” And it shows that it is not Rufus the dog. “(b) the signature is capable of identifying the user; (c) the signature is created using a means that can be maintained under the sole control of the user; and; “(d) will be linked to the information to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change in the information is detectable.” Therefore it prevents what is known as tampering. That is prevented by these clauses. Mr. President, the last one of these, the tampering issue, is a very important one, since, if it is you are writing a cheque, a signature can be authentic but the information on that cheque may be changed. We have all had stories and 511 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 experiences of the fact that in transit between the signatory and the recipient, it can be changed. So, in other words, if there is any fraud, the system would allow its detection and better still, will actually prevent such tampering from taking place with the signed electronic message. Mr. President, the Bill goes on to talk about the electronic authentication service provider as the important link in this electronic transaction process at clause 32, and in more detail in Part V of the Bill. So, this part tells us what are the qualifications of these service providers; what kind of technological systems that must be employed; they must be trustworthy and protected against modification; and they must ensure technological and cryptographic security. So there are very stringent measures in the Bill. The Bill does provide for encryption and therefore that is part of the security within the system being proposed. I think it is important that we look at this authentication, this encryption issue because a lot of people may be unclear as to what it is, so I would like to talk a little bit about the current technologies that govern these authentication products, so at least the layman can develop a better trust in it, than perhaps reading the Bill would give him. Mr. President, this Government continues the thrust of the past regime in implementing e-Government strategies and processes, not only in provision of information to the public but in carrying out reliable, secure e-business transactions with the public, without their having to journey to offices in order to do so. So, in this respect, the Electronic Transactions Bill is fundamental to the aims and the objectives of e-Government, which is the task of our Minister of Public Administration. Mr. President, the authentication service provider or the authority as the Senator mentioned, the certification authority as they are also known, provides a cohesion of mechanisms and management procedures that forms a system that provides us with that security and if we were to look at the system of the two keys, the public key system utilizes a pair of electronic keys, a public key and a private key and they are generated in pairs and this is being explained, so that we can understand the security system that we have in place. I would like to read it, if you do not mind, Senator; thank you. The public key is a value that is distributed openly over the entire digital network. I am explaining something; I want to read it. This means that everybody over the network has access to this particular key which is the public key. The private key is never distributed, it is kept a secret since if it were revealed the security for that particular subscriber would be compromised. Did you understand that before, Senator? Did you understand that before? 512 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M. KING] 8.40 p.m. So, Mr. President, I think it is important that we explain some of the processes that are involved in this Bill, so that we can demonstrate the trust that this system needs and which we are about to pass into law today, and the trust that we will also have to put in the authentication providers. That is why you have to understand what this Bill means. The e-Government plan, Part (V) of the Bill, seeks to authorize any public body that needs to hold or gather information from the public and to do so, Mr. President, by electronic means, for example, permits, licences, approvals, documents to be held in their original form. So it has many operations to protect. Mr. President, as has been said earlier in the evening by Sen. Dr. Balgobin, this also will require particular public service requirements and some improvements within the public service. Sen. Hinds: You can put down the notes now. Sen. The Hon. M. King: Mr. President, in days gone by— Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: This seagull miserable over there. Sen. The Hon. M. King: —we used to see piles of boxes, actually in some offices today we still see piles of boxes and brown envelopes, records being stored; it is happening in the health sector; it is happening in the Licensing Office—no systems over the last 10 years. So we see these piles of documents in brown folders and they have continued like that over the years in many Ministries. This is indeed a nightmare to access any record or any file that we have been trying to access for the last nine months; systems not in place. So what we are doing, Mr. President, these new provisions within the Bill, as we move to deepen our e-Government practices will make our systems much more effective and much more efficient. In order to become more effective and more efficient, we will also need, and it will demand, that we have well-qualified and dedicated public sector officials. For many years we have heard the talk of the previous governments about restructuring the public service—I think we have been hearing it for 15years—to attract into it and to retain well-qualified staff. They tried to do it, by setting up special purpose companies; they tried to do it by bringing in contract workers so that they could be provided with specialized skills—that is what we were told— but none of that has made either the public service or the state enterprises or any of the operations within the public service more effective or efficient. 513 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

So, yes, we have a very forward-looking Bill, that seeks to bring our public service into the 21st Century but without a restructured public service our hopes of an effective and efficient government service may not materialize. We are well aware of the demands that are on us and the things that we have to change within the public service. It is not like it is in the United States, Mr. President, where all the King‟s men or all the President‟s men come and go with each President; our civil service like the United Kingdom‟s civil service, is supposed to be the managers and the technocrats that will advise and serve whatever government is in place. Today, Mr. President, and I hate to say this, the civil service has lost its top-class technocrats in general and these are being replaced by contract workers that now form over 60 per cent of Government employees. And they have brought in consultants and special purpose companies which were supposed to introduce private sector efficiency into the civil service but that is still a wish that never came true. Mr. President, we are about restructuring of the civil service not only to resurrect it to its past glory but to have in place a cadre of people who can design, operate and maintain the sophisticated e-Government systems as we provide service to this nation if we are to adequately serve the people which is our job. I think we need to emphasize that the public service is not the private sector. They have two different jobs to do, the civil service is a not-for-profit organization and their efficiency does not depend on private sector skills, they require a different set of skills and they require a different set of performance measures. So we must continue the restructuring which started 15 years ago and not just the economic and the social, but also the public administration. I invite all my colleagues to support this Bill in our quest to bring our systems into the 21st Century. I thank you. [Desk thumping] Mr. President: Hon. Senators, it is now quarter to nine, I propose to take a break, we have some dinner available and we will resume at 9.15 p.m. This Senate is now suspended until 9.15 p.m. 8.46 p.m.: Sitting suspended. 9.15 p.m.: Sitting resumed. Sen. Faris Al-Rawi: Thank you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues. I rise to join in this debate on the Electronic Transactions Bill, 2011. Mr. President, in preparation for this debate, I took the opportunity to reflect upon, firstly, the intellectual background behind this piece of enabling legislation. 514 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] Secondly, I sought to consider the context within which this legislation is to be fitted. And thirdly, I sought to consider the manner in which the legislation could be improved. I confess that consideration of this Bill is not a very easy exercise, and I say that respectfully. I compliment the hon. Minister of Public Administration, Sen. The Hon. Rudrawatee Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam, on bringing forward this Bill, and I do think that there is definitely a unity of purpose in the Opposition and in the Government in dealing with this form of legislation. I say so insofar as I am able to reflect upon the history of this bit of enabling legislation. In reflecting upon that point, I wish to address a remark that has been made by several of the Senators on the Government Bench this evening and that is that this bit of legislation was overdue. On one occasion it was said that it was long overdue and there was in fact the impression given, even in crosstalk as well, that there seemed to have been some perception that the People‟s National Movement, whilst it held the reins of Government, faltered in bringing forth this legislation. To put the record straight, Mr. President, I wish to state unequivocally that the records would demonstrate that there was the Electronic Transactions Bill, 2008 laid in this Parliament; there was the Electronic Transactions Bill, 2009 laid in this Parliament. That latter Bill, in fact, lapsed in December 2010—[Interruption] Forgive me, January 08, 2010. It was the previous Bill, the 2008 Bill which lapsed on December 16, 2008. We are now here tabling for the third time, I would say in four years, the Electronic Transactions Bill, 2011. So, Mr. President, it could not be a reflection of fact to say that the PNM delayed, was dilatory and was culpable in any manner at all in bringing forth this legislation. Mr. President, in the law of copyright we recognize the concept of a division between economic rights and moral rights. I know that you are well aware of the rights that I speak of, but in originating or creating a concept, whether it is written or not, one is given the right of copyright, by law. It is in our Copyright Act. It is a recognition of a moral right, in particular that of “paternity” that is given to the owner of a copyright. I am using this analysis because this Bill has been brought to this Parliament for consideration, it having been fashioned for discussion in another place by another hand. So the economic right to the Bill, if I could use that expression, now lies in the People‟s Partnership, but for the purposes of clarification which I am about to enter upon, the moral right of paternity lies squarely in the PNM. Now I say that because the moral right as it is recognized in the law of copyright in particular, recognizes the paternity right to be one to correct misconceptions as to the intent of the thing which has been copyrighted. 515 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Now, I do not for one moment pretend that one can claim copyright to a piece of legislation, but I am using it as an analogy in discussing this Bill. Sen. Panday: That is the policy misconception as to the intent of the thing which has been copyrighted. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Mr. President, I reflected in our break a short while ago to the hon. Brig. John Sandy, that I was pleased to come back to Parliament today, because I felt that decorum had returned to the Parliament. I felt that there was an excellent debate afoot. I was warmed by the infectious personality that Prof. Watson brings to this Parliament. I compliment the very elegant, Sen. Gosine- Ramloogam in the manner in which she piloted this Bill. So I regret, Mr. President, crosstalk of the type that is now entering the debate. Sen. Panday: That is the fallacy of the argument. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: On that purpose, Mr. President, I would return to my point. Sen. Panday: You talk to Sen. Hinds. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: In dealing with the aspect of paternity and the moral right by way of analogy in discussing this Bill, I wish to correct what the Bill as brought by the PNM in 2008 and 2009 was intended to achieve. Now, Mr. President, it is important that I raise this issue, mainly because, the Bill as it is currently brought, the 2011 Bill, is a dead ringer or a replica of the 2009 Bill. But, in laying the Bill and proposing its passage, as we saw in the Lower House in February of this year, and as we have seen in this Senate today, the intention and the manner in which the 2009 Bill was laid has been totally left aside, and that is the paternity and morality point that I am speaking to by way of analogy to the law of copyright. The People‟s National Movement, in recognition, firstly as to the importance of this type of legislation, secondly, as to the manner in which this particular Bill fits into the larger omnibus provisions of the law which have to accompany it, Mr. President, laid the Bill in 2009, specifically, for it to be discussed in a debate and be sent to a joint select committee. Now it is important to hold on to that point, because bringing legislation and putting it forth to a joint select committee, as was done in February of 2009, is an acknowledgement that you have understood and stated that you consider that the legislation is not in its best sense constructed, firstly. 516 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] Secondly, you are avoiding hubris by engaging the very capable minds of the parliamentarians opposite you, and indeed of the Independents who sit alongside you, in coming forward with a strong discussion as to what is the best legislation for the people of Trinidad and Tobago for whom we create the legislation. Mr. President, in the course of that debate in the Lower House as it then was in February of 2009, there was excellent contribution on the part of the UNC Members, in particular in the persons of the hon. Vasant Bharath as he sat in the Lower House as the Member of Parliament for St. Augustine, and also in the very excellent contributions of Dr. Roodal Moonilal, Member for Oropouche East, as he then sat and still is. It was these two responsible parliamentarians, as they sat then, who made sterling commentary, not only in the course of the debate in the Lower House in February of 2009, but also in the joint select committee that sat and considered a clause by clause analysis of not only this Bill, but also the Data Protection Bill. Mr. President, the Members that comprised the joint select committee of Parliament are perhaps representative of a sterling assembly of parliamentarians and fine minds. On the Parliament website one can easily note that the Members were 12 in number, in particular—and I would focus on the contributions of the Opposition as it then sat, the UNC, I ask this Parliament to take note that Mr. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, Mr. Wade Mark, Dr. Roodal Moonilal, Dr. Adesh Nanan and Ms. Dana Seetahal SC, comprised the membership who were not Government. Mr. President, the debate in 2009 sought to grab a hold of the mischief that could be created by poorly drafted legislation and there was a clause by clause consideration as to what was the best purpose to be achieved for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. With that stated, how then do we reconcile coming to this Parliament in the Lower House in February of this year and now in the Senate today, and stating that the Bill, being a dead ringer of the 2009 Bill, should be passed into law? You see, Mr. President, there is an immediate hurdle, and perhaps I could borrow the analogy that I have used before in debates—the elephant has returned to the room—and we are trying on the Government Bench not to acknowledge the presence of this elephant in the room, and the elephant is the fact that the criticisms which lay in the mouths of the Opposition as it then sat, the same UNC, still echo in this Chamber, because the issue was unresolved. 517 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President, it is incumbent upon me therefore, to reach no further than the contributions of the hon. Vasant Bharath, who is a Senator of this Government, who was the Member of Parliament for St. Augustine, sitting in the Lower House in 2009, and also to the contribution of Dr. Roodal Moonilal, who is the Leader of Government Business in the Lower House today. Mr. President, I wish to take the hon. Senators of this Senate to the debate on Wednesday, February 18, 2009—this is the Hansard in the Lower House—when there was a Motion set on the Table that day: “Be it resolved that the Senate appoint an equal number of Members as that of the House of Representatives to a Joint Select Committee to consider a Bill entitled an „Act to provide for the”—data— “protection…” in its summary terms, and also the Electronic Transactions Bill. I wish to state—and I do not mean this cheekily—that I have the greatest regard for Sen. The Hon. Vasant Baharath, Minister of Agriculture—I forget the full name of his Ministry—because I have noticed that he comes to this Parliament, whether in this current session or in the sessions before fully prepared for any debate that he enters into. He provides excellent and very intellectual contributions and he does justice to the legislation interrogation that is before him. I regret that he is not here this evening; I am sure there is a very good reason for his absence, because he is habitually present, Mr. President. But in stating—and by no means in a facetious sense—my respect for the hon. Vasant Bharath, I wish to take the hon. Senators to page 842 of the Hansard of that day, where the hon. Member said, and I quote: 9.30 p.m. “What I am concerned about is the timing of this Bill. As I mentioned earlier on, a Bill of this nature being introduced in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada or Singapore would be in keeping with the levels of maturity and sophistication of such countries, because in those countries you do not have what we have here. You do not have 85 or 86 killings in 46 days; you do not have citizens still eating out of dustbins. You do not have citizens having to sleep on the streets of Port of Spain and San Fernando. You do not have patients waiting on trolleys for days before they are attended to and some of them dying before they are attended to…You certainly do not have foreigners in charge of the national purse…” Mr. President, he goes on to say: “What I have is a problem with the timing of this Bill and the appropriate point at which it has been brought to Parliament considering all that is going on in Trinidad and Tobago.” 518 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] So he starts his salvo on the context of this Bill. He then continues to state, and this is at page 844: “Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, electronic documents, electronic signatures and electronic records are not going to help the poor people or the vast majority of people in Trinidad and Tobago—the people who on a daily basis go through some of the issues and problems that many of us here take for granted. What is very apparent, as a result of all of this, is that this Government really has no legislative agenda. It is stumbling from crisis to crisis, most of them self-inflicted, and the Government is refusing to deal with the real issues…that they have some preordained right to be sitting on the north side of the Chamber, despite the levels of incompetence, arrogance and disregard for the welfare of the people that they have displayed over the last seven years.” The hon. Member continues: “I am not sure if the Government realizes that one needs to have Internet access and capability in order to send a document electronically. Do you know what the Internet penetration is in Trinidad and Tobago?” This in 2009, Mr. President. “It is 12.3 per cent. Let me give you a reference for what it is in some of the other countries…” He goes on to state: “the United States of America, 73 per cent; the United Kingdom, 67 per cent; Norway, 87 per cent; New Zealand, 75 per cent;…St. Lucia, 32 per cent; St. Kitts and Nevis, 25.4 per cent. In Trinidad and Tobago it is 12.3 per cent. That is the Internet penetration in Trinidad and Tobago at a time when we are trying to implement the Electronic Transactions Bill and the Data Protection Bill. How relevant can that possibly be in this time and day? How many people in Trinidad and Tobago are actually going to benefit from us sitting in the Parliament and passing these Bills? What about the infrastructure and the platforms available for allowing these electronic signatures and documents to be effected? It is common knowledge”—he continues—“that most government departments cannot cope with paper transactions, yet alone paperless 519 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

transactions. Most citizens could recount with horror their experiences when interacting with government agencies in Trinidad and Tobago.” As perhaps Sen. Dr. Balgobin did tonight. “It is a great deal of pain, trauma and frustration—I do not need to go into that; I think everybody here is well aware of that… Mr. Speaker, you see, everything that we do in this Parliament must in some way impact positively on the lives of the people of Trinidad and Tobago…I was about to say that the Member for Princes Town North”—who is sitting with us, Mr. President—“was correct two weeks ago when he said when we come to this Parliament just to kicks, because we bear no relevance in this Parliament to the people of Trinidad and Tobago and how it impacts on their lives positively. As I said, if the purpose of this Bill, as the Minister stated, is to impact positively on the relationship between citizens of this country and the regulatory authorities, then that is exactly what I am discussing. I am discussing the issues that are faced within these regulatory authorities. In fact, if we were to just sit and pass laws and put them into these big thick books that we have on our desks, what will be the purpose of them? How would the people of Trinidad and Tobago have benefited from us sitting here for the entire afternoon talking about these things?” The same Bill that is before this Parliament tonight. [Desk thumping] “Mr. Speaker, I come back to the infrastructure involved. When one looks at several of the Government‟s websites, one would expect that the information would be transferred and available to members…” The hon. Member goes on, and I am quoting liberally and I am going to anchor it solidly in the relevance of this Bill, because I have spoken to the intention and the manner in which the People‟s National Movement tabled it for discussion and the impropriety in bringing it now to pass it into law. Because he says, and he goes on to speak about infrastructure. “In fact, the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources does not have a telephone number, a fax machine, a mailing address, an email contact, nothing. This is the point I am making. We are putting in place this sophisticated piece of legislation when the basic structure is not in place.” Mr. President, the People‟s Partnership has been in power for 10 months now. The hon. Member, Vasant Bharath, as he then was in the Lower House, is in fact 520 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] now the very Minister of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs. There has been adequate time. One-fifth of the parliamentary term of five years has passed. Mr. President, the criticism in this Bill, as it was offered in the 2009 context by Sen. The Hon. Bharath, as he is now, was that the timing was wrong and the infrastructure was wrong. And, by way of example relative to the ill fit of the infrastructure, he quoted the irregularities in the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Food Production. What did the hon. Member do when he came and took control of that Ministry, Mr. President? I was very curious today to find out, so I went to his website, the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs, and I found the full web particulars. The handsome face of the Minister is on the site. The many beautiful images of the hon. Prime Minister is there. There are a couple of invitations to analyze, “giant African snail declared a pest” and World Food Day, 2010. Do you know what? There is no contact number, no fax number, no email address; nothing. When you go to the same website and you try to click on any page, look at what comes up, “Joomla”. It says: “Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources, this site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon. Please visit our upgraded website.” Sen. Hinds: That is why they call him Joomla. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: We were told that the People‟s National Movement should have brought the legislation—this has been dispelled. It was brought in 2008 and 2009. It was brought in the context of stimulating a national discussion, starting firstly in the Parliament, by way of joint select committee interaction. But what has this Government done? It has criticized strenuously, the impropriety of the 2009 Bill. This Government, by its membership, by way of historical association and continuity of participants in the persons of Members of Cabinet who sit today, who sat as Members of Parliament in the Lower House then, they criticized when they were in opposition. They claimed that their criticism was—I wish to quote from the hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal as he said then—Leader of the Government Business today in the Lower House. He said: “The position of the Opposition is very simple. The Opposition is prepared to support the Government with any piece of progressive legislation. However, the Opposition has a duty to protect citizens—businesses, companies and ordinary citizens. If the Opposition looks at a piece of legislation and sees that there is room for authoritarian practices, for draconian practices, or if there is room for corruption, or if there is room for the Prime Minister to 521 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

abuse this Bill for some purpose—this is a country where the Prime Minister stood in Parliament and went on the official Hansard record and said he was spying on the Member for Siparia.” 9.40 p.m. His words, by way of example. “He said that the Member for Siparia had some contact at a commission somewhere…” He said that it was the Opposition‟s role as responsible parliamentarians to arrest the authoritarian and draconian measures set out in the very 2009 Bill that is replicated but for two in number in the 2011 Bill. He said it was his responsibility to stop it. So the first hurdle that I put on the table tonight for discussion is the reconciliation point, back to my theory espoused in several debates before, and that is the theory of “recent government”. You were Opposition for so long, you never thought you were going to become Government; you never thought you would have to eat your own words. But take it at its highest; intelligent Members of Parliament contributing on legislation for the people of this country, one would expect there to be continuity of ideas and principles. But that, regrettably, is not the case as is reflected by the record of Parliament. Sen. George: Doublespeak. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: There is double entendre, indeed. I regret Sen. Prof. Watson is not here. The doublespeak that my learned friend, Sen. Emmanuel George, the hon. Minister that he is, whom I have great regard for and I say publicly, he is correct, the double entendre is clear. Sen. George: Not “entendre”. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Entendre. Sen. George: Doublespeak. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Or “double parler”, if you want to say it that way. The doublespeak is that when you are in opposition and you make responsible criticism of legislation, you cannot or ought not to, morally speaking, come back to the same Parliament of which you sat on another side, and completely reverse the very criticism that you offered on the legislation. Why? Let us forget the beating that one could take on the shamefulness of a position like that and let us focus on what the criticism was. 522 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] This criticism, if I were to put it into summary, as offered by the hon. Member for Parliament then, the hon. Sen. Bharath as he is now, was that the Bill left wide room for authoritarian practices because he felt that notwithstanding the fact that the 2009 Bill was premised upon the operation of a data commissioner and not a Minister of government solely, that notwithstanding the operation of a data commissioner, he felt—and I am going to use my own words—that it was an unholy association to allow a Minister of government to be involved in managing aspects of this legislation. So what has the Government done in the 2011 Bill? It has not only ignored the very capable criticisms of the Bill, which was meant to be criticized; that was the intention of laying it to go to joint select committee, to have a proper, constructive criticism. They not only ignored their own criticism, but what did they do relative to the “Minister”? My learned friend, Sen. Cudjoe, in fact, put it out in the open. They removed “the data commissioner” and they then replaced every reference to the “data commissioner” in the 2009 Bill into the 2011 morph that it became, with “the Minister”—21 references to “Minister”. So you have not only worsened the unholy association, as it was put—my words—a position strenuously criticized, a position which the then People‟s National Movement government listened to, took on board—lest I am not believed and I am criticized for not coming with facts, “The Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, First Report of the Joint Select Committee, House of Representatives Paper, No. 14/3 of 27. The Verbatim Reports of the Minutes held on Friday, April 03, 2009 at 10.07 a.m.”, and the Second Interim Report, Senate Paper No. 2009, No. 14/3 of 27, bear written testimony and proof—[Desk thumping] Sen. Hinds: For all times. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: For all times, correctly. Thank you, Sen. Hinds. The criticisms were taken on board, discussed and recommendations for the movement away from “Minister”, as it was then remotely associated, were taken on board. One of the learned Senators opposite—forgive me, I do not remember who just now—noted that, in fact, there was a relationship with the Government of Singapore following upon this, as if to lay some criticism that money was badly spent. But what happened, as a result of the recommendations of the hon. Members of Parliament who sat then and still sit now, the movement away from the “Minister”, moving into the “data commissioner” was sought to be taken further into the realm of a body to consider the management of this particular Bill, and the associated Data Protection Bill. 523 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

But what has this Government done? It removed the “data commissioner” entirely, went back on its own word and plugged 21 references of responsibility to the Minister. [Desk thumping] The very difficult and correct criticism that they made was ignored. So the issue which lies on the table right now, with that kind of sterling criticism made by those opposite, to me, how can we, as parliamentarians here tonight, recommend a move to something which is worse than that which they criticized? Let me make this abundantly clear for the national community. The People‟s National Movement, in its philosophy of dealing with e-commerce and its first pillar—and I do not mind if you have got a fourth pillar which resembles it, and that is the promotion of ICT environments—we share commonality with Trinidadians; we want to grow our society together. But the People‟s National Movement‟s philosophy in managing this issue of the responsible growth of e- commerce was to consider it in an holistic sense. By that I mean, the Data Protection Bill, the Electronic Transactions Bill, the Interception of Communications Bill, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Anti-corruption Bill, the Evidence (Amdt.) Bill, the Exchequer and Audit Act, the human rights legislative conjunction connections, were all to be analyzed in an holistic sense. Sen. George: “Woulda, coulda, shoulda.” Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Not “would have, could have, should have”. The explanation is quite simple. I will say it again because I am not ashamed to say it. The People‟s National Movement committed political hari kari. It fell on its own sword. The people, in an exercise of democracy, voted the People‟s Partnership into power, and I am happy to see that democracy moves as smoothly as it does in this proud land of mine. But that being the case, the point is it was denied, by itself, the opportunity to carry its plans into effect. The baton, having been passed to the People's Partnership, it is incumbent upon us by way of exercise of our moral authorship of the legislation for discussion and the right of paternity to that Bill, to state the context within which the Bill was to be considered. It is extremely important for us to understand tonight that despite my tone, despite the heavy issue of criticism which I have offered—and I say so regrettably; the last man I would want to be putting his own words back into his mouth would be the hon. Sen. Vasant Bharath. But the reason that I have done it and the un-palatability of it, is a bitter taste, one which I hope to never have to experience. But I can never say “never”; I do not know. I know as an attorney and in advocacy that advocates demonstrate their skills by arguing strenuously for a point today and against it tomorrow, but there must be a thread of logic by way of distinction. 524 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] Regrettably, in my analysis of the positions, the conflicting positions of the 2009 debate and the 2011 debate, I can find no reasonable distinction as to how they can switch gears in 180 degrees. Hon. Senator: Laptops for the children. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Pardon? Mr. President, the key is, the circumstances have not changed; the criticisms of the context of the Bill—the level of penetration into the Internet market has not changed— Hon. Senator: Laptops. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: The laptop position, despite being labelled as a success marker, there are many schools that have not received their laptops as yet, and it is disingenuous to suggest, by way of crosstalk, that it has been fulfilled in its full sense. My point is that the context of the criticism in 2009 is the same in 2011— point number one. Point number two: the intellectual creation for the environment of this legislation is an important one. To come up to speed on this Bill, I read a very interesting article, highly intellectual in its structure, meant for lawyers which can be found on LexisNexis. It is, in fact, “The International Journal of Law and Information Technology” and it is an article called, “Legal Reasoning and Legal Change in the Age of the Internet, Why the Ground Rules are still Valid.” Then there is another seminal piece of work which speaks, again, “The International Journal of Law and Information Technology”, and the citation is June 01, 1999 at 103 and it considers the Singapore Electronic Transactions Act, 1998 and the proposed article 2B of the Uniformed Commercial Code. In looking at these aspects of work, the intellectual legal discussion as to how one ought to create law and approach legislative making is discussed. It is—and as I am sure you will know, Mr. President—axiomatic that the courts of this land, in seeking to interpret legislation produced by the Parliament, say “the Parliament in its wisdom did so and so”. In fact, the Judiciary is loath to move away from the specific intention of Parliament. So let us look now at the intellectual environment within which the 2009 dead ringer 2011 Bill has been created. In summary, I can tell you, that Bill was created as a reflection of the UNCITRAL United Nations model general legislation. Sen. Dr. Balgobin was correct when he referred to the fact that the Electronic Transactions Act of Antigua is almost a replication of the Bill before us here. But that must be appreciated in the fact that the UNCITRAL model general law from 525 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 which this Act is derived is first of all a general aspect which in modern, legal, intellectual discourse, has been moved away from. And the best example of having been moved away from is offered by the Singapore experience. That is why the People‟s National Movement went to Singapore. I ask this Parliament to take note of—and in particular the legislative drafters here tonight—the fact that the 1998 Singapore Act, which also was premised upon the UNCITRAL legislation, was repealed in Singapore in 2010, and an excellent, but short and very powerful piece of legislation was put forward by the Singapore Parliament, and it is one which I recommend that every Member of Parliament here tonight, and those to whom the responsibility of drafting legislation falls, read. 9.55 p.m. Mr. President, the Singapore Act is entitled the Electronic Transactions Act of Singapore. Now, this Act incorporates the 2005 international trade concerns relative to electronic transactions, but it addresses in very specific terms all of the provisions, which I think take account of the criticisms offered by the then Opposition—now Government—in 2009. The criticisms which I repeat today, because I found merit in the criticisms then, and the PNM Government in 2009/2010 also found merit in them, that legislation incorporates those criticisms firstly. That legislation also takes avail of many loopholes which I have noted in the legislation myself and in particular I wish—because I know that my time is not very long—to point the hon. Members of this Senate to the fact that there is a recommendation for the use of asymmetric cryptosystems, and that refers and anchors into the dichotomy and the discussion that relates between electronic signatures and digital signatures, because there is a definite distinction between the two in all the legislation around the world. The legislation around the world, in fact, can be done in a comparative analysis by a view of the Argentine, the Bermudan, Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese, European Union and European economic area, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Moldavia, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States, Uruguay, Turkey, to name a few—all of which I had a view of, at least in terms of their legislation—in looking for whether one could discern from those various pieces of legislation the proper distance for ministerial intervention, the proper distance for the implementation of the distinction between electronic signatures and digital signatures. What I noted in my short opportunity for review of the legislation to be discussed, was that the Electronic Transactions Act of Singapore in particular, the 526 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] 2010 legislation as recently passed, is an excellent piece of legislation. In fact, it has 61 clauses—it is that short—ours has 66. But in dealing with it, it proposes the use of specific tools for data, specific tools for electronic signatures, and it recommends the use of encryption keys in a bifurcated use—public keys and private keys using secured access measures, but it is not as general as the American approach or the UNCITRAL approach which is recommended in the Bill before us tonight. And dare I say, if it is that we wish to move to promoting e- commence in the fashion which we share intention for, and that is to be the best in the Caribbean, then our Bill needs to go further. It needs to be more specific, it needs to be anchored in the use of asymmetric cryptosystems, and there must be an assurance by way of building confidence in the users of the system, that our system can be integral, can be relied upon and can serve the purpose of fostering international usage. The specific aspects of the Bill as they relate to the areas, which are covered by way of cautionary exceptions in the Bill, have omitted quite noticeably references to the law of copyright. In fact, this is something which the Singapore legislation picked up very notably. We have made exceptions in our Bill for certain aspects of best evidence transactions, that is wills, conveyances, et cetera, by way of exceptions—I think it is clause 6—but we have not taken note that in the automated transmission of electronic transactions one could come into criticism for copyright infringement. It is a big area of concern. Mr. President: Hon. Senators, the speaking time of the hon. Senator has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Senator‟s speaking time be extended by 15 minutes. [Sen. S. Ramkhelawan] Question put and agreed to. Sen. F. Al Rawi: Thank you, hon. Senators. Mr. President, I was dealing with the issue of the failure to address copyright concerns in the Bill, and the fact that there could be a direct infringement for replication of copyright material. I think that that is a concern that needs to be addressed in this legislation. A proper analysis of the Bill clause by clause is genuinely needed in this instance. I do not mean it in any derogatory sense. I do not think that the Government is guilty at all of trying to mislead the citizens of this country. I think, Mr. President, that it is in their haste to implement legislation without the benefit—and I will use Sen. Dr. Balgobin‟s words tonight—of an articulated, overarching system, that is legislative agenda being published. I think 527 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 that it is in the exuberance of wanting to deal with legislation in a vacuum that we have fallen into difficulties tonight. It is my heartfelt view—because I heard by way of commentary tonight well proposed amendments. If I were to start to propose amendments tonight, we would be here until Friday, and I honestly believe that it is in the efficient use of parliamentary time that the Government pause, consider and break down. If it does not want the involvement of the Lower House, then so be it but I think there is unanimity of agreement tonight—lest I be guilty of running into presumptions—at least from the Opposition entirely here; perhaps, from some of the Independents—there is unanimity of purpose in saying we want the best legislation for the country. It is evidenced by the fact that we brought the legislation in 2008/2009 and discussed it in 2010 in a joint select process, but we are beholden with the responsibility to articulate the best measures for our citizens, and it cannot be—if you do not want to accept my words—that you do not want to accept your own words. Mr. President, I plead with the Government tonight. I am warmed by the fact that the hon. Attorney General is present and I am sure that with his involvement there could be participation in a joint select process, if necessary, or even a pause process. There would be cooperation from the Independents I am sure; there would be cooperation from the Opposition, I can guarantee, in coming up with the best measures for this Bill. I regret that tonight I was not fully prepared to discuss this Bill. In fact, I came prepared to deal with the Data Protection Bill because it was in every debate of the Data Protection Bill and the Electronic Transactions Bill, always undertaken to have a discussion of the Data Protection Bill first. That was in fact repeated in this Parliament by the debate in the Lower House where the Data Protection Bill was dealt with. 10.05 p.m. The hon. Sen. Subhas Panday, Leader of Government Business in the Senate, would be correct in telling me that I should have read my Order Paper because the Electronic Transactions Bill was numbered first in time. But I regret that I assumed, wrongly it seems, that the Data Protection Bill would have been articulated and discussed first. Secondly, Mr. President, and permit me to say this, my family suffered a terrible loss last week of my beloved younger cousin—who was like my brother—in a tragic car accident, and I regret that I could not have invested my best time into discussing this legislation. I did receive calls of condolences from 528 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI] Sen. Panday and many other Senators opposite, and I thank them for it. I ask them to pray for my beloved cousin‟s soul and also for the souls of every person who died in this country and, particularly, in Japan, in the national and international context. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate and I hope that the Government would take seriously, the intentions which I have expressed and the invitation to retreat for a moment. I will not upset your agenda. None of us will upset your agenda; but retreat for a moment to consider proper interrogation of this Bill and the proper clauses. I thank you, Mr. President. [Desk thumping] Sen. Elton Prescott SC: Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I am sure I am right in thinking that I am only going to be allowed a very short few minutes and, then presumably, we would go on to another day. The Electronic Transactions Bill, though in the eyes of the knowledgeable, very timely, I find contains some areas of weakness and I trust that those who have the power to act on what is told to them in the Senate will take the opportunity to do so. The topic is one on which I plead ignorance, because I still belong to the age of people who use fountain pens with pride. [Desk thumping] Sen. George: Me too. Sen. E. Prescott SC: I created a signature of my own, 20 or 30 years ago, and I am very proud of it. I do not allow it into anybody‟s hands. So it is unlikely that you will find me succumbing to the lure of this new found technology, which, in good time—and it is a reflection on our society and the education today that we have made a short cut in everything—will take us back to identifying ourselves by thumbprints. [Laughter] I understand it is called biometrics. [Desk thumping and laughter] You will forgive me, I did plead ignorance. So if I have mixed up two concepts, please forgive me. I acknowledge that the rest of the world, except for me and probably two others, has gone over to the ICT, and Trinidad and Tobago is playing catch up. We have heard reference to the fact that in Singapore, once again, the advances that they have made are well known and we are way behind. We could just as easily have copied from them, I guess, but there are knowledgeable people who have put this piece of legislation together, and undoubtedly in their view, that is what suits Trinidad and Tobago at this time. So let me make my observations and trust that they will be received by those who have the power to deal with them. 529 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

Mr. President, the first thing that the legislation does—those who practise at the civil Bar, in particular, would feel some reluctance to accept it—is to address principles on the admissibility of evidence to which we have all grown accustomed, and introduced a concept of the inadmissibility of evidence and made it acceptable. So we now find that whereas attorneys have practised and accept that the best evidence is the hard copy—if I may use the term—carrying the signature of the contracting party, it appears today and for the future, we are no longer going to be required to rely on those. Indeed, the courts are being told by this piece of legislation that it is no longer inadmissible to receive documents that are manufactured electronically and do not contain a manually imprinted signature. Clause 17 says: “Information or record in electronic form or a data message will not be deemed inadmissible as evidence— (a) solely on the ground that it is in electronic form;...” A total reversal of what we have grown accustomed to. It is being done here with the greatest of ease. It goes on to say: “...will not be deemed inadmissible as evidence— (b) on the ground that it is not in the original non-electronic form,...” When I finally did the linguistic gymnastics, I understood it to be saying, “It is not deemed inadmissible as evidence if it is not in paper or written by hand, if it is the best evidence.” Now, Mr. President, you and the rest of us know that the best evidence is the best evidence. It is the hard copy with the handwriting, or if that is lacking, it might be a photocopy of the hard copy with the handwriting. This clause 17 simply says forget all of that. The thing that you want must be a reflection of a transaction between two persons, each of whom may, by using some electronic agent, appear to have agreed to something. Once there is that appearance, then we are in the 21st Century and people are bound by it. I would have thought that the legislator could have looked at the Evidence Act—and he would still have to do so—sought to amend it and introduce this concept of the electronic signature. He could just as easily have done that and brought about the change in the law that we have grown accustomed to. I am almost certain that the Evidence Act, not having been amended by this Act—no effort being made to do so—will pose some difficulties for those who have to 530 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PRESCOTT SC] interpret and apply legislation in the future, and judges will frown upon the effort being made here to change how things are done in the courts of law. I have put it no higher than that. I have often been proven wrong, and today might be no exception. Mr. President, there is another area of the legislation that I thought I could raise now. It may become necessary if we ever go to committee to look at it again, but there is a term used in clauses 33, 35—[Interruption] Sen. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: Mr. President, I did indicate that the amendment to the Evidence Act is critical for this piece of legislation. It is stated. Sen. E. Prescott SC: You said it is stated here? Sen. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: Yes. Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: In her presentation it was stated. Sen. E. Prescott SC: Well, I am yet to be proven wrong. Thank you very much. I look forward to some effort being made. It is not in the Bill. [Crosstalk] Sen. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: No! Sen. E. Prescott SC: Thank you, Minister. Mr. President, I was about to bring to your attention the use of the term “qualified electronic authentication product”. It is to be found in several clauses, but more particularly, clauses 33, 35, 37, 39 and 43. Clause 33 says; “(1) No person shall issue a qualified electronic authentication product...” I confess total ignorance as to what it means. If “qualified” is an adjective, there is nothing in the legislation to tell me how an electronic authentication product becomes qualified. If it is axiomatic to those who understand ICT, then maybe we ought to remember that there are others who are not yet there and it is they who have to live with this. There must be some effort made in this legislation that tells us what constitutes qualified electronic authentication product. So if by some chance we happen to issue one, we will go and seek to be registered under clause 33. Mr. President, I trust that those who are listening will take it seriously that there must be some effort made by the legislator to put us right as to what constitutes qualified electronic authentication product. In the absence of it, the Minister, presumably, will use the power given by clause 34(3) to make regulations; but I have a comment to make, once again, about this totally wrong 531 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 and unnecessary over-weaning interference in every aspect of life by Government Ministers. [Desk thumping] It is absolutely unnecessary and galling to think that one should put in the hands of the Minister, the power to register—or the function if you like—an accredited electronic authentication service provider. We already have instrumentalities here for doing this. For example, the Registrar General, and among the things that he can do, he has this consumer protection services unit which enforces laws regarding regulation of consumer transactions. Does this sound remotely familiar? Does the Electronic Transactions Bill appear to be something that deals with regulating consumer transactions; and if so, does the Registrar General not already demonstrate that he has the capacity and the skill to register these? Therefore, why does a Minister, somebody to whom the Constitution gives great powers, want to get involved in registering these little things, making regulations for them, but not bold enough to put it in the substantive legislation? Presumably, it is going to come to the Parliament at some later date in the form of regulations and will slide by and will contain all the draconian requirements that will determine whether you are registrable. For the moment, all that it requires—clause 34(1)—and I consider it laughable: “A person wishing to be registered as an accredited Electronic Authentication Service Provider shall apply to the Minister or the designated authority”—and I will come back to that—“in the manner prescribed and pay the prescribed fee. (2) The application...shall include”—and somebody will remind me that it used the word „include‟—“at a minimum the following information: (a) the name and business address of the person;... (b) where the person is previously accredited in another jurisdiction...— (i) the name and address of the accreditation authority; and (ii) the period of validity of the accreditation. So as things stand on clause 34, all that you need to do is to have a name and a business address to be an accredited electronic authentication service provider. This must be some minimal business transaction. It probably has no value whatsoever, if all you have to do is to have a name and a business address. If you go down Charlotte Street, any evening, you are bound to find several people on the roadsides who have names and business addresses—outside Nahous, outside Tamer selling cloth. So what distinguishes such a person from an electronic 532 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011 [SEN. PRESCOTT SC] authentication service provider? Indeed, may I ask the question: do we have such a `thing in Trinidad? Do we anticipate being able to break into the world of ICT and give birth to one of these? 10.20 p.m. Could the legislator please tell us what is the purpose of this legislation, if this is all it seeks to do, to register this phantom electronic authentication service provider? And for sure, it will appear to us that the responsible thing to do is to tell us precisely what more is expected of such a person if he were to qualify. And if I may draw your attention to the requirements for the provider in clause 35, they are really some very timid provisions; that he will:  “employ personnel who possess the expert knowledge…  apply administrative and management routines that conform to recognized standards;” You note how generalized these provisions are.  “use trustworthy systems and products that are protected against modification and that ensure technical and cryptographic security…;  maintain sufficient financial resources to conduct his or her operations…;  have secure routines to verify the identity of signatories…;  maintain a prompt and secure system for registration….” So anybody could be an electronic authentication service provider if he promises to do these things. Mr. President, if we are serious about bringing ourselves into the 20th century by this Bill— Hon. Senators: 21st. Sen. E. Prescott SC:—20th, 20th, yes, Singapore had it in 1998, I am told. If we are serious about coming into the 20th Century by this Bill, we could at the very least, seek to beef up, strengthen, reinforce the provisions to which I have just referred. Finally, if I may, it seems to me that one cannot help observing the omission in this legislation of protection for the buyer. The old caveat emptor continues to apply, let the buyer beware. 533 Electronic Transactions Bill Tuesday March 15, 2011

May I invite your attention to Part VIII of the legislation, clauses 55 to 58? It is captioned “Consumer Protection”. If you would bear with me, by reading it, I would demonstrate to whom the protection is offered. Clause 55(1) says: “A person using electronic means to sell goods or services to consumers shall provide accurate, clear and accessible information about themselves…. (2) A person using electronic means to sell goods or services to consumers shall provide accurate and accessible information describing the goods or services offered… (3) A person using electronic means to sell goods or services to consumers shall provide the following information to the consumer…” Mr. President, what protection is being offered in this part to the consumer himself? Clause 57 says that if the consumer is not provided with the information required by sections 55 and 56, he has the right to rescind the contract within 30 calendar days. That is all, if you are not happy, walk away. No protection is offered to him and more insidious is the failure to provide protection against fraud or other dishonest activity. I have not seen it and I honestly must confess, I do not recall all that the Minister said in introducing the Bill. If it was said before, then I plead guilty to having failed to pay attention. But ought we not to be saying in this piece of legislation, that this legislation is intended to protect the customer against fraud or other dishonest activity by those who understand this ICT and are already engaging in stealing people‟s identity and interfering in their finances wherever they may be? Is it asking too much for the Senate to say to those who create the legislation that we need to see that kind of protection written into the legislation? Mr. President, my intervention in these things is often very limited for a deliberate reason. I think that the burdens placed on the electronic authentication service provider are too paltry. I think that the legislator does not take any account or sufficient account of the naivety of the ordinary consumer who will be allured by attractive advertisements and find himself or herself in front of some computer somewhere, selling himself out because he is not required to pull money out of his pocket and exchange it, thinking that he has achieved nirvana only to find out that it is quite the opposite. Thank you very much, Mr. President. 534 Adjournment Tuesday March 15, 2011

ADJOURNMENT The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Mr. President, I beg to move that this Senate do now adjourn to Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 1.30 p.m., and that day will be Private Members‟ Day. [Interruption] Thank you very much. Question put and agreed to. Senate adjourned accordingly. Adjourned at 10.27 p.m.