339 Leave of Absence Wednesday, January 12, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 12, 2011 The House met at 1.30 pm. Madam Clerk: Hon. Members, the Speaker has been unavoidably detained and the Deputy Speaker would be presiding.

[MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair] PRAYERS LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I have received communication from the Hon. Dr. Rupert Griffith, Member of Parliament for Toco/Sangre Grande. The hon. Member is presently out of the country and has asked to be excused from sittings of the House during the period January 08, 2011 to January 23, 2011. The leave which the Member seeks is granted. CONDOLENCES Sir Ellis Clarke (Former President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, this is the first sitting of the House of Representatives since the demise of the First President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Sir Ellis Clarke. I now invite the House to extend tributes. The Prime Minister (Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is undoubtedly no one who better symbolizes the aspirations and achievements, the optimism and the objective of Trinidad and Tobago through its modern national passages as does Sir Ellis Clarke. So it is for this reason and, of course, with your kind permission that I rise to pay tribute to Sir Ellis Clarke, who passed away after a lifetime of devoted and incomparable national service. Whilst we offer our condolences, it is our respectful view that it is insufficient and almost unfulfilling to simply express condolences and to say that Trinidad and Tobago has lost one of its noblest, brightest and statesmanlike sons. Sir Ellis fits comfortably all of these depictions, but in a substantive way he represented much more than a competent and illustrious national who rose to the highest offices, one who served the people with honour and excellence, wrapped in a personality of effortless simplicity. Sir Ellis was that and much more. 340 Condolences Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. K. PERSAD-BISSESSAR] In a practical manner he embodied and spearheaded the critical political transitions of his beloved Trinidad and Tobago as it smoothly moved from colonialism to independence, to republicanism. He was a backbone visionary and personification of a timely twin-island state as it chartered an ambitious course away from the shelter of a colonial empire to a nationhood and then to its own identity and attributes as it acquired republican status and fitted among the countries of United Nations. Mr. Deputy Speaker, through it all, Sir Ellis was an unequal statesman, a repository of the ideals and traits that define the purpose and goal of this young aspiring society. To those qualities he added the values of graciousness, good humour and humility, and I am sure we will all remember his graciousness, his humour and his humility. His extensive and exalted role in the development and progress of our country is unique and without question. Indeed, for his vast contributions it may be said that there is no one in the annals of the modern history of Trinidad and Tobago who is more deserving of being acknowledged as a national patriarchal figure. Our country was indeed blessed to have had the loyal and devoted public service of Sir Ellis when he could have easily swapped his extensive knowledge and experience for wider gains in the private sector or in the international community. He was an incredibly rare human commodity who emerged and faithfully, served the most essential crossroads in Trinidad and Tobago’s modern history. In the other place I have indicated the unparallel manner in which the legacy of a supreme and consummate national, will be honoured and preserved. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this regard you may recall that the Government has been deeply conscious of Sir Ellis vast contribution to Trinidad and Tobago, to the Commonwealth, particularly in matters dealing with constitutional reform, that we have announced outside this House and now to place on the record of this honourable Chamber, that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago will endow the Sir Ellis Clarke Chair in Commonwealth Parliamentary and Constitutional Issues. This Chair will be a major centre of learning available to and serving only Trinidad and Tobago but the entire Commonwealth as well as students of constitutional studies all over the world. It will be of immense value as governments everywhere seek to reform and adapt their constitutions to meet national needs, the pioneering work of our own Sir Ellis will be brought to bear 341 Condolences Wednesday, January 12, 2011 on future generations. This endowment will honour not only his work in a major field of government endeavour, but his legacy will continue to benefit students, researchers, scholars and Members of Parliament from all over the world in a field of study that was literally his passion and which is embodied in the essence of this House of Representatives, the seat of our democracy. Indeed, this is a way for his legacy to endure and continue to instruct for generations to come. Today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply wish to herald and acknowledge a man who diligently and honourably served this nation and made it a better place for generations to come. On behalf of the Government and people of Trinidad and Tobago, we pay the highest possible tribute to one of our society’s greatest nation builders and the quintessential national spirit. May he rest in peace. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the PNM Opposition, those of us on this side, I would like to associate with all of the comments made by the Government on behalf of the people of Trinidad and Tobago on this occasion when we acknowledge the passing of, easily, probably the most unique of our citizens. It is quite likely that there may never be an opportunity again for an equivalent to Sir Ellis Clarke to emerge in this country. Sir Ellis Clarke did not only serve in high office, he actually conceptualized, helped to create the institutional framework within which those offices came into being and were made to serve our country. In his own life, as an individual, he came from that era when this country’s best offering as an opportunity for a young person was an island “schol”, and he obtained that distinction and proceeded not to use it for his own benefit, but to transform a colonial society and to live to see that transformation resulting in a situation where independent Trinidad and Tobago went on to become a republic with a republican Constitution wherein his fingerprints were also present. I do not believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is likely—certainly not in our lifetime or in the foreseeable future—that a similar situation could ever arise where one of our citizens could be so called to act in such a situation and to have so distinguished himself as Sir Ellis did. We take pride as a people to have produced such a citizen and when we acknowledge that the Australians, who own a continent, are still striving with the opportunity and the thought of moving from a colonial status to a republican status, had to ask him to advise as to how Trinidad and Tobago did it, we speak, as the Prime Minister just spoke, about 342 Condolences Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] how smoothly we did it. The only reason we can speak now of it having been done smoothly is that of the input and the guidance of Sir Ellis Clarke and some of his contemporaries and for that we would be eternally grateful. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are those who believe that the public service is where people go to have a good time; Sir Ellis Clarke would put the lie to that. Public service is where one can go, being the best that the country has to offer, and go there and change the country. He was the example of an individual change in a society, if not a region. Now we talk about a contribution to the Commonwealth as a whole, because we are not too small to give knowledge to the Commonwealth even though from time to time we learn from the Commonwealth; if today that Chair as offered to the Commonwealth comes to pass, as I expect it would be, we would once again be offering the best of Trinidad and Tobago to the world. So on this occasion, on behalf of all of us on this side, and I dare say on behalf of all of our colleagues in this House, we would want to say to Sir Ellis Clarke's family, thank you very much for the support you gave to him so that he could support us in the way he has done. He stands head and shoulders above most citizens as an exemplar to whom we can tell our children to aspire to that level and there is nothing higher. We say to those who believe that public service is not a good thing, there is honour and there is distinction in public service and we hope that there are people in our society today, even in the schools as I speak, who will see public service as a place to contribute to this country. May he rest in peace and thanks to Sir Ellis Clarke. [Desk thumping] Mr. Patrick Manning (San Fernando East): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be very remiss of me if in circumstances like these I did not make a very brief contribution to the tributes that we are paying as Members of this honourable House to a son of the soil who almost had no other equal in Trinidad and Tobago. I would like to say that I remember three very clear incidents in which I had an association with Sir Ellis, which stand out in my mind. The first was in 1979, I think it was, when we were discussing the new constitutional arrangements for Tobago and I was discussing with him, as a young Minister at the time, the issue of autonomy for Tobago, and he referred me to a document which he named—he referred me to a page in the document and to a footnote on that page and exactly what the footnote said. When I checked it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he was absolutely correct and it demonstrated that he had a mind and a memory that almost were without precedence. That was the first one. 343 Condolences Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The second one to which I would like to make reference was in 1981 on the death of the then Prime Minister Dr. Eric Williams. I held the portfolio at the time of Minister of Information, therefore he sent for me on the night of that incident. We also met the following morning at Trinidad and Tobago Television just before he addressed the nation at eight o’clock and announced the death of the then Prime Minister. When that was over he called me to a room and he said, well, so and so and so will happen subsequently and I would like you to do so and so and so. His mind was very clear, he was very calm, he was very composed. He gave very clear instructions which I carried out at the time and I know that I was not the only one who was in receipt of instructions from a man who took proper command of the country in circumstances that warranted it. He was a man of great stature; he was a man of great courage and a man of stability. The third incident that I would like to draw to the attention of hon. Members, is one that took place in 1987, in February of that year, in fact in January of that year when the PNM was put into Opposition for the very first time, and when we were preparing for a special convention of the party to be held on February 08, 1987 where a political leader was to be elected. A couple of weeks before that convention took place, I had a conversation with the then party chairman that left me quite disturbed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The upshot of it was that I immediately sought an audience with the then President, Sir Ellis Clarke, which I got, outlined to him what had taken place and then he asked me, what would I want? I indicated to him what I thought would have been appropriate in the circumstances, and he acted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that on February 08, 1987, when the special convention took place and a political leader was elected, the then party chairman resigned immediately. Sir Ellis Clarke, not only served the country in his capacity as President, but was available to individuals, anybody who wanted his advice, as indeed I sought in 1987, in a party capacity and in circumstances that were by no means ideal for him or for us. 1.45 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir Ellis Clarke has developed a reputation for being a constitutional expert and, indeed, that is what he was. On the various occasions in which we discussed constitutional reform in this country, Sir Ellis Clarke was very pivotal in advising on the courses of action that would have been appropriate in all the circumstances, and on the last occasion—this is just before we left office—where the exercise was embarked on but not yet completed, it was to Sir 344 Condolences Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. MANNING] Ellis Clarke that we turned after the Principles of Fairness Committee had put out a document—a draft Constitution. We asked him to put something together without giving him any instructions at all and he put out a draft document, and the two documents, one by Sir Ellis Clarke and the other by the Principles of Fairness Committee, constituted the basis for the discussions on a round table that the Government constituted at the time, headed by the then Prime Minister, and in which we began to discuss the various recommendations of both documents, seeking, as we did, to come up with something that could have been used as a basis for discussion among the national community. I think the record will show that we produced about 11 drafts of the document and the 11th draft was the one that we thought was appropriate to be used as a working document in consultations with the national community and interested stakeholders in matters of this nature. Sir Ellis Clarke was central to all that. To me he was an adviser, a statesman of tremendous stature, respected all around world. Wherever you go you would hear about it. He was someone whose experience was something on which the country was free to draw whenever we wished and he served us selflessly. In fact, when I became Prime Minister of this country, on every occasion on which I have asked him to assist us with advice of any nature or in any other capacity, the one criteria that was laid down by him is that he was not prepared to accept any remuneration for anything he did for Trinidad and Tobago. He was, indeed, a true patriot. So as we now take note of his passing, we are really mourning the loss of one of the great sons of Trinidad and Tobago. I do not know, it is not every day that somebody of that stature passes this way and we do not know when next it will happen, but the people of Trinidad and Tobago and our country as a whole would have been better off as a consequence of the fact, not only that he lived at the time in which he did, but that he dedicated his life, really, to the service of the country. The other quality about Sir Ellis Clarke that must be noted is his deep and abiding faith in Almighty God. He was a Roman Catholic. He went to church every day, because he understood that his primary purpose on earth was to determine where he will spend eternity. I have no doubt that today he is safe and secure in the arms of Almighty God. I would like just to add my quota of condolences to his family and to the people of Trinidad and Tobago whose loss is one that we will regret for quite some time. Thank you very much. [Desk thumping] 345 Condolences Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, on behalf of hon. Wade Mark, Speaker of the House of Representatives, I endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members of this House. The life of Sir Ellis was truly characterized by distinguished and unparalleled service to Trinidad and Tobago. The sentiments expressed by the hon. Members reveal how much Sir Ellis was well respected and highly esteemed. Not only did Sir Ellis dedicate his life to serving our nation with pride and dignity and advocate the values of freedom and equality for all, but he was also a loving husband, father and grandfather. He provided a model for all and particularly for us here in this House who have the responsibility to represent the peoples of our beloved country. As a mark of deep respect for the late Sir Ellis, let us all stand and observe a minute of silence in his honour. The House of Representatives stood. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please sit. I direct the Clerk of the House to send an appropriate letter of condolence on behalf of the Speaker and Members of this honourable House to the family of the late Sir Ellis Clarke.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE (APPOINTMENT OF) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to read the following correspondence from Sen. The Hon. Timothy Hamel-Smith, President of the Senate dated December 15, 2010:

“Honourable Wade Mark, MP Speaker of the House Office of the Speaker Office of the Parliament The Red House Abercromby Street PORT OF SPAIN Dear Mr. Speaker, Appointment of Joint Select Committee- Anti-Gang and Bail (Amendment) Bills, 2010 346 Joint Select Committee Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER] Your letter dated December 13, 2010 on the subject at caption refers. Please be informed that at a sitting held on Tuesday December 14, 2010 the Senate agreed to the following resolutions, which were moved by the Honourable Minister in the Ministry of National Security and Leader of Government Business: (i) BE IT RESOLVED that this Senate appoint the following six (6) members to serve with an equal number from the House on the Joint Select Committee established to consider and report on the Anti-Gang Bill, 2010 and the Bail (Amendment) Bill, 2010: 1. Mr. Anand Ramlogan 2. Brigadier John Sandy 3. Mr. Subhas Panday 4. Mr. Fitzgerald Hinds 5. Mrs. Corinne Baptiste-McKnight 6. Mr. Elton Prescott, S.C. (ii) BE IT RESOLVED that ‘An Act to amend the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60’, be referred to the Joint Select Committee which has been established to consider and report on the Anti-Gang Bill, 2010; and that this Committee be further empowered to discuss the general merits and principles of this Bill along with its details and be mandated to report on this Bill also within three months. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you cause this matter to be brought to the attention of the House of Representatives. Yours respectfully, Senator the Hon. Timothy Hamel-Smith President of the Senate” PAPERS LAID 1. Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on the financial statements of the College of Science, Technology and Applied Arts of Trinidad and Tobago for the period ended September 30, 2001. [The Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran)] 2. Second Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on the financial statements of the College of Science, Technology and Applied Arts of Trinidad and Tobago for the period ended September 30, 2002. [Hon. W. Dookeran] 347 Papers Laid Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Papers 1 and 2 to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. 3. Administrative report of the Tourism Development Company Limited for the fiscal year 2009. [The Minister of Housing and the Environment (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal)] 4. Annual report of the Ministry of Information for the period October 2008 to November 2009. [The Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister (Hon. Collin Partap)] 5. Minimum Wages Order, 2010. [The Minister of Labour, Small and Micro Enterprise Development (Hon. Errol Mc Leod)] 6. Report on the exercise of the functions and powers of the Ministry of Health for the period October 2004 to September 2005. [The Minister of Health (Sen. The Hon. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis)] 7. Report on the exercise of the functions and powers of the Ministry of Health for the period October 2005 to September 2006. [Sen. The Hon. T. Baptiste- Cornelis] 8. Report on the exercise of the functions and powers of the Ministry of Health for the period October 2008 to September 2009 [Sen. The Hon. T. Baptiste- Cornelis] 9. Legislative proposal for the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chap. 11:11. [Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal] 10. White Paper on Tertiary Education, Technical Vocational Education and Training, and Lifelong Learning in Trinidad and Tobago. [Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal] WHITE PAPER (TERTIARY EDUCATION) The Minister of Housing and the Environment (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal): I wish to indicate to the honourable House that the Minister will make a statement on this paper at an appropriate stage. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Minister of Housing and the Environment (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are indeed happy to announce that the Government is prepared to answer the questions on the Order Paper today—all questions—having done our homework. [Desk thumping] We will just ask that we begin the order with the question to the Minister of Works and Transport, question No. 29. The Minister of Energy and Energy 348 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. R. MOONILAL] Industries is on the compound but delayed with a matter of State, and then we can return to question No. 26. The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries is prepared to answer all questions on the Order Paper as well. Policy for Government Vehicles 29. Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West) asked the hon. Minister of Works and Transport: (a) What is the policy with respect to the distribution of the motor vehicles purchased for the Fifth Summit of the Americas and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? (b) Whether these vehicles have been assigned to Ministers as opposed to Ministries? (c) If the response to (b) is in the affirmative, list the Ministers who have been assigned any vehicle(s) and provide the following details: i. When was each vehicle assigned and to whom? ii. The model and registration number of each vehicle assigned and allocated? iii. On what conditions are the vehicles to be utilized by Ministers? (d) Whether any such vehicle, driven by any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, was involved in a motor vehicle accident and can he identify the driver involved? (e) If the response to (d) is in the affirmative, what was the extent of the damage to the vehicle and the estimate cost to repair it? (f) If however the vehicles are assigned to Ministries, whether these vehicles are required to be entered into the Motor Vehicles’ inventory of each such Ministry and be maintained under the management of the Permanent Secretary in accordance with established government policies and regulations? The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Jack Warner): Mr. Deputy Speaker, question No. 29 (a) states: “What is the policy with respect to the distribution of motor vehicles purchased for the Fifth Summit of the Americas and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting?” The answer is as follows: The policy with respect to the distribution of motor vehicles is based on the need of the relevant ministries and departments and has been authorized by several Cabinet Minutes. 349 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011

“(b) Whether these vehicles have been assigned to Ministers as opposed to Ministries?” The answer is as follows: The vehicles were not only assigned to ministries. The assignment is as follows: 135 vehicles were assigned to the Ministry of National Security. [Desk thumping] Two vehicles were assigned to the Government of Grenada by the previous administration. Dr. Moonilal: Grenada? Hon. J. Warner: Yes, Grenada. Forty-four vehicles were assigned to other Government ministries and departments as follows: Office of the President; Ministry of Tobago Development; the Office the Prime Minister; Office of the Chief Justice; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Education; the Environmental Commission of Trinidad and Tobago; Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Arts and Multiculturalism; Ministry of Trade and Industry; Ministry of Housing and the Environment; Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs; Ministry of Community Development and Ministry of Works and Transport. One vehicle has been assigned to Patrick Manning by the Office of the Prime Minister, and in case the Member for San Fernando East does not make it out in his fleet of vehicles, the number is PCL 9713. I want to say also, it does not give me any pleasure in making this public, because the Prime Minister when she assigned it, deliberately did not want to make it public, but the question from the Member for Diego Martin West has forced me to do so. Therefore, I have to make it public. 2.00 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, 19 are also recommended for sale by public auction and this shall be done shortly. Given the answer I gave to (b), this question does not apply. Yes, one such vehicle was involved in a motor accident and was driven by the Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs. The Minister of Works and Transport has not been briefed as to the extent of the damage to the vehicle in question, nor does he have in his possession an estimate as to the cost of repair at this point in time. To answer you, Member for Diego Martin North/East, the vehicle had not been written off. In fact it was a minor accident. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer to (f) is yes. [Desk thumping] 350 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dr. Rowley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, supplemental. Is the Minister aware that the provision of a motor vehicle for private operation by a Member of the Cabinet to the extent where one is even damaged, that such an assessment is an adjustment to the terms of engagement of a Minister of Government as laid down by the Salaries Review Commission? Hon. J. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as far I am aware, the vehicle is for official use by a Minister in his official capacity in the Ministry. I am aware of that, nothing else. Dr. Rowley: Is it the policy of this Government that Ministers of Government can operate public vehicles for their own private use, incurring maintenance cost, operation cost and repair to damage cost; and are we not aware that the conditions specific to transportation for a Minister of Government are spelt out by the Salaries Review Commission and any other conditions or variation as unauthorized? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, that is a new question as compared to the Standing Orders. If the Member would like to answer it that is up to him, but it is a new question. Hon. J. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this long question has a very short answer. The answer is, no. It is for official use. Dr. Browne: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the Minister aware that Government Ministers receive a travelling allowance and a vehicle loan allowance to enable them to drive their own vehicle as opposed to public vehicles? Hon. J. Warner: Again to those three questions, yes, I am aware. Point Fortin Hospital (Construction of) 26. Mrs. Paula Gopee-Scoon (Point Fortin) asked the hon. Minister of Health: Could the Minister state:- (a) When will the construction of the Point Fortin Hospital begin? (b) What is the confirmed site for this new hospital? (c) What is the projected cost of the hospital? The Minister of Health (Sen. The Hon. Therese Baptiste-Cornelis): Mr. Deputy Speaker, construction of the Point Fortin Hospital is scheduled to commence in the last quarter of fiscal 2011. The following has been completed so 351 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011 far. I have obtained Cabinet approval in principle to commence pre-construction activities with the assistance of the Ministry of Works and Transport. In this regard, it has been agreed that the Ministry of Works and Transport will provide technical assistance and make recommendations for an appropriate construction delivery model and the provision of project management services for the construction of the new hospital. In December 2010, the Ministry of Health officials, including myself, met with the Ministry of Works and Transport officials to establish an agreement and a way forward utilizing the Ministry of Works and Transport. A memorandum of understanding is currently being developed between the two Ministries, which will outline the respective responsibilities of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works and Transport for implementing projects within specified time lines. This is expected to be completed soon. Three sites have been identified for consideration by the Ministry of Health for the Point Fortin Hospital. The suitability of these sites is being analyzed to avoid the problems that occurred in the disastrous construction of the Scarborough Hospital. The site selection is expected to be completed within the next two months. It should be noted however, that prior to beginning the construction of the hospital, we also have to complete the development of the hospital design, inclusive of preparation of design technical bids specifications which will then be followed by the opening tendering and evaluation process. There is no confirmed site for the new hospital. We are currently analyzing the feasibility of three sites. When a decision has been taken, all stakeholders will be informed accordingly. Mr. Deputy Speaker, a provisional sum was included in the 2011 budget estimates. Once the actual site has been selected and the preliminary designs completed and approved, we will be in a better position to estimate the cost of completion and outfitting. Once this is done, Cabinet’s approval will be sought and we will proceed to the tender stage. It is our intention to learn from the many mistakes made with the Scarborough Hospital, and so we, as a government, will not be throwing out loose numbers to build and complete. Thank you. [Desk thumping] CONDOLENCES (Mr. Joey Carew) The Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs (Hon. Anil Roberts): Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I answer the question, may I beg to offer condolences on behalf 352 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] of the sporting community on the passing of Mr. Joey Carew, a former national cricket captain, West Indies selector and an icon in our society. So I beg to put on record condolences to his family and friends. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Coronation Park Sporting Facility (Point Fortin) 27. Mrs. Paula Gopee-Scoon (Point Fortin) asked the hon. Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs: Could the Minister provide the following:- (a) A status report on the Coronation Park Sporting Facility in Point Fortin? (b) The person or company awarded the contract and at what cost? (c) The estimated completion date of this facility? The Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs (Hon. Anil Roberts): The People’s Partnership Government’s vision for sport in Trinidad and Tobago is community-based, people centred, impact oriented and physically prudent. Unlike the superficial, dictatorial, conceptually-flawed and physically imprudent policy of the former PNM regime, as so horrifyingly illustrated by the abject squandermania, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, flawed design and physical impracticality of the Brian Lara Stadium at Tarouba, the People’s Partnership has changed direction towards the construction of community sporting centres of which Coronation Park in Point Fortin is one of the focal points in the national landscape. The process of developing design briefs through consultation leading to RFPs and the tendering process has begun. No person or company has been awarded any contract. The process has begun at this juncture. No estimated completion date can be given. Thank you. Laptops (Details of) 28. Mrs. Patricia McIntosh (Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West) asked the hon. Minister of Education: Could the hon. Minister state: (a) How many schools are currently using the laptops distributed by the Ministry of Education as teaching and learning tools? 353 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011

(b) How many schools have been upgraded to accommodate the increased demand for internet connectivity? (c) What measures have been implemented in schools to ensure the security of these laptops? (d) How many teachers, if any, have completed teacher training in the use of the laptops as an integral part of the pedagogical practice?

The Minister of Education (Hon. Dr. Tim Gopeesingh): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have 152 secondary schools—134 Government and Government assisted and 18 private schools. Out of these 152 schools, 79 secondary schools throughout Trinidad and Tobago, including Servol Junior Life Centres, have been using these laptops. They have been distributed and most of them are already in use. They are making use of these laptops for teaching and learning. They are continuously developing work plans, ICT and software programmes for infusing these into the various curriculum areas. Math and Science are two of the subject areas that are already infused in the curriculum and are being used in Form 1at the secondary schools.

All 152 schools were originally wired for 3G. TSTT has assisted the Ministry of Education by increasing all the bandwidths from 3G to 5G in the 152 schools. In addition, the iGovTT is in the process of putting out a tender for the use of digital portals in the schools whereby each student will be able to use the Internet wherever they are. This is on the drawing board and it is going to be done pretty soon. TSTT has, in fact, decided as well, that they are going to introduce for us another aspect, where the students will be able to sit in the classroom even before the digital portal is made so that the students can access the Internet at the classroom sites. At the moment, schools are allocating secured rooms for storage of the laptops during the breaks, during lunch periods and also during the physical education periods. Schools have received as well, individually, technical specifications from manufacturers and assistance from the Ministry of Education which is assisting in the purchasing of storage and charging cabinets for these laptops. At the moment, the Ministry of Education is receiving a number of proposals for putting some of these charging and storage cabinets in schools, and we are in the process of investigating and analyzing these with the intention of putting charging cabinets 354 Oral Answers to Questions Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] and storage cabinets in all the 152 schools. We are in the process of doing a financial evaluation of what it will cost the State for the storing and charging of these laptops. The Ministry of Education has adopted a trained-trainer methodology for training in ICT Integration in curriculum delivery. So we are training a certain number of people who will also train others. The training was completed on December 03, 2010 in the first instance. 2.15 p.m. The target group comprises school supervisors, curriculum coordinators, curriculum officers, school principals, vice-principals, heads of departments at secondary schools, as well as ICT teachers. To date, 1,008 persons have been trained. Secondary schools have also developed plans for the roll-out of training for their respective schools. Thank you very much. Mrs. McIntosh: Hon. Minister, were the three days in training considered sufficient and adequate for the trainers to acquire the requisite competencies? Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Training is ongoing. It is part of the career and paths development for teachers who are teaching Form 1 for continuous training in ICT and obviously the training is continuing. We are using one of the state organizations, National Energy Skills Company to assist us in the training as well.

Mrs. McIntosh: If the training is ongoing, Sir, how then has the use of ICT for learning been integrated into the curriculum in Form 1? Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh: The integration of the curriculum into the Math and Science, to start with, has been done by the use of software and we are working with the Commonwealth of Learning and the Commonwealth of Universities as well, who have also done a lot of work on the infusion of curriculum software. We are getting the support of them and these international organizations are supporting our team of trainers in ensuring that the teachers continue to be trained in the infusion of the curriculum. EXPIRATION OF QUESTION TIME Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, it is now 2.17 p.m. According to Standing Order 19(7), question time is over. However, I would have to direct the answers to be circulated to the Clerk of the House to the Member who has asked the question. 355 Expiration of Question Time Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The following questions stood on the Order Paper: Propylene to Plastics Plant (Details of) 23. Could the hon. Minister of Energy and Energy Affairs state:- (a) The name of the investor(s) for the Propylene to Plastics Plant to be constructed at the Union Industrial Estate in La Brea? (b) The date on which the construction of the Propylene to Plastics Plant is scheduled to commence at the Union Industrial Estate in La Brea? (c) The date on which the cumulative impact assessment was done for the Union Industrial Estate with the inclusion of the Propylene to Plastics Plant? [Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey] Integrated Glass and Photovoltaic Cells Plant (Details of) 24. Could the hon. Minister of Energy and Energy Affairs state:- (a) The name of the investor(s) for the Integrated Glass and Photovoltaic Cells Plant to be constructed at the Union Industrial Estate in La Brea? (b) The date on which the construction of the Integrated Glass and Photovoltaic Cells Plant is scheduled to commence at the Union Industrial Estate in La Brea? (c) The date on which the cumulative impact assessment was done for the Union Industrial Estate inclusive of the Integrated and Glass and Photovoltaic Cells Plant? [Mr. F. Jeffrey] Importation of Aluminium Ingots and Downstream Industries (Details of) 25. Could the hon. Minister of Energy and Energy Affairs state:- (a) Whether any consideration was given to the importation of aluminium ingots and the construction of the aluminium downstream industries at the Union Industrial Estate in La Brea? (b) If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, what are the factors that were considered? (c) What was the outcome of the above consideration? [Mr. F. Jeffrey] 356 Expiration of Question Time Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Nikki Minaj Concert (Details of) 32. Could the hon. Minister state: (a) How much money did any State Enterprise, Statutory Authority or Government owned or controlled company contribute or pay, whether in cash or kind, for the hosting of the recent Nikki Minaj “Localize It” Concert? [Mr. Colm Imbert] Vide end of sitting for written answers. The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West): Contracts Greater than $1 million (Details of) 30. With respect to contracts greater than one million dollars entered into with local contractors for the supply of goods and/or services to Ministries, the Tobago House of Assembly and State Enterprises which are funded by the Treasury, could the Minister state: (a) The total sum of certified payments made to all contractors during the period September 01, 2010 to December 01, 2010, for works done prior to June 01, 2010? (b) The total sum of certified payments which exist and have not been paid as at December 01, 2010? (c) The outstanding sums owing for works completed which are currently being evaluated but for which certification is yet to be established? Question, by leave, deferred. STATEMENT BY MINISTER Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) (Draft White Paper) The Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education (Sen. The Hon. Fazal Karim): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address this honourable House and the nation at large on the Policy on Tertiary Education, Technical and Vocational and Training (TVET), and Lifelong Learning in Trinidad and Tobago—a Draft White Paper, which was just laid in this House. 357 TVET (Draft White Paper) Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government has expressed its commitment to rationalize, harmonize and modernize the national higher education and training system, so as to enhance our output of human capital. Higher education is without a doubt, the currency of the 21st Century and is essential in the development of an innovative entrepreneurial civic-minded and critical thinking citizenry. In that regard, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education, the responsible Ministry for formulating and implementing the policy on tertiary education, and lifelong learning,—TVET—is eager to ensure that human capital development is attained in the context of sustainable development for Trinidad and Tobago. Furthermore, this policy process will satisfy the conditions of the Ninth European Development Fund Programme, which will support the development of the non-university tertiary education sector. The magnitude of the Government expenditure on tertiary education and TVET over the past decade has been phenomenal of the order of US $2 billion. This level of investment reflected the growing social need for a better skilled and qualified workforce and citizenry, as the country itself experienced a transformation process in the areas of commerce and industrialization. However, rationalization, expansion and integration of educational and training opportunities at all levels, have now become the priorities of the People’s Partnership Government, given the society’s demand for education and training, including lifelong learning. As a result of the growing participation in the higher education sector, the country has reported significant increases in the local higher education admission rate in the past, from approximately 7 per cent in 2001, to 40 per cent in 2009. The dramatic increase in higher education enrolment was in large measure, facilitated by the introduction of Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses, (GATE), which was predicated on the Dollar-for-Dollar programme of the former UNC administration and the expansion of the capacity of several public and private institutions. However, this Government is committed to steadily increasing access to higher education to 60 per cent by 2015. In fact, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education is currently in the process of finalizing the mechanics of its manifesto promise, which is not the same thing as is being said on the other side, for the expansion for the first time of GATE for vocational education and training in the history of Trinidad and Tobago. This will serve as a fundamental initiative in building skills, expanding tertiary education and ensuring diversity and relevance in programme delivery. 358 TVET (Draft White Paper) Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. F. KARIM] Over the past two decades, the post-secondary and tertiary education sector in Trinidad and Tobago has emerged from an initial stage of providing indigenous programmes at local public institutions to a more recent situation where foreign entities have become significant providers through franchise and other cross- border arrangements. However, a new model of governance will be adopted, which will integrate the fragmented component of the tertiary education sector into a coordinated system. Further to which, this governance model will ensure that all institutions are aligned to Government’s policy and legislate frameworks to promote national development. Mr. Deputy Speaker, no longer will we have vicariously responsive and ad hoc policies, as has been the order in the past. A report of the Education Task Force Post-secondary sub-committee October 1992, described the tertiary education sector in Trinidad and Tobago as unstructured, uncoordinated and lacking an operational framework to facilitate horizontal and vertical articulation. At the time, the sector was characterized by multiple un-integrated public and private sector programmes and initiatives, which were, for the most part, not subject to external review. This gave way to a series of discrete and ad hoc decisions in the tertiary education and training sector that essentially responded to short-term needs, rather than long-term goals aligned to national priorities. The sector did not possess the legal and policy frameworks that would better facilitate the strategic development of an integrated national post-secondary education system. Consequently, in December 2000, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education submitted five policies to Cabinet regarding the creation of a tertiary education and training system for Trinidad and Tobago. In an effort to eradicate the duplication among these policies, it was necessary to harmonize the five policies to produce one comprehensive document. To achieve this, Cabinet established a steering committee in January 2004, to review five draft policies and it proposed the Green Paper on the Development of National Tertiary Education, Training Distance and Lifelong Learning. The steering committee was comprised of several subject matter experts from Government ministries and executive agencies, tertiary level institutions, the private sector and employers’ associations. I was chairman of the Working Group on the National Training Policy in my former capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the National Training Agency, which Members on the other side would recall very well. Deliberations ensued for the greater part of 2004, and in February 2005, the Draft National Policy on the Development of Tertiary Education Training and 359 TVET (Draft White Paper) Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Lifelong Learning was submitted to Cabinet which later agreed by Minute 715 of March 17, 2005, that the Draft National Policy would be laid in Parliament and published as a Green Paper for public comment. This Draft National Policy addressed the tertiary education environment, its philosophy and role and directions for change in the context of critical areas of policy that needed to be implemented. In preparation for its submission to Parliament and the consultation process, the Ministry sought and obtained feedback on the Draft National Policy from relevant Government agencies, funding bodies and students, as well as regional, local and international higher education stakeholders who attended UNESCO’s second regional research seminar for Latin America and the Caribbean, which was held in Trinidad and Tobago in 2007. With the passage of time however, significant advancements were occurring in the tertiary education and training system. So much so, that the Draft National Policy was no longer relevant to the dynamic needs of the sector. These notable developments included the establishment of the Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago and the University of Trinidad and Tobago in 2004, which became operational in the introduction of the GATE and the HELP initiatives in 2004 and 2006, respectively, as well as policy developments in the areas of open and distance learning, seamless education and training and lifelong learning. However, the Draft National Policy concentrated on traditional tertiary and failed to sufficiently address the issues of technical vocational education and training, open and distance learning, seamless education and training and lifelong learning. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a consequence, a decision was subsequently taken to defer submission to Parliament to allow for the revision of the Draft National Policy, so that it would be reflecting more accurately the landscape and address the demands of the sectors. In so doing, Cabinet by Minute No. 76 of October 03, 2008 agreed to the appointment of a Review Committee to revise and update the Draft National Policy. The Review Committee comprised, like in the past, technocrats in the fields of tertiary education, research and policy, training, accreditation, funding, open and distance learning and student affairs. 2.30 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in October 2009 the Review Committee produced the policy on Tertiary Education, Technical and Vocational Education and Training, and Lifelong Learning in Trinidad and Tobago—a Green Paper hereafter referred to as the Draft Policy. In essence, the Review Committee harmonized existing 360 TVET (Draft White Paper) Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. F. KARIM] draft policies on higher education, development, national training, and distance and lifelong learning and incorporated major advancements which have occurred within the sectors in recent years. The product of their deliberations was the draft policy for which the People’s Partnership Government was then responsible for hosting national consultations in July 2010, giving stakeholders the opportunity to express their viewpoints on the directions and recommendations enshrined therein. Subsequent to the consultative process, a Technical Review Committee was appointed to revise the document in keeping with the stakeholder viewpoints and international best practices. The ultimate result, the Policy on Tertiary Education (TVET) and Lifelong Learning in Trinidad and Tobago, hereafter referred to as the policy, is therefore the culmination of the efforts of experts, professionals and stakeholders involved in tertiary education and training development across Trinidad and Tobago for which we are recognized and grateful. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the previous draft policy focused on four main policy areas: Widening Access, Reforming the Curriculum, Funding and Managing the System. However, the policy brought before this honourable House has been patterned after international best practices and addresses five key areas of the tertiary education system in Trinidad and Tobago. Chapter 1 examines the goals, principles and challenges of the system. Chapter 2 discusses the structure of the sector, its major players and the critical need for curriculum reform and a seamless education and training system. Science, technology and innovation and research and development are recognized as drivers of sustainable development. Chapters 3 and 4 deal with governance and management respectively, and Chapter 5 focuses on issues of integration, quality and sustainability of the system. A common criticism of the draft policy from stakeholders was that it was inconsistent with respect to its use of policy language versus procedural lingo. However, the policy is more standardized, forward-looking and uses broader policy language, so as to allow for greater relevance of the policy over time. In addition, the policy has been aligned with, and makes reference to the framework for sustainable development, and the Government’s adopted policy position. The policy also outlines the role of the National Commission for Higher Education, as a mechanism for the effective governance of the national education system. The commission will be charged with planning for tertiary education development, policy formulation, implementation and review, taking cognizance of all elements and activities within the national education system. 361 TVET (Draft White Paper) Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, Cabinet has already agreed to the establishment of this commission. The commission is chaired by Prof. Clement Sankat, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, and features broad-based representation from regulatory bodies, research institutions, tertiary education and training institutions and other expert representatives in the fields of teacher training, labour, the business sector and our sister isle Tobago. The representative bodies include the Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago, the National Training Agency, the National Institute of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology, the University of the West Indies, the University of Trinidad and Tobago, the University of the Southern Caribbean, the College of Science, Technology and Applied Arts of Trinidad and Tobago, the Cipriani College of Labour and Co-operative Studies and other stakeholders in the sector. This Government is, therefore, committed to tertiary education and training transformation through the strategic engagement of stakeholders. Finally, the policy highlights the need for greater emphasis on science and technology as a springboard for innovation; the importance of seamlessness in fostering a culture of lifelong learning; the role of quality assurance and enhancement in developing a system benchmarked to international standards; the equivalency of TVET to academic education and the dire need for rationalization and regulation of the sector, in addition to the necessity of a guiding legislative framework for the further development, governance and management of the sector. All of these policy areas will now form the focus of this Government towards realizing our human development thrust. In conclusion, as indicated in earlier presentations to my colleagues in the other place, prior delays and procrastination by the last administration to have this White Paper completed—the policy document for the sector—had resulted in the suspension of financial assistance from the European Union since March 2009. As per the 9th European Development Fund, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago was required to submit an approved policy outlining its overall plan for the non-university tertiary education sector. The Ministry and the people of Trinidad and Tobago earlier last year almost lost close to TT$ 180 million in EU grant funding. To date, we have only accessed €4.5 million out of a grant of €$27.3 million due to the absence of an approved policy on tertiary education for which a draft policy was established since February 2005. Fortunately, with the coming of the People's Partnership 362 TVET (Draft White Paper) Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. F. KARIM] Government of Trinidad and Tobago under the stewardship of the hon. Prime Minister Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, we took immediate steps to ensure that this country is able to access the TT$ 180 million. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this People’s Partnership Government is fully cognizant of the fact that higher education is the fertilizer needed for our nation to grow and transition into a knowledge economy. We believe that a sound policy direction for the education sector is a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining people- centred, sustainable development, characterized by a citizenry who is better educated, more skilled, and increasingly adaptable to the changing global society. This Policy on Tertiary Education (TVET) and Lifelong Learning in Trinidad and Tobago presents our position on the role of post-secondary and tertiary education and training in the development of our democratic, diverse and unique nation. This policy seeks to ensure that the changing post-secondary and tertiary education sector and systems are coherent, regulated and governed to create all the necessary linkages for the establishment of a seamless education and training system. By taking into account the policies and goals of early childhood, primary and secondary education, this policy facilitates social, economic, industrial and sectoral development. By reinforcing integrity, relevance, quality, access, and performance as hallmarks of the educational system, this policy facilitates the meeting of social and economic needs that are characteristic of a nation that is in transition to becoming a competitive knowledge society and beyond. Mr. Deputy Speaker, through the establishment of the National Commission for Higher Education, and working in tandem with the Economic Development Board and the Competitiveness and Innovation Council, our thrust towards economic transformation, investment promotion and innovation will be realized. I therefore wish to congratulate the hon. Prime Minister for her leadership and thrust in ensuring sustainability, competitiveness and resilience through a knowledge intensive economy. With the laying of this Policy on Tertiary Education (TVET) and Lifelong Learning, we will, as she said continue to deliver, deliver, deliver! Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [Desk humping] FINANCE COMMITTEE The Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Finance Committee to consider the matters relating to the 2010/2011 accounts. 363 Finance Committee Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Question proposed. Question put and agreed to. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before this House goes into Finance Committee, according to Standing Order 64(1), I request that all strangers leave the House. 2.43 p.m.: House resolved itself into Finance Committee. 3.10 p.m.: House resumed. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Finance Committee has met and considered the matters relating to the 2010/2011 accounts. The report of the Finance Committee will be presented to the House on Friday, January 14, 2011 at 1.30 p.m. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT) The Attorney General (Sen. The Hon. Anand Ramlogan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the following Motion standing in my name: Be it resolved that a Joint Select Committee be established to consider the Legislative Proposal for the Amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chap. 11:11 and report to Parliament within three months from the date of appointment. And be it further resolved that the Joint Select Committee shall be authorized to: (a) consult with stakeholders and interested persons; (b) send for persons, papers, records and other documents; and (c) recommend amendments to the proposal. Mr. Deputy Speaker, corruption can be seen as a dishonest exploitation of power for personal gain. In other words, corrupt behaviour is the effort to secure wealth or power through illegal means. It is the obtaining of private gain at public expense and it manifests itself in many different ways. It includes bribery, nepotism, misappropriation, and many other forms. The effects of corruption, Mr. Deputy Speaker, run deep and the invisible price tag to a nation is one that we may never be able to fully appreciate or comprehend; but it impacts negatively on economic growth, because it contributes to reduction in the level of investment and the amount of money that is available 364 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] to invest in the economy elsewhere to meet the social needs of our citizens. The more money that is misappropriated as a result of corruption, the less there is that is available for the Government to meet the basic needs of the citizenry. Mr. Speaker, the People’s Partnership administration, in the elections recently concluded, promised this country, through the honourable Prime Minister, Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, that the octopus of corruption that had been nurtured under the previous administration for so many years was one we were prepared to hunt down, capture and cage; and we intend to eradicate corruption. We intend to try to minimize, reduce, if not eliminate altogether, corruption from public life. 3.15 p.m. Mr. Speaker, the tentacles of corruption during our recent political history reached into every nook and cranny and transaction of the Government; we have been bombarded with a virtual avalanche of corrupt deeds. It is against that background that in our manifesto we promised to contain and eradicate corruption and we promised as part of that process to address the issue of white-collar crime and bring in an entire package of legislation to deal with same. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to say that the People’s Partnership is here to fulfil yet another promise to the electorate. [Desk thumping] That is the promise to deal with corruption. One of the first things the hon. Prime Minister, as a matter of personal policy and principle, did was to say that no director can serve on more than one state board. If you look at the hundreds of persons who have been appointed to serve on state boards by the Government, you will see that the hon. Prime Minister has held true and firm to that policy and unlike in the past where you created a multi- headed demon with one person, with arms and legs reaching into all of the state enterprises in the state sector, you would see that that is no longer the case. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would take us ages to itemize all of the transgressions of the past, but permit me to say that the issue of political corruption remains a blemish on our otherwise proud tradition of parliamentary democracy in this country. May I be permitted to give this honourable House a brief perspective so that our present generation and this honourable Parliament can be made aware of the systematic corruption, the engrained corruption that permeated the entire system of the body politics in the recent past. Perhaps it may be fitting to start by quoting 365 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 from none other than one of our elder statesman, the respected former Prime Minister of the country and the respected former President of the country, His Excellency ANR Robinson. Many may recall the Prime Minister showing the kind of love, affection and deference and homage to Mr. Robinson recently on his birthday. May I quote what Mr. ANR Robinson had to say in this nation’s Parliament on August 02, 1996: “If they cannot understand why they are on that side of the House, it is because of the dirty campaign that they have been conducting over the years against the people of…this country whom they do not particularly favour. This is the personal level to which they have reduced politics—(Their) leader came to the island of Tobago to take away what had been granted by this Parliament—to nullify the laws of this Parliament—and substitute himself for the laws passed by…Parliament. They do not even have shame. No shame. A leader who bought a car as an election bribe. Shameful! Mr. Speaker, I can spend a lengthy time but the whole country knows their pattern of behavior.”

Mr. ANR Robinson continues: “When they were in trouble with their own citizens, they sent for foreign arms to defend themselves. It was the Minister of Defence of the United Kingdom, Mr. Dennis Healey, who revealed to me at a place called Lake Como in Italy at Rockefeller Villa where he was writing his memoirs, that they sent telegrams which would have meant the British moving back into Trinidad and Tobago and taking over. Venezuela was asked to send arms to defend their skins when they were in trouble…

What I want to emphasize is this pattern of behaviour by the” —PNM, it is what—“has turned out the most corrupt characters this country has ever seen and wasted the money of this country in the most incredible fashion. [Interruption] I have to reply. They had 10 times as much money to spend in one year as they expected to spend and blew it until an hon. Member from another country had to say”—that the money passed through the PNM—‘it passed through them like a dose of salts”’. Mr. Sharma: What a shame! 366 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: This is Mr. ANR Robinson on August 02, 1996 [Interruption] and we come to the country a decade later and we see that nothing must have changed, because when we look at the cost overruns in the construction sector, when we look at the Brian Lara Stadium not being put to any use and when we look at the amount of money we have wasted, it passed through a second generation of PNM like a dose of salts. No change just exchange. [Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I continue to quote Mr. ANR Robinson: “They had 10 times as much money to spend in one year…and…‘it passed through them like a dose of salts’. One can understand what comes from that side and why they behave in the manner that they do, and one can understand that that kind of behaviour would continue.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. ANR Robinson speaking in 1996 drew reference to the political history of this country, and when we deal with political corruption in the context of a functioning, maturing parliamentary democracy, we must understand that one party has ruled this country for almost half a century. One party has been in government and controlled the law-making power, the Legislature of almost half a century in this country, and a critical examination and analysis of that tenure and that stewardship is necessary to examine why you had a repeat, a recurrence of political corruption time and again. It virtually characterized that administration. It was in March 30— Mrs. McIntosh: Nobody is in jail. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I heard my learned friend say no one is in jail and she is correct because that is the point I am about to make. They never jailed anyone because they did not pass any laws to deal with corruption. [Desk thumping] In March 1983, John O’Halloran, then a close confidant to the Prime Minister was charged with accepting a bribe in the scandal known as the Sam P. Wallace affair. O’Halloran was charged with receiving a $3.6 million bribe—that is way back then while he was the chairman of the Trinidad and Tobago Racing Authority—to influence the award of a multimillion dollar contract to construct the Caroni Racing Complex. The PNM knew about it, did nothing about it and they allowed Mr. O’Halloran to end up in Canada where he purchased real estate galore with “we” money. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Project Pride, Mount Hope, wherever you turn you would find that the initial period in our political history when the PNM governed this country was characterized by malfeasance and political corruption. One 367 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 would have thought that after there was a break in governance and after a generation had changed, there would have been some alteration to the political philosophy and the approach to governance. Permit me to quote, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the recent commission of enquiry appointed by the hon. Member for San Fernando East, former Prime Minister, Patrick Manning, the report of Justice Annestine Sealey, into the Landate matter. Justice Annestine Sealey said and I quote, she concluded that: “…both in law and in fact the unfixed materials on the site is and was the property of NIPDEC and that the pretended claim by a private contractor that it owned the material was both unfounded and unjustified.” I say no further on the Landate matter, simply to refer to a Commission of Enquiry report commissioned by former Prime Minister Patrick Manning that was already laid in this House and I say no further because this matter is under investigation by the police at the instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But I raise it because the report was commissioned by the former Prime Minister and it was laid in this House and people seem to think that it is no longer an issue. Mr. Deputy Speaker, a generation change for O’Halloran, yet still we created new incarnations, new corrupt incarnations. [Interruption] We would come to the famous Calder Hart, but let us pause; the former Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs, Minister Anil Roberts, one of the hardest working Ministers of Sport and Youth Affairs [Desk thumping] this country would ever see, they wish to malign him. Every time they attack Anil Roberts, we must also remember that a national flag of shame was erected at a cost of $2 million [Desk thumping] and when it was raised the first time, the then Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs responded by saying that there was no cost to national pride. It was only after persistent public outrage, after the nation’s conscience was pricked into action, only then that Minister Hunt eventually apologized to the nation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course, whether it was in the past, whether it was medium term, short term or long term; you cannot leave out the infamous UDeCott. Corruption was rampant. The Uff Commission commissioned by the former administration—permit me to cite just a few of the recommendations: “Money assigned for public construction projects must not be allowed to be corruptly diverted and thereby stolen from the public.” Recommendation 42, that was the first recommendation. 368 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] Imagine you are presiding, you are a Government in power, you commissioned a commission of enquiry and your own commission of enquiry is saying to your own government that the number one recommendation we have for you as a government is that money assigned for public construction projects must not be allowed to be corruptly diverted and thereby be stolen from the public. Hon. Member: Under you! Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Under you! Recommendation 42: “The Government's policy on the use of foreign contractors and consultants for public construction projects should be transparent and open to review. Tender procedures should be designed to eliminate the effect of personal relationship or predispositions to favour”—supporters. That is just a sampling; but of course the issue of public procurement, we in the People’s Partnership fulfilled yet another of our promises when the hon. Prime Minister—[Desk thumping] —the first Act laid before this honourable House, the two procurement Bills for consideration, and a Joint Select Committee is dealing with that. [Desk thumping] Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are under no illusion about the size and the herculean nature of this task that confronts us. Permit me to simply quote from the hon. Prime Minister’s contribution in her last budget debate, when Mrs. Persad-Bissessar said and I quote: “One of the many hallmarks of the PNM and yes another thing they left when they were voted out, is the legacy of corruption. The level of corruption which is alleged to have occurred under the last government is legion.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, another example of lip service being paid to corruption can be seen when we examine the previous administration’s approach to this issue. 3.30 p.m. You may recall that the Integrity in Public Life Act, which is one of the few pieces of legislation that was meant to deal with corruption—you may recall that a Bill was before this honourable House and clause 12 of that Integrity in Public Life (Amdt.) Bill, 2009 which was laid, sought to dilute, undermine and weaken the Integrity in Public Life Act. 369 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

What was the former administration that never passed any serious law to deal with corruption trying to do with the laws that other administrations had passed? They were trying to chip away at its foundation. They want a person who made a complaint to the Integrity Commission to do so by way of a statutory sworn declaration and to disclose your name, your address and numerous other personal details and that this information could be disclosed to the person who is the subject of the complaint. Mr. Imbert: What is wrong with that? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: So if I am working under a government Minister and I suspect the Minister of being corrupt and I am a permanent secretary, if I want to report the Minister to the Integrity Commission, my learned friend for Diego Martin North/East wants that the permanent secretary must write to the Commission and say, “My Minister is corrupt and you could tell him I say so.” And he says what is wrong with that. Not only that, they sought to take away the protection for persons and courageous citizens who are brave enough to make such a complaint when the legislation was designed to embolden citizens, to encourage them to expose corruption. But had they gotten through with that amendment to the Integrity in Public Life Act, there would have been no complaints before the Integrity Commission—none. Permit me again to quote the hon. Prime Minister from the budget debate. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar said and I quote—this matter has been close and dear to the hon. Prime Minister’s heart and that of this People’s Partnership Government. In the budget debate the Prime Minister said, and I quote: “You will recall that instead of taking measures to protect whistle-blowers so as to aggressively gather evidence against corrupt persons, the former government moved in absolutely the wrong direction with a brazen attempt to expose whistle-blowers in their amendment to the Integrity in Public Life Act. It was only after significant public outcry that that provision was dropped.” So we remember that. They were trying to dilute the most important piece of legislation that was designed to fight corruption. When they were in the Opposition I remember my learned friend from Diego Martin North/East saying that the net was not cast wide enough. He argued for the inclusion of judges, magistrates, everybody. He wanted the fisherman’s net to be cast far and wide. Yet the minute they assumed office in government, they started changing story 370 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] and singing a different tune. They started saying, “Well, you know, we cannot get people to serve on boards; we cannot get people to help manage and nobody wants to come and sit in government. We cannot get competent people to serve in the PNM Government.” We know that part to be true. They went on and on. They wanted to now amend the Schedule to the Integrity in Public Life Act to whittle away the number of offices that were subject to the Integrity in Public Life legislation. This Government remains firm in its commitment to the Integrity legislation of the country and that is why we have gotten people to serve on state boards without compromising the principle of integrity. [Desk thumping] It did not end there. The Judicial Review Act which allows for the court to seek judicial review of executive action; where the court can look at executive abuse of power by a government Minister or any senior public servant, that Judicial Review Act became such a thorn in the side of the former administration because it exposed corrupt and discriminatory practices. They brought the Judicial Review (Amdt.) Bill, 2005, seeking again to dilute and chip away at the foundation of the Judicial Review Act, because they wanted to limit the grounds on which you could file for judicial review, to ask the judges to review executive action and political conduct. They wanted to abolish public interest litigation. Let us not forget it! They wanted to abolish public interest litigation. No modern democratic society in the world is seeking to abolish public interest litigation, but they were seeking to do that. Public interest litigation is when the poor and those who cannot stand up and fend for themselves in the battle of David and Goliath, can reach out to an NGO or a group in society and the group will stand up in the public’s interest and litigate and fight on their behalf, and they wanted to suffocate that. They wanted to restrict applications for judicial review. Again, just like when they came to amend the Integrity in Public Life Act, loud protests came from the public and they eventually backed away and slinked off. Mr. Imbert: Slunked away. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I will use that when I am referring to you. But in addition to not passing any serious law to deal with political corruption, the laws that were there, they attempted to whittle away at the foundation of those laws. 371 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

I am proud to say that that Judicial Review Act became a thorn in their side largely due to my own personal contribution in the legal sphere. [Desk thumping] Because I sought judicial review of almost everything they did, whether it was Marlene Coudray, Devant Maharaj, Ganga Persad-Kissoon, Dennis Graham, George Daniel and the disabled people; you name it, I judicially reviewed it; Maha Sabha radio licence. That is why they attempted to block and to suffocate the Judicial Review Act. This must be done and understood in the context of our political history and evolution where one party has ruled this Chamber for almost half a century. That is the point I am making. In 50 years, you “ain't” pass no serious law to deal with corruption and what other people pass, namely the NAR and the UNC, all you could do when you come into power was to chip away, chip away, hack away. It was from 1995—2001 that the fight against corruption really started in the legislative arena. The Inter-American Convention against corruption was signed and ratified by Trinidad and Tobago on April 15, 1998. In light of our obligations under the convention we immediately drafted a Bill known as the Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, 2000. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 9, 2000. The Bill sought to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987 and the object of the Act was to give effect to the following reforms: First, the establishment of an anti-corruption commission with power to investigate allegations of corruption on its own initiative and upon complaints received. The reason we say “upon its own initiative” is that we fear people may try to block and put obstacles in the way of those citizens who want to report corruption. Sometimes you have the Integrity Commission, things are in the newspapers; the country is reading about it, but nobody knows whether it is taking the initiative to say, “Should we not look at this?” So it is drafted to say, “of its own initiative and upon complaints received”. This Bill would create a new offence and that is the offence of illicit enrichment, where there is a significant increase in the pecuniary or other resources of persons holding high public office which cannot be reasonably explained in relation to lawful earnings during the performance of your functions. A police officer whose salary is known and public officers, including Government Ministers, whose salaries are known, cannot have a lifestyle that is impossible to reconcile with their earnings. [Desk thumping] That applies also to my learned friends on the other side. So this offence of illicit enrichment is an offence that will revolutionize the investigation and detection of corruption. A provision which makes it 372 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] an offence for one person to fraudulently deprive the State of revenue to which it is entitled, a provision aimed at containing transnational bribery—remember the Sam P. Wallace thing; remember where Calder Hart come from? Second, a provision aimed at containing transnational bribery by making it a specific offence for a national to bribe or offer a bribe to a government official of another country in connection with any economic or commercial transaction. That is important. The energy sector in our country is a very vibrant one and the oil and gas sector of the economy is very important. We have bidding for offshore blocks; we have international companies doing business and we have interest on the outside by foreign investors. But this provision will ensure that whether you do it in Trinidad or outside, this is the offence and you will be caught. Third, a provision for the protection of whistle-blowers. This is what they struggled so hard to get rid of. They wanted to erode any protection given to whistle-blowers. This Bill contains a provision for the protection of whistle-blowers where we will protect the identity of members of the public who give information regarding instances of actual or suspected corruption. This is a sharp diversion of political philosophy and policy. My learned friend from Diego Martin North/East and all the Members on that side, stood in this Parliament and they fought; they wanted to let the person who is reporting corruption to the Integrity Commission, do it by a sworn statutory declaration and the person’s name, address, everything must be made known to the official that you are reporting it to. Miss Cox: Yes. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: My learned friend from Laventille East/Morvant says, yes, again, boldly. We say, no, no, no! [Desk thumping] We say that the people who are brave enough to come forward and report political corruption, they must be protected because there is going to be an investigation into the allegation. Your vindication comes at the end of the investigation, if you did not do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But to subject that person who may be a mere clerical officer to the might, the whim and fancy of the corrupt politician, that means that investigation will go nowhere. We wish to protect and we have whistle-blower protection. May I add, I challenge my learned friends when they are replying to cite countries. I want them to cite in reply to this Motion, countries that are moving towards removing whistle-blower protection. No modern, functioning democratic society that is 373 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 serious about solving and attacking political corruption is actually moving to remove whistle-blower protection. All of the modern democratic societies in the world are aiming to strengthen and enhance whistle-blower protection, but I, in due course, will listen attentively for the examples of countries in the world where they are removing whistle-blower protection. The Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, 2000 lapsed when the House was dissolved on November 03, 2000. It was reintroduced thereafter in the House of Representatives on July 20, 2001, as the Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, 2001. However, the latter Bill also lapsed when the 6th Parliament was dissolved on October 13, 2001. But it is interesting to note that both the 2000 and the 2001 Bills provided for the establishment of an anti-corruption commission which would have the power to investigate allegations of corruption. Under a UNC administration, during that time, the Integrity in Public Life Bill was passed; the Proceeds of Crime Bill, 2000 was passed. After that period, we had the period of 2002—2010, eight years of rule under the PNM. What they did during that eight-year period to assist in the fight against corruption remains a mystery to anyone on this side. Because on December 11, 2003, we signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption and we had obligations there, to include in an Act of Parliament, provisions to combat corruption in the private sector; special offences relating to bribery of persons in public life; foreign public officials, et cetera. What did the PNM do? What they did was to commission an expert as a delay tactic. They did not want to bring that Bill to the House. The Anti-corruption Bill, they did not want to bring it to the House, so they used a nice, trite tactic of saying, “We want to review it to strengthen it.” 3.45 p.m. This, Mr. Speaker, was in 2003. Permit me to quote from the Attorney General under the PNM in 2003. Remember, we have already signed the United Nations Convention against corruption. Having signed it, we had to enact domestic legislation and bring it to Parliament. This is what the learned Attorney General, Glenda Morean said: “I turn to corruption. I cannot overstate the fact that we are committed to ensuring the principles of transparency, accountability and honesty in public affairs adhered to at all times. In fact, recently the Government has embarked on a review of the anti-corruption laws of the country and a consultant has 374 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] been sourced who is at present working with my ministry to ensure that a new anti-corruption policy and strategy for Trinidad and Tobago is devised, because we intend, really, to deal with corruption in a holistic manner. The consultant has identified the three elements of our strategy”—this is the PNM’s strategy—“which are to be implemented, namely, prevention, implementation and education.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, in 2003, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to hire a man called Mr. Bertrand de Speville, an anti-corruption consultant, to develop a national anti-corruption strategy, and from 2003 until now, we are still waiting on the PNM to bring that Bill. Had they brought that legislation to this honourable House, we may have been able to save this country hundreds of millions of dollars because of the corruption that took place under them. [Desk thumping] You see, this is their legacy. In the debate on April 03, 2009, the then Member of Parliament, hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, had caused to go through at length this issue and this is what she said and I quote:

“The then PNM Government was saying it was going to do away with the Integrity Commission and set up a permanent anti-corruption commission.” You see, any time you want to get away to bob and weave, you would say you are reviewing it and you will bring something better. But eight years later you were still reviewing, you had nothing better and that is why you sit on the other side. I continue quoting Mrs. Persad-Bissessar:

“That is a very serious matter. It begun under the UNC and never carried through in spite of the promises by the PNM. At that point in time they were saying there was no form and they would not bother. It was the then Attorney General, Glenda Morean. They were going to change it; they hired a consultant and brought people from all over the world.” Nothing ever happened. “You will recall, because you were in the House...as well, that in 2001”—we brought—for debate the Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill. The principal features”—of what I have alluded before—“a permanent Anti-Corruption Commission”—would be established. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in 2001 it was the report to the Inter-American Commission against Corruption. When we were in Government, we sent in the 375 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 report and said we wanted to implement our obligation under the convention. The principal feature of the Bill was introduced in 2000. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar said and I quote: “Listen to what that Government did when they came into office…:” “Since the last meeting of the Committee of Experts, a General Election has been held.” Sorry. This is the Inter-American Commission Report; elections were held. “The…Government is fully committed to the eradication of corruption in public life. In the pursuit of this objective the new Attorney General instructed that a review take place of the anti-corruption legislation which had been prepared by the previous administration. Currently the…Attorney General is preparing a new Anti-Corruption Bill to be presented to Parliament by the end of 2003.” What they presented to this Inter-American Commission when they were in Government is that “We are not doing anything right now because we are reviewing it. We hired international experts and a new Bill will be presented to Parliament by the end of 2003.” That is why Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar cited that International American Report because the international body was being told this by the Government. In the year 2003, Mrs. Persad-Bissessar said and I quote: “…came and went and we have not seen it yet.” That is the sad state of affairs and that is their legacy, and that is why we come to this Bill, 2011. This Bill, in light of the political history that I have just outlined, is one that is both necessary and critical. The object of this Bill which will amend the Prevention of Corruption Act seeks to implement more effective measures to prevent and protect against corruption. We seek to establish a commission for receiving and investigating allegations of corruption, to increase the number of corruption and corruption-related offences and to provide protection for informers or whistle-blowers. That is a tripod upon which this legislation is based. This Bill contains 13 clauses and requires a special majority vote, that is to say, three-fifths of all the Members of each House. Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill provide for the short title and the commencement of the proposed Act. 376 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] Clause 3 states that it should have effect even though it is inconsistent with sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution. Clause 4 will be interpretation clause. Clause 6 would amend section 6 of the Act by introducing definitions of new terms and “public body”, for example, will now be defined as meaning “anybody whether private or public providing public services”. So we have widened the net. Clause 7 of the Bill would amend the Act by inserting a new Part II and this new Part II would establish a permanent Anti-Corruption Commission which will be charged with responsibility for investigating complaints and allegations. The new proposed section 2A would establish the commission and provide for its composition. The President would be empowered to appoint a chief commissioner, assistant commissioners and special investigators. The President would be required to consult with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition before appointing a chief commissioner, and with the chief commissioner before appointing his or her special investigators and assistant commissioners. The new section ICC would set out the functions of the commission which will include receiving and investigating allegations of corruption and referring matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions when they are of the opinion that there are matters deserving of criminal prosecution. The powers of the commission are very strong. It is given a lot of teeth. The new section 2D would require the production of books and records and other documents, and require persons to provide information and answer questions which the chief commissioner considers necessary. Anyone failing to produce such documents and so on will be guilty of an offence. They will have the right to staffing and, of course, the usual duty of confidentiality, which if breached, will attract penal sanctions, so as to protect the secrecy and confidentiality of the process. We want the commissioner to be bold and fearless so they will have immunity. The commissioner and other officers of the commission shall have immunity from legal suit in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance of their duties. This Bill will introduce a new offence and that will be the offence of concealing a bribe. The offence of concealing a bribe received or given by or to a person for doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction in which the State or a body is concerned. 377 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

We have inserted a new section 5A which will deal with the private sector and Part V which will deal with bribery, solicitation and other offences.

Section 5A will create the offence of solicited enrichment—and that I have adverted to earlier—to look at the mismatch between your earnings and your lifestyle, and as to whether there is some reasonable explanation for it.

Section 5D would make it an offence for a person to give, offer or promise to any person who works in any private entity an undue advantage in order that he act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his duty.

Section 5C would make it an offence for people to act outside stipulated procedures in order to obtain concessions, exemptions or licences in respect of their commercial ventures.

A new 50J will deal with the issue of bribery of foreign public officials. A new section 5G would define when a person accepts, offers or solicits an advantage. It will be an offence for persons in public life to solicit or accept such an advantage.

Section 5F would impose stringent requirements to ensure that integrity of an entity’s financial records is not compromised and failure to comply with these requirements would make the general manager and the person responsible for the preparation of the accounts liable. Clause 13 of this Bill will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act by including a list of specified offences. Consequently, the provision of Part I in relation to confiscation, forfeiture, seizure, restraint and charging orders would apply in respect of any proceeds derived from the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not afraid of this issue because this People’s Partnership administration is one that is committed to open transparent Government and that is why [Desk thumping] the hon. Prime Minister said and I quote: “We are looking for corruptors because every dollar taken away by corruption is one dollar less for laptops for our children and for hospital beds for the sick and elderly, so we will be going after corrupt officials.” That was the message of the hon. Persad-Bissessar when we were campaigning for the public’s confidence. 378 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] You may recall that we have embarked on a series of corruption probes and permit me, we are probing eTeck, UTT, Petrotrin, the Su, sports, Scarborough Hospital and we are spending time and money to probe to get to the bottom of what had transpired—[Interruption] Mr. Warner: And we will. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan:—and we will. Mr. Deputy Speaker, permit me to share with you a few findings of the interim report in relation to UTT. The interim report has found engagement of suppliers and contractors without the award of any contract; commencement of work by suppliers and contractors prior to the signing of their contract; issuance of—I see my learned friends getting a little heated, but that is all right. It is understandable—confirmation orders as retrospective confirmation of orders placed with suppliers and contractors; retrospective approval of supplier/contractor selection and budgets; decisions being taken prior to formal committee meetings and the committee is rubber- stamping them; manipulation of the minutes of meetings for the approval of committee to reflect that decisions were consensually arrived at; the favouring, outright favouritism of certain contractors, sole approval of tender awards, sole sourcing of contracts sometimes at higher prices than the competitors, inadequate documentary evidence; engagement by the main contractor of subcontractors that are paid directly by UTT; and that is not contractors who tendered for the job. 4.00 p.m. Prequalification of certain suppliers and contractors by capital projects means, under normal circumstances, quality will not be a criteria in the evaluation of such suppliers and tenderers; the award of contracts to suppliers and contractors in which UTT’s management or staff have an interest, or in which their relatives have an interest and cost overruns and claims by contractors that cannot be supported. My learned friends are clamouring. They say do not be general, they want specific examples. They know it is at a very sensitive stage, but—Mr. Warner says to give them some. All right, I will give them a few. I feel sufficiently goaded and persuaded. UTT, which was a slush fund—[Interruption] Dr. Gopeesingh: It was a fiefdom.

Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: It was a fiefdom that became a “tiefdom”. UTT saw it fit to have—we have the hotel industry in this country; hotels all over, guest houses, villas and townhouses for rent, expatriate workers come here from 379 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 the energy sector, they have no difficulty finding accommodation—their own guest house, so they leased and created a full-time guest house known as the Aripo Guest House. Mr. Warner: Tell them, tell them. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: On February 02, 2006, UTT signed a lease with a company called Consolidated Services Limited. The lease was for five years, at a monthly rental of just about $50,000. Mr. Sharma: What a shame! Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: But, they signed that lease in February 2006. But, in November 2006, they discovered that the company that they leased this property from had no legal title to the property. Let me repeat that. In February 2006, they signed off on a lease and started to pay $50,000 a month for the Aripo Guest House. In November 2006, they discovered, whoops, this company that “give we dis lease eh even have no legal title to dis property.” So, what did they do? They covered it up and they continued with it. More than that, when it was discovered that they had no title, it was further discovered that the lease that expired a long time ago, even if it had been renewed with the owner, prohibited any form of subletting. They could not have a sublease. Technically speaking, UTT may very well be trespassing on that property and paying $50,000 to so do. But, that is not all. This property, by the way, is equipped. The Member for San Fernando East will feel very comfortable there. It has all the trappings of the Diplomatic Centre, swimming pool and everything that was going to be constructed in the church of Guanapo Heights, the Baptist hall and so on; massive swimming pool. This is luxurious accommodation, neatly tucked away in the heights of Aripo. Dr. Moonilal: Who was the guest? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: “We coming to the guest.” In the meantime, I want to keep them guessing. The cost expended—imagine you are paying $50,000 rent for the property, but in addition to paying $50,000 in rent, you have to go and fix it—on what they call leasehold improvements to the guest house, to date, is in excess of $5 million. Mr. Sharma: Imagine that. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: But, that is not all, when they went to the board of UTT for expenditure approval, the budget to fix up the guest house and the swimming pool and so on, was $1.02 million. So, the board gave approval for 380 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] $1.02 million for a property that they do not own, that they are paying $50,000 a month to lease. That $1.2 million rose to $5 million. With that money “dey coulda buy ah guest house.” What did they do? The Aripo Centre report now shows, that for the period 2005/2006 to 2010, the total loss incurred by this guest house is $9.4 million of taxpayers’ money. That is the loss, but the total cost incurred, since this lease was signed, to the taxpayers of this country is approximately $14.4 million; almost $15 million for a guest house. Hon. Members: Who is the guest? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: The guest that was staying there is one—my learned friend from San Fernando East would know this—Rev. Juliana Pena and her friend Anastasia Mendez, for the whole year. Tucked away in a guest house that they said was for UTT lecturers, Rev. Mendez were holding court in the Heights of Aripo, in a guest house that cost taxpayers $15 million, that we do not own and the company that we leased it from, did not own. Mr. Warner: Lecturing on religion. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I think, I dare say, looking at any religious principle or tenet, there is something fundamentally wrong about depriving people of hospital beds and taking $15 million, so that some people could live cushy. I know for a fact that had UTT asked my learned friend from San Fernando East, had they indicated they wanted this kind of luxury, I am certain the Member for San Fernando East would have opened the doors to the Diplomatic Centre where such luxury resides. He would have had no problem accommodating them. Maybe I spoke too soon, because nobody saw that place, except when Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar opened its doors, invited the media and started inviting school children to come and perform and see it. Mr. Warner: Talk, man. Talk, talk. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the following principal issues had been identified with the staffing at UTT. A number of individuals were paid as employees at UTT despite: (a) not performing any work and also being paid by another company while in the employ of UTT, or they in fact left; (b) payments have been made to employees or on behalf of employees where they were not contractually required to even pay the money; (c) payments were made to consultants and musicians galore, no requirement. 381 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Here is a little example. The Academy of Fashion at UTT paid a lecturer $40,000 a month for three years, and the person, when interviewed said: “Well, yuh know, ah really did not have that much and I worked remotely and I worked on assignment as and when I was given them.” That was $40,000 per month at the Academy of Fashion for three years and the person is working by remote control. Another Professor who was Savile Row Tailor, “ah man who does make little outfit and ting.” We have tailors and seamstresses suffering in this country. “Dem bring ah tailor from quite London.” [Interruption] Not Peter Taylor, no, no, he is still living off the fat of the land. When Mr. Peter Taylor spoke about people who are living off the fat of the land, these are the people Mr. Taylor was talking about. He was talking about “dis kind ah tailor.” During his tenure, this tailor was paid honorarium fees and travel expenses. He was paid $161,912 including reimbursement for first-class airfare and so on, and that Professor was based in London and spent very little time in Trinidad. Another director’s contract came to an end. There is no legal requirement when your contract comes to an end, to give you any money. The employment relationship is governed by the contract, but UTT decided to “pay de man ah lil’ bonus ah little parting handshake to say ba bye; ah lil’ $240,000, no big deal. Dey gih ‘im ah cheque, $240,000, ah quarter of ah million dollars” when there is no legal requirement do it. Prof. Julien’s contract gave him “all kind ah ting under de sun”. Maintenance of the residence, okay. But, how on earth could we justify paying Sterling Frost $37 million for landscaping for his home? Mr. Warner: Thirty-seven what? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Thirty-seven thousand dollars for landscaping; when he has everything else in the contract. “Dey taking care ah yuh from the morning, from the minute yuh get up tuh de minute yuh go tuh sleep at night.” Then there are medical expenses. Normally, you would be reimbursed and so on, and the contract governs these things. What they are saying is that the contract did not govern and you were not entitled to get US $30,000 for medical expenses in the United States. Mr. Warner: That is why he “cyah” pay PSA. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, they have a plaster and answer for every cut—[Interruption] 382 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dr. Gopeesingh: And every sore. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan:—and every sore, because it is only when the wound keeps festering that they talk; when it is oozing with puss. Permit me to share this. On October 15, 2008, Prof. Julien corresponded with the President of Bosendorfer Pianos in Las Vegas. Bosendorfer Pianos in Las Vegas, for those of us who are accustomed to the steel pan, the Dohlak and the Maghera and the “riddim” section; for those of us who are accustomed to listening local cultural music, the Bosendorfer Piano is the Rolls Royce among pianos in the world. Prof. Ken Julien corresponded with them on October 15, 2008, expressing an interest in UTT purchasing Bosondorfer Grand Pianos and Steinways. He asked to be put in touch with the supplier of these rare instruments and a pricing proposal was sent on November 14, 2008, and it sets out the make, price and intended locations relating to the purchase of 10 grand pianos. One unit called the Strauss Piano, which was listed at a mere, not TT, but US $114,215. It was listed as being earmarked for the home of the then hon. Prime Minister. A Strauss Piano. I never knew—I respect the Member for San Fernando East—and I did not realize that he was so multi-talented that he needed a piano in his house. [Interruption] Mr. Warner: “He even cyah play de radio”. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I thought that the hon. Member for San Fernando East was a man into things like steel pan and the promotion of local culture; to promote the steel pan, the “riddim” section, the Dholak, the Maghera, the Dhantal and the drummers. My learned friend from Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West is saying: “What is wrong with the piano?” I say nothing is wrong with the piano, but the day you could play a good calypso or chutney on it come back and talk to me. I want to see my learned friend take a piano and sit down and play a good chutney or a good kaiso on it, because, while—these pianos went ahead. These pianos were in fact purchased and after a 33 per cent discount, it came up to a mere $850,677; $1 million. Hon. Members: What currency?

Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: US. Dr. Gopeesingh: That is $5 million. 383 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: They in fact delivered one to the residence of the Prime Minister. I have in fact asked Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar to search those premises to locate this grand piano, because “all we know ‘bout it is ah lil’ Bob Marley music, ah lil’ kaiso”, calypso and chutney. That is what we listen to, but this grand piano. I want to ask the Member for San Fernando East: Sir, if you know where that piano is in the Diplomatic Centre and your former residence, could you kindly assist us? I do not know. I do now know if it is behind the chapel. Is it behind the gym, Sir? I do not know where it is, but if you can tell us where it is housed, it will be very, very helpful to us, Sir. Lord Kitch used to sing “whey de money gone”, today we have to ask: “Whey de piano gone? We begging for ah tune, not on ah tenor pan”, but from the piano. The remaining nine pianos, these are Bosendorfer Pianos, the Rolls Royce in pianos—“Dem eh buy no cheap thing yuh no man; no ‘lil keyboard and ting like whey yuh does see in dem orchestra and ting.” This is Bosendorfer Pianos. One found its way into the residence of one Prof. Mickens. One is on the Maritime Campus. One is at the Point Lisas Campus, another at San Fernando Technical Institute, one at the O’Meara Campus and until three months ago, we understand that two are still in their original packaging. “It eh even unpack.” 4.15 p.m. None of these pianos have been used to any extent at all, perhaps for a few recitals by my learned friend, the Member for San Fernando East. Maybe one day he will tell us about it. Dr. Moonilal: Where is that piano? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: In the last few months, three were transferred to the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA). We consider this to be a most shameful and disgraceful wastage of public funds: [Desk thumping] We say this because while we rustle up a little hamper—the hon. Prime Minister, out of the maternal care she has—she comes from a humble background, and she knows what it is to plant rice and to struggle and survive, and if the hon. Prime Minister says that in order to help the needy, we are going to rustle up a little hamper—put rice, flour, oil and a little chocolate biscuit for the children “and them”—they attacked us. The Member for Diego Martin West, the Leader of the Opposition said: “Oh all yuh giving hamper.” He instructed his colleagues not to take any hampers. Many of them came behind the scene and took, and that is all right. [Laughter] I 384 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] do not know whether they took it for themselves or to give them out to their constituents. But this little bag of rice, flour, sugar, a bottle of oil and a pack of chocolate biscuit caused them much consternation that they accused the Prime Minister of playing Santa Claus. Well, if the Prime Minister was playing Santa Claus and giving out hampers to the poor and needy, maybe somebody else was playing Scrooge. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the question, when you condemn the distribution of those hampers to the poor and needy in the country, would you equally condemn the piano that they gave away? [Desk thumping] We gave out little hampers and they gave out grand pianos, and they are condemning and criticizing us for giving out the hampers with rice, oil, flour and sugar. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I come to this country today to say that we are committed to the eradication of that kind of wastage and corruption. There was absolutely no need in a country that boasts of an indigenous culture that is proud of its calypso heritage and the steelpan. There is no need for a country like this to purchase 10 grand pianos. Mr. Warner: Where the piano gone? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we accept our responsibility and we have the political will which was lacking before to confront and tackle this problem head-on, and we will stem the corrosion of national development which has resulted from this past corruption. We will make sure that kind of expenditure is better channelled to good use, to purchase beds and laptops. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have the direct, clear and forceful support of the highest political authority and that is the hon. Prime Minister. We are committed to the introduction and maintenance of transparency and accountability in public affairs and, in particular, financial transactions. I consider it my duty as the Attorney General to wage a war against political corruption in this country. We shall devise and take concrete actions and procedures to yield positive results in this ongoing war. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we intend to hit out at the criminal elements because we consider it our duty to aim for good governance, transparency and accountability. I structured my presentation today by looking at our political history, because when we attained internal self-government, we were saying to the world that we are ready to govern as a people. Mr. Warner: In 1956! 385 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: When we attained Independence we made a further clarion call to say, that as a nation we are mature enough to handle our own affairs. We bolstered that by moving towards constitutional republicanism. We had the passing recently of our legendary icon, the quintessential statesman, Sir Ellis Clarke. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when one looks at our political history during that time and one sees that almost every project was plagued with corruption—the older heads will remember the Caroni Racing Complex, the John O’Halloran scandal, the building of the Mount Hope Complex, Project Pride and the Labidco fiasco.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we were in Opposition, the then DPP, Mr. Mark Mohammed SC, had written to the then Commissioner of Police instructing that an investigation take place into the Labidco matter, because they were about to construct an entire industrial estate on grounds that were shifting, and they did not analyze properly the geotechnical surveys and data. They were rushing to site it in La Brea for political purposes. An investigation was ordered by Mr. Mark Mohammed SC and for the eight years they were in office, we did not hear anything about it, and that was since 2002. After all of that, one would have thought that this country would never have to experience the trauma of Calder Hart; the trauma and the financial distress that we are experiencing when I talk about these grand pianos. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they had a history of creating new institutions. They wanted to bypass the procurement rules and practices of the State and they wanted to bypass the public service. So, what did they do? They were losing cases in the courts. They tried to move Marlene Coudray and they lost and they also tried to move Devant Maharaj and they got licks in court. What did they do? They came up with special multi-purpose companies. They created special multi-purpose companies to bypass the public service and they manned them with their own political supporters and then tell them to go ahead. That is how we landed up with that $2 million flag. That could not have passed through the Central Tenders Board, but the special multi-purpose companies were able to get it done. They created an artificial parallel to the public service that was designed to circumvent all the rules and regulations that were there in the law to ensure that integrity in public life is preserved and protected. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we look at that history, one would not have thought that this kind of scandal—we had the University of the West Indies. Every time they encountered a problem where they could not change the law, 386 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] because the politics give them a good lashing, they would recreate a parallel or some artificial model. They did it with the public service, the special multi- purpose companies and the University of the West Indies. This country’s University of the West Indies has a proud international reputation respected all over the world. [Desk thumping] The University of the West Indies has the capacity to expand. That is why we have announced within seven months of being in Government that we are going to build a new campus for the University of the West Indies in South Trinidad, Debe. A 100-acre campus for the University of the West Indies will be constructed in Debe in South Trinidad.

What they had to do was to take the UWI stamp—the UWI brand that was so internationally accepted—and expand the University of the West Indies, but they did not want to do that because they could not control directly the University of the West Indies. [Interruption] So, what did they do? They had Dr. Bhoe Tewarie who they probably felt was a problem, so they left it alone and shoved it aside and said: “Ah, we go create ah new ting, UTT.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, millions of dollars were invested in trying to get accreditation for UTT and we had the University of the West Indies already up and running, which is a credible and internationally recognized and accepted institution. Instead of expanding that, they created their own thing and put Prof. Julien there and stacked it with party people and gave it money and it became a slush fund. What on earth is UTT doing buying pianos for the Prime Minister’s residence? Mrs. McIntosh: The Prime Minister needed a piano. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: My learned friend, the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West, said the Prime Minister needed a piano. [Laughter] You are correct, but the then Prime Minister did not just need a piano, but your Prime Minister needed a piano, a Diplomatic Centre and a private jet. What the population gave him is what he really needed and what the country needed and that was a new Government on May 24, 2010. [Desk thumping] Mr. Deputy Speaker, that kind of wastage and corruption, that kind of plundering of the Treasury, and that kind of dismantling and recreating fancy footwork have cost taxpayers a lot of money, and we will put an end to that. That is why we are not going to build anything else, but a brand of UWI. We are going to try and strengthen the integrity of the University of Trinidad and Tobago. 387 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

We feel very strongly that UTT became a slush fund for political corruption, and it was mismanaged and badly handled, and we feel that this law is necessary to deal with situations such as that. We ask the Opposition, in light of its political history whereby it is not known for bringing legislation to deal with corruption but chipping away at the foundation of legislation that was passed—even after eight years in government they brought nothing. I want to urge Members on the other side and to appeal to their conscience to listen to the cries of the children of our nation and listen to the strains of the tassa and the steel pan. Listen to Lord “Kitch”, listen to the Mighty Sparrow and please listen, listen, listen so that you can help us to lead, lead, lead so that we will no longer have money wasting on piano, piano, piano, and we will get beds, laptops and houses for the people. Thank you very much. I beg to move. Question proposed. Mr. Colm Imbert (Diego Martin North/East): Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you. I heard the Leader of Government Business begging for the tea break, but in the two minutes available to me before tea, all I will say is that this Bill before us is similar to the Interception of Communications Bill, similar to the Anti-Gang Bill and similar to the Bail (Amdt.) Bill and it is in a mess. I am surprised that the Attorney General is claiming parentage of this abominable drafted legislation, which duplicates and interferes with the work of the Integrity Commission. I listened to him as he went on his adventure making all sorts of allegations. I had asked the Member to give way, but he did not hear me, just to confirm whether what he was saying was from his own knowledge or whether that is what he was told. He did not give way to let me know, so I would assume that he was saying this from his own knowledge, and we will deal with that in due course. This Government has a practice of bringing unfinished, poorly drafted, unworkable, impractical and nonsensical legislation to this Parliament in its seven months. To demonstrate that they are not serious, the Attorney General spoke a lot about corruption and the Government’s commitment to dealing with corruption, but there is something called the Financial Action Task Force which monitors the compliance of countries with respect to money laundering, terrorist financing and the proceeds of crime. 388 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] The PNM government gave a commitment in February of 2010 that it would establish a Financial Intelligence Unit and implement compliance mechanisms in banks to monitor dirty money, dirty transactions, bribery and corrupt money, but do you know what has happened? They have done nothing—[Desk thumping] I am just winding up on that point—and, as a result, Trinidad and Tobago has missed two deadlines and has been blacklisted in the international community, and has been declared a haven for money laundering and terrorist financing as a result of the work of the People’s Partnership Government. [Desk thumping] That is what they have done. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, it is a good time to break for tea. The sitting is suspended until 5.00 p.m. 4.30 p.m.: Sitting suspended. 5.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed. Mr. Speaker: Member for Diego Martin North/East. [Crosstalk] Mr. C. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I indicated before the break, in February of 2010 Trinidad and Tobago made a high level commitment to the Financial Action Task Force to do certain things which would certainly have the effect of dealing with certain types of white-collar crime. The legislation before us is all about white-collar crime. Just before I came into the Chamber, I was in the library and I managed to pull up the page which listed what Trinidad and Tobago had not done. I expect someone from the library will bring me the document in a short while, so for the doubting Thomases opposite, I could read into the record what has been the result of their procrastination, delay and inability to do things properly as it relates to, what my colleague from Diego Martin Central has said, their gross incompetence. What I have noticed with this Government is that it is all about form without substance; it is all about public relations, without actually achieving anything. One would think that Members opposite: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Industry and other persons who would like Trinidad and Tobago to be a competitive jurisdiction, would like us to trade freely with other countries, would be interested in the fact that Trinidad and Tobago has now been declared a high risk country in terms of money laundering, as a result of the procrastination and, as my colleague indicated, the incompetence of the other side. When I get the document from the Parliament Library I will read the actual issues into the record, so for those of you who do not know you will be educated. 389 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Warner: Privileges Committee for you! Make sure you are correct. Mr. C. Imbert: I am going to read it. You could say what you want; you could jump high, jump low, I am going to read it. Mr. Warner: I will jump high and jump low. Mr. C. Imbert: Regrettably, the Attorney General is not here. As I indicated, it is unfortunate that he assumed the parentage of this Bill, because when one looks at the Bill it is a hodgepodge, a wish list of all sorts of impractical and unworkable things. No self-respecting lawyer would have been responsible for the clauses in that Bill; no self-respecting lawyer. I get the impression that what the Attorney General is doing is picking up things, not doing the necessary research to determine where they came from, not putting in the necessary hours to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted and just bringing them here in an attempt to score public relation points, and I shall demonstrate that by going directly to the legislation. I noticed the Members opposite were quite excited when the Attorney General was giving us his information about what has or has not happened at the University of Trinidad and Tobago, but I would like hon. Members opposite to be aware that if this legislation that is being proposed here—before I go on, the Opposition received these documents just a few days ago, on Monday. It is normal when one is discussing legislation, that legislation is laid and then it is debated at the next sitting. We protested to the Leader of Government Business that was very, very serious legislation and there was no emergency, after all the UN Convention against Corruption has been around for eight years. Trinidad and Tobago signed that convention in 2003, seven years ago, therefore there is no emergency that compels this House to be debating this matter at this time. The legislative proposals contain a Bill which is some 18 pages long. It contains a whole host of convoluted and clumsily drafted clauses. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have noticed a habit with this Government, that whenever they want to get something done and they know they have not done their homework, they have not done the research work, they bring it to the Parliament and say, “Let us send it to a joint select committee” for the Opposition to clean up their mess. That has happened three times now; this is now the fourth time. Let me read into the record the status of Trinidad and Tobago. This is available on the website of the Financial Action Task Force. This is the specific 390 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] information relating to Trinidad and Tobago which is among 31 countries that are now deemed to be high risk because we have not done our work. In February 2010, when the PNM was in office, Trinidad and Tobago made a high level political commitment to work with the Financial Action Task Force and the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force to address its strategic AML, CFT deficiencies. However, the FATF has determined—and this is dated in or around October 2010, so that would be approximately five months after the People’s Partnership came into power—that certain strategic AML, CFT deficiencies remain. The document also said that Trinidad and Tobago should continue to work on implementing its action plan to address these deficiencies, including implementing adequate procedures to identify and freeze terrorists’ assets without delay, implementing adequate procedures for the confiscation of funds related to money laundering and establishing a fully operational and effectively functioning FIU. In February of 2010 the PNM—[Interruption] Dr. Moonilal: Did they say we were blacklisted? Mr. C. Imbert: No, that is another document. [Crosstalk] Yes we are; Trinidad and Tobago has been deemed to be—[Interruption] Dr. Moonilal: Deemed? Mr. C. Imbert: —has been declared—if you do not understand English—to be among a group of high risk countries. Dr. Moonilal: Where are we blacklisted? Mr. C. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not waste time quibbling with the Leader of Government Business. As far as I am concerned, the appearance of Trinidad and Tobago on a list of countries that the Financial Action Task Force has deemed to be high risk because we have not established a financial intelligence unit and we have not implemented supervisory powers, that is blacklisting. [Crosstalk] [Desk thumping] Let me tell you, for the record, that because of the declaration by the Financial Action Task Force towards the end of last year that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, the People's Partnership, had not properly established the Financial Intelligence Unit and had not developed and implemented compliance mechanisms within the banking sector, there are now a number of foreign financial institutions who refuse to open accounts and deal with residents of Trinidad and Tobago. I can say that without any fear of contradiction. 391 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

As of December 2010, there are a number of foreign financial institutions who refuse to open financial accounts for residents of Trinidad and Tobago, because we are now in a group of jurisdictions which are deemed to be high risk. [Interruption] Mr. Roberts: Name one! Mr. C. Imbert: I hear the Minister of Trade and Industry, who is supposed to know these things; he is supposed to know these things. What I would do, since they want to know, I will file a question; I will list every single foreign financial institution that no longer wishes to open accounts for residents of Trinidad and Tobago, as of December 2010, because of the incompetence or deliberate procrastination of the People's Partnership. I will ask them if they are aware that the following institutions no longer will maintain accounts for residents of Trinidad and Tobago. I have it in writing. [Crosstalk] You could say what you want. While you are fooling around with your public relations, while you are fooling around bringing Gang Bill, Bail Bill, Corruption Bill, you are not doing your work and you are now making Trinidad and Tobago uncompetitive. Everything is a joke. Mr. Sharma: Total waste of time! You have nothing of intelligence to say. You are saying anything for television and radio. Mr. C. Imbert: I will invite any Member on the other side who has any contacts or associates within the banking sector to go and ask them. Go and ask the people in the insurance companies. I will tell you somebody to go and talk to. Dr. Gopeesingh: Will the Minister give way? Mr. C. Imbert: Sure, I am not a minister, but no problem. [Laughter] Dr. Gopeesingh: Former minister; I have respect for you. You would remember when we debated the Financial Intelligence Unit Bill, there were a number of recommendations under the Financial Action Task Force programme. We drew reference to the fact that you had omitted a number of these recommendations that were supposed to be made and you said that they would be done subsequently. You came as a thief in the night, the day before it was going to be the deadline for the date, you pushed the Parliament to do it the night before and there were serious deficiencies in that Financial Institution Unit Bill, where a number of the areas and recommendations of FATF were not included. I want to draw your attention to that. So your Government at that time was extremely deficient and negligent in dealing with the financial institutions recommendations and the FATF recommendations. “Doh blame us.” 392 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. C. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not give way again; I thought he was going to ask me a question. You will get your chance to speak. This is serious business. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago, whether it was the PNM or some other government, it is the Government—these institutions recognize governments only. The constitutionally established Government of Trinidad and Tobago in February of 2010 gave a high level political commitment to address certain deficiencies. One of the deficiencies was the fact that we did not have a properly operating Financial Intelligence Unit. One of the other deficiencies was that we had not implemented monitoring and supervisory mechanisms within the banking sector. These mechanisms dealt with wire transfers and other money transactions. It had been discovered that terrorists were using the banking sector, sending small sums of money: US $1,000, US $2,000, in large sequence. So in one day a terrorist might send 100 wire transfers of $2,000 and thereby transfer $200,000. That is just an example. So Trinidad and Tobago was mandated, and we agreed, and we brought the regulations for the consideration of parliamentarians. We amended the Proceeds of Crime Act and we amended the terrorist financing legislation. There were many times; you have only remembered one instance, but there were several times between 2009 and 2010 that Members of this Parliament were asked to convene at short notice to deal with amendments to various bits of legislation associated with the proceeds of crime and also terrorist financing, money laundering and so on. 5.15 p.m. We came here and we made the necessary amendments, and therefore, we were able to meet a certain deadline and to meet certain targets that had been established by the Financial Action Task Force which monitors financial compliance. I want to repeat that this country gave a commitment that certainly before the end of 2010, there would be a functional Financial Intelligence Unit and there would be compliance mechanisms and monitoring systems established in the banking sector, and you have failed. You have done absolutely nothing. [Desk thumping] In fact, what you did; what the former Minister of Finance did was to appointment somebody as the interim head of the Financial Intelligence Unit, Mr. David West. Mr. David West was, at the time, also the Central Authority dealing with extradition matters. The Central Authority is a person who deals with mutual 393 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 legal assistance treaties with other countries in terms of extraditing suspected criminals. We have a very current matter with respect to the whole question of how the Central Authority operates and the extradition of suspected criminals. So, the former Minister of Finance, together in consultation with the Attorney General, made the interim move of appointing Mr. David West who was at that time head of the Central Authority and dealing with extradition matters and related matters in terms of transnational transfer of corrupt moneys. They made him the interim head of the Financial Intelligence Unit, and Mr. West was mandated to recruit a permanent head for the Financial Intelligence Unit; recruit the staff, set up the office, and also implement the compliance mechanisms within the banking sector. What did the Government do? You fired David West. That is your action. That is what you did. You fired him and you have not established a Financial Intelligence Unit. That is why in July, we were declared to be non-compliant— [Desk thumping]—and in October, we were declared to be non-compliant and we are now among 31 jurisdictions in the world which are deemed to be high risk because we are non-compliant. That is all because of the actions of the People’s Partnership. You did that. [Desk thumping] I know that you know. I know that you know. So that you want details, you want names and figures? We have a debate coming up on Friday. I will give you countries and I will give you financial institutions abroad and read out the letters they have written saying that they will not treat with residents of Trinidad and Tobago because we are now in a jurisdiction that is determined to be too risky for them to do business with. All of that has happened in the last month, and while they are bringing this “pappy-show” legislative proposal here about dealing with corruption, let me go into the actual meat of this document before us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, the Bill before us is an absolute mess. An absolute mess. What the Government has not done, as I said, is its homework. The Bill before us flows from a convention called “The United Nations Convention against Corruption.” If you had bothered to do your homework, you could have gone on the Internet, and you could have downloaded this document. It is 300 pages. It will take you some time to read it. It is called “Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.” In this guide, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it advises what signatories to the convention are required to do; what is mandatory, what is compulsory and what is discretionary. If you go into the document, the legislative guide—I am reading 394 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] now from page 77, and there are certain obligations that signatories to the convention have agreed to, that you implement legislation to deal with bribery of public officials, bribery of local public officials—national, they call it—bribery of foreign public officials, embezzlement, misappropriation of property by a public official, laundering of proceeds of crime, obstruction of justice. That is it. Those are the mandatory requirements. Let me read them again. Obstruction of justice, laundering of proceeds of crime, embezzlement, misappropriation or other diversion of property by a public official, bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations, bribery of national public officials. Those are mandatory. Now let me tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is non-mandatory; what is completely discretionary. With respect to non-mandatory offences, Mr. Deputy Speaker: “Abuse of functions”, Illicit enrichment”—and let me give you the words of Article 20 of the Convention against Corruption with respect to “Illicit enrichment”. “…subject to its constitution…” Because when you read this document, you understand that the convention is only applicable if it does not offend the national constitution of a country. “…subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system…” So as long as it does not offend your laws or the principles of your laws, each state party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence when committed intentionally, “Illicit enrichment”. The same applies to “Bribery in the private sector”. Article 21: “Each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally in the course of economic, financial or commercial activities…” Private activities. “The promise…or giving, directly…of an undue advantage to any person...” And so on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. “Concealment” is a non-mandatory provision. Each party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence when committed intentionally, the 395 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 concealment or continued retention of property when the person knows that such property is the result of any offence established in accordance with the convention. And the point of all of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because once again, the Attorney General did not explain the legislation for the third time—the fourth time. First was Interception of Communications Bill, second was Anti-Gang Bill, third was Bail (Amdt.) Bill, and now we have the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act; and for the fourth time, the Attorney General has not explained what we are doing. We as a country signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption, and we agreed to do certain things and we agreed to consider doing certain things; and this legislation, however, makes no distinction between the things that are mandatory to comply with the convention and the things that individual countries should consider. That is why I say it is a hodgepodge. The whole idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the whole idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just think about this; because if this foolish Government goes ahead and implements this legislation. Dr. Douglas: What did you do for the past eight years? Mr. C. Imbert: It does not bother me, you know. It is them to catch. But if this foolish Government goes ahead and implements this—[Interruption] Dr. Douglas: Mister smart government, what did you do for the last eight years? Mr. C. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a noise behind me. [Laughter] Could you—Mr. Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member would like to be heard in silence as per the Standing Orders, so I am just asking the Members to give him that. Okay? Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, look at this; section 5D of the proposed law: “A person who gives, offers or promises directly or indirectly to any person who directs or works in any capacity for a private entity, an advantage for that person or another person in order that any person acts or refrains from acting in the exercise of his duties in the course of economic, commercial or financial activities, commits an offence.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, last time I checked the labour force in Trinidad and Tobago, it was about 600,000 people. So if you apply this—and within the state sector, 396 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] maybe 200,000 people are employed in the state sector; maybe it is less than that, but that leaves 300,000 workers in Trinidad and Tobago who are working for private companies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These 300,000 people are now going to be affected by this. Let me read it again. “A person who gives, offers or promises directly or indirectly to any person who directs or works in any capacity for a private entity, an advantage for that person or another person in order that any person acts or refrains from acting in the exercise of his duties in the course of economic, commercial or financial activities, commits an offence.” Every single worker in every single private company is now going to be guilty of an offence simply if he says, “I will put in a good word for you.” You know, if somebody says, “Put in a good word for me with the boss, nuh”— Dr. Browne: Guilty. Mr. C. Imbert: —guilty. And to tell you how foolish this legislation is, look at the penalties, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you read this? It is the most absurd thing I have ever seen. Nature of offence, section 3, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Nature of offence, 3(2), $500,000 and 10 years’ imprisonment. Nature of offence, 3(3), concealing a bribe, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. While we are on that, if you are found guilty of concealing a bribe, then you have been found guilty of either bribing or taking the bribe, but you did not tell anybody. It is so nonsensical, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are going to find somebody; if you discover enough evidence to prove that somebody either received a bribe or paid a bribe—you found enough evidence to prove it and they concealed that, that is an offence; but what about the bribe itself? It is so foolish. By the time you get to the point of discovering that the person has concealed the bribery, you have already proven the more serious offence, the actual bribery itself. I mean, this is the work of some crazy person. Corruption through an agent, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Deception of a principal. You fool your boss. So if one of the Member for Chaguanas West’s many employees—his hundreds of employees—decides that they are not coming to work today, they take in sick and they get some doctor to write some bogus sick-leave certificate— Mr. Warner: Dr. Browne. [Laughter] 397 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. C. Imbert:—and they deceive their principal, the Member for Chaguanas West, because they are not sick, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Corrupt use of information, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Corrupt communication of official information. So if a man leaks a Cabinet Note, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Illicit enrichment, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Fraudulently depriving the State of revenue, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Bribery of a person in the private sector—anybody—$500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Solicitation by a person in the private sector—you go and ask somebody, “Help me out, nuh”—$500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. [Laughter] And listen to this one: Failure of a private entity to comply with general accounting principles, $500,000 and 10 years. Dr. Browne: Laziness. Mr. C. Imbert: This is laziness in the extreme. Even the most cynical Member of the Government would accept and realize it is stupidness. I mean, these offences are different in scope, they are different in severity, they are different in complexity, but for every single one of these offences—solicitation by a person in public life of an advantage, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Corrupt acceptance by a person in public life of an advantage, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. I mean, it just goes on and on and on. Possession without reasonable explanation of property disproportionate to your income, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. Significant increase in relation to legitimate income without explanation, $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I said, even the most cynical Member opposite would understand that this is just incompetent madness. [Desk thumping] Incompetent madness. 5.30 p.m. How are you going to police these things in the private sector? Are you going to have an army of 100,000 policemen outside there, checking all of those 300,000 workers to see who is giving, offering or promising an advantage to somebody else in a private company? This is the height of foolishness, and even the United Nations recognized that, because they said this is one of the provisions you do not have to adopt. There are five or six provisions that they want you to adopt that they say are mandatory and there are others, they say, think about them and see if they could work within your legal system. 398 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] As I said, what we have before us is just mishmash, it is everything. Everything just thrown into the callaloo as if everything is the same, all the offences are the same, all the considerations are the same; there is no distinction between what is a requirement of the convention and what is a discretionary situation. None whatsoever! To tell you why I said the Attorney General should be ashamed to take the parentage of this Bill, there is a particular clause here, which, when I read it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would realize why this Bill was not drafted by any intelligent person. This is the clause that deals with the question of the Integrity Commission, [Interruption] because on page 5— Ms. Mc Donald: Page 5. Mr. C. Imbert: Thank you. Thank you very much, page 5, (c). This is the “corruption” commission: “The Commission shall be responsible for—” and this is 2C(c), listen to this [Interruption] I do not know. This inelegant nonsense. “(c) receiving and investigating any matter referred to it by the Integrity Commission for investigation”—so the Integrity Commission will be sending things to the Corruption Commission—“and where the Commission has reason to suspect that a person in public life has committed an offence under this Act, it shall refer the matter…back…to the Integrity Commission together with a report of its findings;” Foolishness! Foolishness! [Crosstalk] So how can you have these two commissions doing the same thing? [Desk thumping] I am going to go into—Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am going to go into the Integrity in Public Life Act to demonstrate that, either the Members opposite are having great difficulty in reading their papers or they are simply very limited in terms of their understanding. I prefer to believe that they are just not reading their documents. Because if we go into the Integrity in Public Life Act, the current one, up to date: “A person to whom this Part applies”—this is persons in public life—“shall ensure”—this is section 24—“that he performs his functions and administers the public resources for which he is responsible in an effective and efficient manner and shall— (a) be fair and impartial in exercising his public duty; (b) afford no undue preferential treatment to any group or individual;” 399 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Now is that not what is in the corruption commission thing, just in different language? Let me repeat it. “A person to whom this Part applies shall…afford no undue preferential treatment to any group or individual;” Let us go to section 24(2)(a): “A person to whom this Part applies shall not— (a) use his office for the improper advancement of his own or his family’s personal or financial interests or the interest of any person;” So it says: “A person…in public life…shall not use his office for the improper advancement of…the interest of any person;” Is that not what this Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill is doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker? “A person to whom…this Act applies…shall not— (b) engage in any transaction, acquire any position or have any commercial or other interest that is incompatible with his office, function and duty or the discharge thereof;” “A person to whom the Act applies”—Integrity in Public Life—“shall”—not use his office “(d) directly or indirectly use his office for private gain. (3) No person to whom this Part applies shall be a party to or shall undertake any project or activity involving the use of public funds in disregard of the Financial Orders or other Regulations applicable to such funds.” All of that is already in the Integrity in Public Life Act! Let me go to section 26: “A person to whom this Part applies shall not use his office to seek to influence a decision made by another person or public body to further his own private interests.” What is the difference between this and what is in here? Just different words; it is already in law. Section 27 of the Integrity in Public Life Act: 400 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] “A person to whom this Part applies shall not accept a fee, gift or personal benefit, except compensation authorised by law, that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties of office.” So under the Integrity in Public Life Act, persons in public life are not supposed to peddle influence, not supposed to give advantages to anybody, they are not supposed to treat anybody with partiality or preference. They are not supposed to do anything that is corrupt. All that is already in the Integrity in Public Life Act, and I heard the Attorney General say something that, where he obviously believes wrongly so that the Integrity Commission is unable to investigate matters on its own initiative. Completely untrue! False! Misleading! Let me read now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, section 33 of the Integrity in Public Life Act under Part V: “Power of Investigation”. “The Commission— (a) may on its own initiative; or (b) shall upon the complaint of any member of the public, consider and enquire into any alleged breaches of the Act or any allegations of corrupt or dishonest conduct.” Let me repeat, I cannot support this nonsense, duplicating virtually every clause in the Integrity in Public Life Act; duplicating the functions of the Integrity Commission; just wasting time creating another layer of bureaucracy that would be a toothless bulldog. [Desk thumping] Waste of time! [Interruption] If you have issues with respect to dealing with corruption, then simply amend the Integrity in Public Life Act. You could even call it—Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the Members opposite are so caught up with nomenclature, they are so caught up with words—You know a rose by any other name is still a rose, but if they want they could change the name of the Integrity Commission and call it the Anti-Corruption Commission, because they are appointed by the President in his own discretion. They deal with corruption and I want to repeat for hon. Members opposite, there is a level of ignorance, and I am using that in the purest meaning of that word, lack of knowledge. There is a level of ignorance which manifests itself in the legislation that comes before this House from that side. [Desk thumping] I want to repeat section 33 of the Integrity in Public Life Act: “The Commission— (a) may on its own initiative; or 401 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

(b) shall upon the complaint of any member of the public, consider and enquire into any alleged breaches of the Act or any allegations of corrupt or dishonest conduct.” So the Integrity Commission is already empowered to enquire into any allegations of corruption on their own initiative. So what do we need this corruption commission for? If you go into the functions of the Integrity Commission—let me read into the record the functions of the Integrity Commission. That is section 5 of the Integrity in Public Life Act. “The Commission shall— (a) carry out those functions…specified in this Act; (b) receive, examine and retain all declarations filed with it under this Act; (c) make such enquiries as it considers necessary in order to verify or determine the accuracy of a declaration filed under this Act; (d) compile and maintain a Register of Interest;” So far so good. This is the important one and this is why I was so disappointed for the fourth time in the presentation from the learned Attorney General, and I do not say that lightly, because I consider the Attorney General to be a very learned attorney, but he is not demonstrating in this Parliament any evidence of his wide experience and his legal skill. He is not doing his homework. Let me read into the record section 5(1)(e) of the Integrity in Public Life Act: (e) “receive and investigate complaints regarding any alleged breaches of this Act”—and here is the catch—“or the commission or any suspected offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act;” Let me repeat, the Integrity Commission is required by law to investigate any suspected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. What does this legislation do? It amends the Prevention of Corruption Act. So the Integrity Commission is already empowered to enquire into and investigate all existing offences in the Prevention of Corruption Act and any new offences that might be inserted into the Prevention of Corruption Act. So if that is a defined function of the Integrity Commission, then why do you need a corruption commission? Because if the Integrity Commission can do it, can enquire and investigate any suspected commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, then why do you need a corruption commission? You “ain't” see you all just playing the fool! [Interruption] 402 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] Let me go on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Section 5(1)(g), the Integrity Commission shall: “(g) examine the practices and procedures of public bodies, in order to facilitate the discovery of corrupt practices;” So it could go into any public body, investigate and enquire to determine whether there is corruption within any corrupt body. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you carefully go through the legislative proposals—let me go back to them now, because we took a long time with this Integrity in Public Life Act in the year 2000. We amended it and then we came back and did the regulations and then we amended it again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the law of the land as it now stands. Let me go back into this corruption thing that they want to come up with. Well, of course they want to establish a body called an Anti-Corruption Commission. Waste of time! They already have a body that is perfectly capable of dealing with this matter. Just call the Integrity Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and give it some more powers if that is what you want. But let us go to one of the main functions of this Anti- Corruption Commission— Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Member’s speaking time be extended by 30 minutes. [Ms. M. Mc Donald] Question put and agreed to. Mr. C. Imbert: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank hon. Members opposite for allowing me to continue. I know they are listening you know. I know, I know! I know when they are listening and when they are not listening. I know they are listening today, because they know what I am saying is true. [Interruption] Let me go now to the proposed Anti-corruption legislation, and listen to Section 2C: “The Commission shall be responsible for— receiving”—I have gone over the page; on page 5—“and investigating any matter…” Sorry, that is the complaint. 403 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

I am looking for the section where they are empowered to investigate people in public life. I will find it in due course. I had it in front of me, but one of the functions and powers of this new corruption commission will be to investigate persons in public life. Now, why would you have an Anti-Corruption Commission investigating persons in public life? And why would you have an Integrity Commission investigating persons in public life? Where do you draw the line, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Where do you draw the line? What is the Anti-Corruption Commission entitled to investigate and what is the Integrity Commission entitled to investigate? 5.45 p.m. Both of them have the power to refer matters. Section 2C(h): “The Commission shall be responsible for— (h) referring matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a report of the findings of the Commission, where, in the opinion of the Commission, such matters should be prosecuted.” You have the identical provision in the Integrity in Public Life Act. Once the Integrity Commission has completed its investigation and as I have pointed out, the Integrity Commission is entitled to enquire into acts of corruption; it is entitled to enquire into any suspected commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act; it does its enquiry, properly, one would hope and follows the correct procedures. Once that is done, the Integrity Commission also has the power to refer matters to the DPP. So if this Anti-Corruption Commission is established, you will have the Integrity Commission investigating somebody on that side, hypothetically, because I am coming to the whistle-blower thing in a little while, because the Attorney General made a long song and dance about the whistle-blowers, but I do not think Members opposite understand. If this legislation is passed, anybody can complain on you—anybody; any one of the 1.3 million citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Now, of course, let us take the children out. But at least one million people will be entitled to complain against any of you, and if you pass this law, you will not know who they are; you will not even know that a complaint has been made. The complaint just goes without any requirement to identify the informant, to determine whether this is a real person; whether it is a mad person; whether it is an inmate of St. Ann's; whether it is a convicted criminal that is making the complaint. 404 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] As I said when I started my contribution, if that is what you all want, I will be happy to put it in, you know, so that you will begin to see thousands and thousands of complaints. I will give you an example. The Member for Chaguanas West—there was a well-publicized situation with respect to the awarding of a contract for runway lighting at Piarco; well publicized, and I have not seen any denials. I mean, I will be happy if the Member will deny what I am about to say. But there was a well-publicized matter dealing with an intention to award a contract for the runway lighting at Piarco. It was reported in a daily newspaper that the Member for Chaguanas West, after a meeting at the Diplomatic Centre with people in the contracting industry, had a discussion with a particular contractor—that was reported in the Sunday Guardian or one of the weekend Guardian newspapers—and subsequent to that, a decision was taken to split the contract for the lighting of the runways in Trinidad and in Tobago. Now, if this Anti-Corruption Commission was in effect and if this whistle-blower legislation was in effect, just that Sunday Guardian article would be sufficient to initiate an investigation into the conduct of the Member for Chaguanas West. As I said, if that is what you want, no problem, you know; if you want that any Tom, Dick and Harry, any disgruntled person, any mischievous person, even somebody who may be politically opposed to you; mad person, as I said, a crook. If that is what you want, that you implement a law that anybody, a nameless, faceless person could just make an arbitrary complaint against a person in public life and the Anti-Corruption Commission immediately kicks into gear and you have these very nebulous clauses that if you promise to give an advantage to someone, you cannot even talk in your sleep now. So hypothetically, if a Member of the Government is in a meeting with its constituents and a small contractor comes to see him or her and says, “Look, I need to get some work”, he says, “I will call the Minister of Works and Transport and I will see what I could do for you.” Ah, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see you laughing, because I remember there was a particular instance —not casting any aspersions on you—where you were accused of writing a letter to one of those regional health authorities seeking employment for constituents and this was deemed to be wrong. But you just got a little slap on your wrist. With this Anti- Corruption Commission, by merely making an intervention on behalf of someone, you would be deemed to be attempting to give that person an unfair advantage— $500,000 and 10 years jail. By the way, how much time do I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Mr. Deputy Speaker: You have 20 minutes. 405 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. C. Imbert: Thank you. I have lots of time. [Interruption] You know, you have a lot of old talk on that side. I did not want to go down that road. The Attorney General took liberties and went down a particular road and read from some document. We do not know how accurate the information is. We do not know if he was just reading and if he is brought before the committee of privileges, he will say, like others have said, “Well that is what they tell me. I did not know if it was true or not true. I did not intend to mislead.” But he went down a particular road and I do not intend to go down that road, but all I want to say is that there are several former Ministers of the United National Congress government, several former Cabinet ministers of the UNC government who are still in court on charges of fraud and misappropriation of public funds. What bothered me with the Attorney General's presentation was that he referred to comments made by former Prime Minister ANR Robinson and he went back to 1996, but he did not fast-forward to 2001. On December 24, 2001, I remember it well. [Desk thumping] I was in Paramin with my constituents imbibing in Christmas spirits and the television was on and the then President ANR Robinson came on the television and he spoke about streams flowing into rivers and rivers flowing into seas and then he went on to say, “Because of the absence of moral and spiritual values (obviously within the UNC government) I have just appointed Mr. Patrick Manning to be Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. So I was a bit embarrassed when the Attorney General referred to a speech made in 1996 by the hon. ANR Robinson about his views about the PNM when he did not go five years forward and talk about the fact that three members of the UNC walked out of the UNC government in 2001 because they could not stand the stench of corruption within that government. The government collapsed. [Desk thumping] There are several ministers before the courts; several chairmen of state enterprises before the courts. People try to extradite people because of what happened under the UNC government of 1995 to 2001 and the Attorney General took me back to 1996; an interesting way of dealing with history. Let us not go there. I mean, you could go there if you want, but let us not go there. My purpose here today is to deal with this legislation and to point out to those over there who have sense and who are listening, the idiocy of this legislation. This legislation makes no sense, because from the time this Anti-Corruption Commission is established, you are going to have serious turf war between the 406 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] Integrity Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission. You are going to have conflict of jurisdiction; people will be bouncing heads; people will be competing with each other in terms of who could lock up more people than who; who has more authority than who; who could get to the DPP first; who has jurisdiction over what, and, of course, because the law is so badly drafted, it is going to be a lawyer's paradise. Because when you look at the way this law is drafted in terms of the definition of what is an unfair advantage and what is using one's influence, and that sort of thing, then virtually every single one of them will every single day be using their position to create an unfair advantage for someone or using their position to influence the outcome of some matter. Even in a simple Cabinet meeting, people who have different views. If a Minister comes to a Cabinet meeting supporting a particular contractor, or let us put it another way, a Minister comes to Cabinet supporting a particular aircraft manufacturer, next day: allegation; that is insider trading; influence peddling; somebody writes a letter. Next day, it could be one of your own colleagues who will write a letter and say, “Corruption commission for you because I did not like the way you talked around the Cabinet table. I find you argue too strongly for a particular manufacturer of aircraft.” That is just speaking hypothetically. I am not saying that this happened, you know, but, you know, there is a saying in politics, in Parliaments: We on this side are your honourable colleagues; you better watch your back, Member for Chaguanas West! [Desk thumping] Watch your back! Every single day, Member for Chaguanas, somebody is going to complain on you. Mr. Warner: Six by six; watch your back. Mr. C. Imbert: No problem. Let me go back to the actual legislation before us. Mr. Warner: At last. Mr. C. Imbert: At last? I have been all through it. Let me encourage Members opposite—I mean, they want to set up this joint select committee. You do not find we have enough committees? This week, two committee meetings on Monday and they probably had three; committee meeting on Tuesday; committee meeting on Wednesday; committee meeting on Friday, and, you know, I will say it here, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have tried to convene the first meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on at least five occasions and every single meeting has had to be cancelled because of the failure of Members of Government to attend meetings. [Desk thumping]—at least five times. Do you 407 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 know why they cannot come? Because they are busy; they have work to do; they have their ministries to run; they have portfolios. [Interruption] I will not say about the other things they are doing; I am talking about their real work, not their extra-curricular activities. But the fact of the matter is, this habit of this Government of bringing this hodgepodge legislation. As I say, this legislation is in a mess. Mr. Warner: Repetition. Mr. C. Imbert: I will repeat it 10 times. This legislation is an unholy mess and this habit of the Attorney General and the Leader of Government Business, coming at the last minute like a thief in the night, at the 11th hour, claiming it is an emergency and saying, “Look, we have to do this now”, and when you look at the actual Motion, it requires us to come back to Parliament in three months. So if there was all this urgency—we have other matters on the Order Paper. Let me see an Order Paper. We have other Bills on the Order Paper that have been here for some time. We have serious legislation before this Parliament. We have Summary Courts; we have Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act; an Act to amend the Evidence Act. Why are they not dealing with matters? It is like the Anti-Gang Bill and the Bail (Amdt.) Bill, they had them on the Order Paper for more than three months and then when pressure came on them, they bring them, and then what happened? They had to go to a joint select committee because they were no good. And that is the other point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 6.00 p.m. One of the offences that is going to be created under this corruption legislation is the defrauding the public purse of revenue. Mr. Warner: You should know about that. Mr. C. Imbert: Now, this is one of the most foolish ideas I have ever heard. You have the Customs Act; you have a number of Acts dealing with finance; you have the Inland Revenue; you have the Corporation Tax, Personal Income Tax, and stamp duty. There are a host of laws on our books that deal with defrauding the Government of revenue with all sorts of complicated compliance mechanisms, with all sorts of procedures, penalties and so on. They put in this thing that defrauding the State of revenue is an offence which the Anti-Corruption Commission will investigate. 408 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. IMBERT] While all the other agencies, Customs, Inland Revenue and the VAT office are doing it, everybody checking, but the corruption commission will now be investigating people defrauding revenue from the State. So the work of the licensing and immigration offices will now be duplicated by the corruption commission, the work of the Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs in terms of the monitoring and managing the production of petroleum—because if you underestimate the volume of petroleum or the price of petroleum, you are defrauding the State of revenue. So this Anti-Corruption Commission will now be empowered to go into every area of national life and investigate anything that even remotely resembles defrauding the public purse of revenue. Mr. Cadiz: Correct. Mr. C. Imbert: You say correct? Mr. Cadiz: You did not get away with it. Mr. C. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Chaguanas East talks a lot, but I have not heard him talking about the murder rate. I have not heard him talking about the crime. He talks a lot. What is your Government doing about crime? We had almost 500 murders in 2010. As I said, I am firmly of the view— [Interruption] Listen to this next one. It went down by two? It went down from 500 to 498? As soon as the New Year comes, your Prime Minister gave some fantastic speech on the TV and on the radio, next day four or seven murders in the space of 24 hours. What are you doing about crime? What are you doing about controlling homicides? What are you doing about the violence that plagues this country: What are you doing about it? You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this—as I said, I have not heard the Member for Chaguanas East talking about the alarming number of homicides in Trinidad and Tobago. He gets quiet. When he was not in Government, every day he was talking about— Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just give me one second. Mr. C. Imbert: Sure. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have allowed you a little leeway away from the Bill on corruption. I just want to ask you to come back to it. You could file a question or a Motion. Mr. C. Imbert: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will, but the whole point I am making is that this is a “pappy-show” Government. They are not serious. As I said, the Member for Chaguanas West made a lot of noise, a lot of mouth when he 409 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 was outside of the Government. Come inside now, he cannot say a word about the rampant crime that is stalking this country. He cannot say a word because he is now part of the problem. [Desk thumping] It is just “pappy-show” and “ol’ talk”. Talk is cheap, and you see this Bill, it is “pappy-show” and “ol’ talk”. [Desk thumping] It is just an attempt by this Government to make people feel that they are doing something. But legislation will very never see the light of day in its present form. This legislation is nonsensical, it is impractical, it is unworkable, it is foolish and it is not going to be passed. I am telling you here, this legislation will not be passed by this Parliament, not in a million years, because if it is every one of them will be arrested and charged and “locked up” the next day. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Jack Warner): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us come back to real debate, and all the histrionics of the last speaker we shall put behind us. In fact, the last speaker hustled before the tea break to catch the news to say Trinidad and Tobago is a blacklisted country. When done, we came back and asked him to tell us about us being a blacklisted country. What he says amounted to be, he did not say that. Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I said that. Hon. J. Warner: Thank you. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, now that he has said so, I want to read into the records a statement from the Financial Action Task Force dated October 22, and I will then come with a privilege Motion. Mr. Imbert: You can say what you want. Hon. J. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the FATF—sometimes they call it FAT—said among other things: “A large number of jurisdictions have not yet been reviewed by the FATF. The FATF continues to identify additional jurisdictions, on an ongoing basis, that pose a risk in the international financial system. The new jurisdictions identified in this”—which posed a risk—“are: Bangladesh, Ghana, Honduras, Philippines, Tanzania, Venezuela and Vietnam. The FATF has additionally begun initial reviews of a number of other jurisdictions as part of this process and will present its findings (this) year.” I continue. I am coming to you. “The FATF and the FSRBs will continue to work with the jurisdictions noted below and to report on the progress made in addressing the identified deficiencies.” 410 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Imbert: So? Hon. J. Warner: “The FATF calls on these jurisdictions to complete the implementation of actions plans expeditiously and within the proposed timeframes. The FATF will closely monitor the implementation of these action plans and encourages its members to consider the information presented below. In February 2010, Trinidad and Tobago”—this is the same report—“made a high-level political commitment to work with the FATF and the CFATF to address its strategic deficiencies. However, the FATF has determined that certain strategic…deficiencies remain.” Hon. Member: They did nothing. Hon. J. Warner: “Trinidad and Tobago should continue to work on implementing its action plan to address these deficiencies..: (1) implementing adequate procedures to identify and freeze terrorist assets without delay…; (2) implementing adequate procedures for the confiscation of funds related to money laundering…; and (3) establishing a fully operational and effectively functioning FIU, including supervisory powers... The FATF encourages Trinidad and Tobago to address its remaining deficiencies and continue the process of implementing the action plan.” Where is it blacklisted? Dr. Moonilal: What blacklisted? Hon. J. Warner: What blacklisted? Do you know what blacklisted means? Look at me! Do you know what blacklisted means? In case you do not know what blacklisted means—do you know what blacklisted means? That is what it says. Just to make a headline, you come here to mislead the House and the country. Mr. Speaker, I go further. The last speaker made the point about the Bill being given to them on Monday and, of course, they needed more time. They forget when they were there. The last speaker has forgotten that this Bill was in their domain since 2003 and, therefore, you had about seven years to consider it with all your “shilly-shally” and so on. More importantly, he says, “I am seeing a habit with this Government, sending Bills to the JSC for the Opposition to clean up their 411 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 mess”. I will come to the JSC and tell you why JSC just now. But I want to tell you if there is any mess to clean up, it is the mess which you all left, [Desk thumping] which you all made. If there is any mess to clean up, it is your mess that we are cleaning up on this side and, therefore, I do not accept that. We on this side simply do not accept that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I go further. He said we are fooling around with public relations and I have heard people even saying that we must not talk about the PNM failures. We must say what we are doing. Hon. Member: Because you are doing nothing. Hon. J. Warner: What nonsense is that? We have to talk about your failures till doomsday because we are where we are in this country because of your failures and, therefore, there is no public relations. This country must be reminded every single day [Desk thumping] that when they cannot get a drain built, a bridge built, a road paved or a salary increase, it is because of your failures. That is why we do not have to go under the public relations, but the public must be told everyday why they cannot get this. Mr. Deputy Speaker, he says that this Government—you have never seen such intelligence. We are intelligence personified. [Desk thumping] We are intelligence personified, but to say this is foolish—This foolish Government! If this Government is so foolish, how come we are here and you are there? [Laughter] This wise Opposition, look where you are. Scrambling to get out 12, sometimes you make a 10. Where is your leader? Look where you are; look where we are, and we are foolish? I want to ask this question—I heard the last speaker say that they will not support the Anti-Corruption Bill. Fine! You must tell the country why and let the country judge you by your lack of support, but we on this side will push for that Bill. [Desk thumping] We shall do it because we believe that is the correct thing to do. Your government came in on moral and spiritual values and you fell from grace because you did not implement those values. Those values have you where you are. Mr. Imbert: You are telling me that? Hon. J. Warner: Where are your moral values? Where are your spiritual values? Yes, look where I am and look where you are. Look where I am, look where you are. Mr. Imbert: A three-tonne full of money. 412 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. J. Warner: A three-tonne full of money? Oh, my God, I tell you. You know something, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this three-tonne truck full of money, I tell you, next time I will put a six-tonne truck and if it is so, “all of all yuh wipe out”. [Desk thumping] “If a three-tonne truck have all yuh over there, I will put a six- tonne next time and all of all yuh gone. All of all yuh gone. It full of money, all of all yuh gone.” Mr. Imbert: Ah! Hon. J. Warner: If that is the answer. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I go further and make one more point before I begin to thank you. I am surprised to hear the last speaker who really sleeps late in his pajamas, goes to bed early I assume, has nothing really to do; I am advised that he opened a business in St. James last week or this week—I am advised—and that the business is not doing so well from the start. But the last thing I would like to hear is the speaker complaining about too many committee meetings. What do you have to do? Nothing, except write the newspaper some foolishness every other day. What do you have to do, except to blog Facebook and so on? He is complaining to us here about too many committee meetings. Well, my friend, if you believe you are seeing committee meetings, you have not seen anything yet. Ask the leader. Dr. Moonilal: More coming. Hon. J. Warner: More coming. Dr. Moonilal: Take some vitamins. Hon. J. Warner: So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not spend too much time with the points raised by the speaker, because honestly, in my humble view, nothing much was said. I want to talk today about the importance of this debate. You would recall that in the run-up to the historic election of 2010, when you all were almost wiped out, we spoke about dealing with all kinds of crime. When those crimes are committed by a cutlass-wielding bandit dressed in a cap and jeans or by a pen-wielding crook in a jacket and tie, we said we shall clear up all crimes. [Desk thumping] 6.15 p.m. On page 25 of our manifesto, the People’s Partnership Government said: “The first step in tackling crime would involve the issue of white collar crime and corruption.” In our manifesto we said so at page 25, and this Government means what we say and we say what we mean. As such, therefore, debate on this Motion today is to 413 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 deliver on a campaign promise we made to the people of this country. We have made promises to this country and we are delivering and that is the importance of today’s debate. We campaigned on the issues of transparency and accountability in public affairs. We did not need much help in that campaign, because the People’s National Movement had a record of lack of transparency and lack of accountability in matters of governance, so, therefore, we did not need much help. We said in our manifesto, that this Government shall be transparent and accountable, and we are delivering. We are, therefore, serving our people by delivering on that promise. The proposal to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act is not exclusively about preventing corruption; it is about adding value the public’s money when we are exercising our power to spend it on the public’s behalf. That is what it is about. One of the cancers that undermine the value for money is corruption, when you get no value for money. I am even going further to say that the loss of value is not limited to just the amount of money stolen or pilfered. Over the last 10 years money lost through corruption could have saved the life of baby Marissa Ramlal who died October 28, 2008 because the last Minister of Health could not find $1.8 million due to budgetary constraints. If there was no corruption, that child’s life could have been saved. Money lost through corruption would have been able to deal with the Clico and HCU issues in a more timely manner. Money lost through corruption could have placed more buses on the roads last Wednesday. Money lost through corruption could have repaired roads and bridges. Money lost through corruption could have given support to farmers. Money lost through corruption could have given training facilities to our police officers and the list goes on and on. It could have given beds and medicine to our hospitals. But, the moneys, through corruption, have been stolen and some of those who have stolen our moneys have since fled our land. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question therefore, is: Why must we act now? Why now?—as if there is an urgency, the last speaker said. We must act now, because there is an international, a worldwide drive against corruption. Global organizations are taking a tougher stand on corruption which, in many ways, is as destructive as other forms of crime. 414 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. J. WARNER] We have paid a very hefty price because corruption ruled supreme in this country over the last 10 years. No society—in fact you heard the Attorney General earlier on talk about UTT. He said that it was an interim report. Let me just add two or three examples to his interim report. Take UTT. There is a lady called Katy Gainham. She is the Programme Director at the Academy of Performing Arts. She was hired as a flute professor. [Member makes sound of a flute] My understanding is that Miss Gainham has never had one flute student. Who in this country plays a flute? She does not have one flute student. In fact, there was a student there, one student, and that person was taught by Mr. Roy Carter who is an oboist. Another person named Duncan Preston, at UTT, a clarinet teacher with two or three students. In fact, my understanding is that this same Mr. Prescott was in an accident in England where he lives and he could not teach after that and is still on the payroll. That is the advice given to me. Patrick Jones, another one, a cellist with no teaching experience, has only one student. He is, of course, on the admission of the Performing Arts, to evaluate candidates for the UTT—with no teaching experience. The reason I am telling you these things, in all the examples I have given, there are a few things in common. These lecturers and professors all have very few or no students, all are paid between $14,000 to $16,000 a month to teach one student, sometimes none, and all, like Calder Hart, are foreigners. That is UTT. Therefore, this is the kind of corruption we have to stop; we must stop. No society can prosper when corruption is allowed to thrive, none, particularly small countries like ours. Bloomberg Business week, on November 24, 2004, in an editorial said: “Rigged markets, as well as regulations can hurt growth. Corruption makes markets less efficient, more costly and less innovative.” As such, therefore, corruption is now recognized to be one of the world’s greatest challenges. It is a big hindrance to sustainable development. It corrodes the very fabric of our society, and has been doing so for the last 10 years. The impact on the private sector is also considerable. Corruption impedes economic growth. Corruption distorts competition, and corruption represents serious legal and reputational loss for a country. Corruption, C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N does that. I know, that is why I am here and you are there. I am coming to deal with you just now. I know and that is why we here are dealing with it. That is why we here are dealing with it and you would not; not in one million years. I will come to you again just now. 415 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Corruption is also very costly for business. It places an extra interest burden to add 10 per cent to the cost of doing business in many parts of the world. The World Bank has said that: “bribery has become a $1 trillion industry.”

On June 24, 2004, during the UN Global Compact Leaders Summit it was announced that a UN global compact—“yuh” pay Elias yet? Elias looking for his money—that the UN Global compact would include a tenth principle against corruption and that was adopted by all and sundry. That principle was not only to avoid bribery, extortion and other forms of corruption, but the principle was to develop policies and concrete programmes to address corruption, and that is why we are here today. We are here today, taking a cue from the UN. We are here today taking a cue from other international bodies to stand up in the fight against corruption. That is why we are here; to take the cue from the other international bodies to fight against corruption. 6.30 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the run-up to election of 2010, I had said publicly that I would call for an investigation into the use of PTSC buses as part of the election campaign of the last government. I promised the country I would enquire, and today I want to give the country that promise. Today, I want to deliver that campaign promise. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the last election campaign, the PNM sourced buses in its campaign in Trinidad and in Tobago. Let me give you some of the figures involved, because you would be shocked when you hear these figures. Hold on to your seat. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are going to understand this afternoon the flagrant misuse of public funds, and for the Member to come here and say not in a million years he is going to support this Bill is an indictment on all of them. [Desk thumping]

I am going to show this House how the PNM, during the campaign for the election had preferential rates. There was no paper trail. Of course, they did not give any acceptance in writing; there was no contract. Mr. Deputy Speaker, worse yet, when there was no board, I called the management together, seven of them, and asked them to tell me how much money the PNM owes and I give them two weeks. There was no board. They came back to me and said the PNM owes us a figure of, I think, $178,000 or thereabout. I said, is that all? They said yes. I said 416 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. J. WARNER] how much money they still owe? They said about $84,000. So, I say, well they are good paymasters, give and take $84,000, but there was no board, I could not go in and cut any paper trail and so on. When the board came in and did the research, it found a consummate example of corruption. Mr. Deputy Speaker, from Port of Spain to Chaguanas, the PNM leased buses at a cost of $44,700, and the actual cost for the buses was $1.4 million, but they put on the books $44,700. From San Fernando they leased buses for $377,000, but the actual price for the buses was $981,000. In Tobago they leased buses for $493,000, and my advice is the actual cost was over $600,000.

So, therefore, for the buses the PNM leased for the election, the cost of the buses should have been $2.5 million. The PNM asked the chairman to put a book value of $1 million—from $2.5 million to $1 million—and, therefore, $1.4 million was supposed to have gone under the carpet. Member for Diego Martin West, I am telling you, I have some more for you. It is going to make the little hair on your head stand. I have the facts. I have the record to prove this. I have it here. Wait! [Interruption] You were not there. You helped to bring them down. The investigation revealed that the corporation’s standard venture charge for a bus is $400 per hour, but the rates charged for the PNM was $500 per trip. Whatever hours you spend you pay $500 or $1,000 and sometimes for even eight or nine or ten hours you would pay $500 or $1,000. So, therefore, they charged the PNM on the basis of per trip and not per hour. The record also revealed that when these buses go outside they must have engineers and mechanics on standby and working overtime which was paid for by the PTSC—$500 per trip. We are told that there was no board meeting to approve these preferential rates. There was simply a phone call and an order to management to do so. How? I am going to give you the facts. You want them and I am going to give them to you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, on May 19, 2010, the Deputy General Manager, Engineering, sent a memo to the Assistant Deputy Manager, Operations, North, headlined: “Special Private Charters Saturday May 22, 2010”. In case you forget, that was two days before the election. Hear what it says!

“We wish to advise that the PTSC has been contracted to provide special charters on Saturday May 22, 2010 in addition to the regular fixed route operations. 417 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

To provide these special private charters and supply the regular passenger services along fixed routes, the Operations Department will require in excess of one hundred and seventy five (175) buses.” Port of Spain 70 San Fernando 65 Point Fortin 10 Chaguanas 15 Total 175 “The special charters will be travelling from communities all over Trinidad to the Eddie Hart Grounds, Tacarigua and we will be operating Articulated buses, Marco Polo buses, Thomas Cummins...Mitsubishi Rosa, Volvo... In view of these arrangements, we wish to respectfully request your Department’s support to have these buses mechanically checked and readied for service on Saturday May 22, 2010. In addition, steps should be taken to provide Engineering services at various Depots to facilitate the run out of buses and to respond to any road calls. It is advisable to have an Engineering response team at the Eddie Hart Grounds...” So, put a garage at the Eddie Hart Grounds. “to provide any technical assistance if required.”

And to have VMCOTT standing by in case of any further emergencies. This was signed by:

“BRIAN JUANETTE

Assistant Deputy General Manager Operations (N)” Mr. Deputy Speaker, we asked Mr. Juanette why this happened and he answered on January 07, 2011. Listen to Mr. Juanette. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would go ultra slowly. By the way, he is still working there—and this is vindictive Jack Warner. Last week Wednesday he was with me in Arima. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is Juanette talking now. Further to our recent discussion on the matter, I wish to respectfully advise that since 2002, the People’s National Movement has been making arrangements for chartered services for various activities including conventions, pre-election 418 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. J. WARNER] rallies and also events hosted at Woodford Square, for example, the hiring of buses coinciding with the debate in Parliament on a no confidence motion on the then Prime Minister. Do you remember that? Dr. Moonilal: He said where the money gone; $10 million? Hon. J. Warner: I will continue: On these occasions—this paradigm of virtue—Balisier House, the Headquarters of the PNM, contacted officials of the corporation, including those in Marketing and Operations Departments to provide buses in the quantum requested. It is in these circumstances that the corporation provided buses in large numbers at below market rates to the PNM for several functions and events dating back to 2002. Hon. Ramlogan: And they are quarrelling about hamper! Hon. J. Warner: I am only giving you for one month which is May, but this is from 2002. I would go further. I could understand why you got so disgusted with them and why you brought them down. The request was supported by the chairman of the corporation… I hate to call his name but I have to, he is here, Mr. Ethelbert Paul. …at whose behest the corporation was mandated to provide the full amount of buses at minimal cost representing payment for journey time, not taking into consideration waiting time of extended periods of deployment. He continues: As the Operations Manager and, subsequently, as the Assistant General Manager, Operations, it was outside my scope or my authority to question the directive of the chairman who assigned buses on chartered services whenever such a request was made. I could not vary his instructions with respect to the application of preferential rates for the PNM. In fact, in discussing this issue with the then chairman, instructions were given by him to maintain charter rates below market prices. The whole question about chartering of buses to transport supporters of the PNM sponsored events was known by all as copies of memoranda were sent to heads of divisions. I am sorry, but I have to continue. He continues: 419 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

It was a standard requirement, having regard to the number of buses which were engaged for these events, that the Operations Manager communicated in writing this information to the Deputy General Manger Engineering, to ensure that buses were mechanically checked and ready for service and adequate support services were provided so as to avoid any breakdowns.

Not for the commuters; not for the travelling public, but for PNM supporters. This correspondence would be copied to members of the executive management. It continues: It must be borne in mind that the Operations and Marketing Departments of the corporation would not on their own volition assign buses in such large numbers as indicated in the attached documents without the approval and direction of the board’s chairman. On most of these occasions, the normal services were disrupted. Poor people could not go home. Cuchawan Trace, Terrence Road, Toolsie Trace, and Gopie Trace could not go home. The children could not get buses. There were no buses for Felicity, Charlieville, Longdenville and Barrackpore, and they want to talk about hamper. The events of September 2008, when the entire fleet, including the newly acquired Higer buses, which were not assigned to routes were used to transport supporters of the party to different parts of the country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, buses which were not put on the road for people as yet, under the last dispensation, those buses were put on the road to take supporters to Mayaro to a rally. He continues: This particular incident led to queries by then Sen. Wade Mark when buses during the peak period on a busy Friday afternoon were removed from active route service. In all these arrangements, the Marketing Department of the Corporation was contacted by Balisier House and representatives of the People’s National Movement with request for chartered services from different parts of the country.

Balisier House was running PTSC. Normal procedures were followed in respect of documenting this request and preparing labels authorizing charter arrangements. 420 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. J. WARNER] He said: It is instructive to note that since a large number of buses was required for most of the PNM sponsored events, the executive management was fully apprised of the situation, especially as the allocation of buses to satisfy charter arrangements usually resulted in disruption to services and an increase in operation cost, especially when these arrangements were on weekends, late evenings or public holidays. Do you want more evidence than this? Brian Juanette. Assistant Deputy General Manager Operations (N) Do you want more evidence than this? Well, I have more for you. 6.45 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the question this evening, if this is not corruption, what is? Did the former Minister of Works and Transport know of this? Did you? Put it in the Hansard. Did you know of this? Mr. Imbert: No. Hon. J. Warner: Did the present Leader of the Opposition know of this? Dr. Rowley: No. Hon. J. Warner: Thank you. I am glad you did not know, because as far as I am concerned—[Interruption] Hon. Ramlogan: “What kind of PTSC dat Minister was running?” Hon. J. Warner: And you say that I cannot be in FIFA and run the Ministry of Works and Transport. You see how good I am? [Laughter] You say that I cannot be in FIFA and run the Ministry of Works and Transport. [Crosstalk] You were in FIFA and you did not know anything about it. [Laughter] You were in FIFA. Are you in FIFA? And you know about it? “I in FIFA and I know about it.” [Laughter] Because you failed in transportation over the last 10 years, that is why this country transported you over there. [Laughter] That is why. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will give one more example of shady deals at the PTSC. [Interruption] “Doh take me on.” I want to describe a situation where you had a contractors' monopoly; this will blow your mind. Three companies had a virtual command of infrastructural works at PTSC, when required; three companies only; never advertised. 421 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. Ramlogan: No advertisement? Hon. J. Warner: None whatsoever, and you all killing me for advertising, but it is the correct thing to do. They handpicked who they wanted; three companies. I will give you names just now; it will blow your mind. In two years these three companies made over $17 million. Hon. Member: “Oh goood!” Hon. J. Warner: Did you know about that, Member for Diego Martin North/East? Three companies—I will call the names for you just now—in two years they made over $17 million in contracts and, therefore they had a monopoly on the works at PTSC. Were you aware of that? They were never advertised. Mr. Imbert: I do not know what you are talking about. Hon. J. Warner: I will take the first company called KAJDE Enterprise Limited. This company made $4.9 million in less than two years doing work at the PTSC. I have the directors’ names, but I will not embarrass them in the House today. I will send it for you, because you must know who they are to save your leadership in the PNM. No tender, no advertisement, $4.9 million, K-A-J-D-E. A second company called All Dive and Marine Services Limited in two years made $8.2 million for doing similar work. This company made $8.2 million for two years. [Interruption] Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30 minutes. [Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal] Question put and agreed to. Hon. J. Warner: Thank you colleagues on this side. KAJDE Enterprise Limited, in less than two years made $4.9; All Dive and Marine Services Limited, in less than two years made $8.2 million. There is another company, Patrick Gordon Construction Limited, and I must talk about this one. This company made $5.1 million in less than two years. It was incorporated in 1992 with two $1 shares. This company has two directors, Patrick Gordon and Marva Gordon, each one with $1 shares. This company was given $5.2 million in contracts. Hon. Ramlogan: They fronted! 422 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. J. Warner: Sure they fronted, but, again, the Minister is an honourable man, he does not know anything at all. Mr. Imbert: What I have to do with that? Mr. Jack Warner: I have to do with this. You are an honourable man; you know nothing about it. Close to $18 million in contracts in two years. If you call that good governance, so be it. I have one more for you and this is the crème de la crème. Hon. Member: “Oh, goood!” Hon. Ramlogan: Oh papa! Hon. J. Warner: In one case one company was awarded a contract to reconstruct a dispatch and bus marshal centre, which was really a guard booth. Anytime you are passing by PTSC by the lighthouse, turn left by the gate and you will see a guard booth; that is what I am talking about. They call it a “dispatch and bus marshall centre”. This is what they built, [Mr. Warner displays picture] a two- storey guard booth. “Ah coming to you with de price just now.” [Interruption] This was built and you can see it anytime. Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, your incumbent has made a ruling that visual aids cannot be used without prior permission. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Diego Martin North/East, the ruling was such that any visual aids that do not offend the Standing Orders can be submitted to the Speaker two hours before. The hon. Member for Chaguanas West submitted it two hours before; I looked at it and ruled that he could use it. [Desk thumping] Hon. J. Warner: For the Members here, yesterday I wrote Speaker Wade Mark and asked permission to put this in the House. Speaker Mark told me that he would not be here and to check with the Deputy Speaker. This morning at 10 o' clock I asked permission from this Deputy Speaker to show the picture. Mr. Imbert: Could I ask for a ruling. Are you saying that picture does not offend the Standing Orders, that and pictures like that? [Crosstalk] Mr. Deputy Speaker: That picture does not offend the Standing Orders. Mr. Imbert: And pictures like that. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, that picture. 423 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. J. Warner: Former Minister of Works and Transport, look again; Leader of the Opposition, look again; Members of Parliament, look again. [Minister Warner displays picture again] This structure is 13 feet by 8 feet. This structure has no toilet facilities, because after building it the contractor could not locate the sewer lines and cannot find them up to today. [Laughter] This structure cost the State $718,899.50. Dr. Moonilal: “Dat more expensive than an HDC house! Dr. Gopeesingh: What is the size again? [Crosstalk] Hon. J. Warner: Thirteen by 8, $718,000. Dr. Moonilal: Twice an HDC house. Mr. J. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could go on and on, but to ease your pain for some time I will stop at this point. Mr. Imbert: Ease my pain? I have nothing to do with that. Hon. J. Warner: In Chaguanas a terminal of a smaller size—[Interruption] You will talk after. This is corruption. Hon. Ramlogan: Corruption! [Desk thumping] Miss Mc Donald: [Inaudible] Hon. J. Warner: Your time will come. Talk about scholarships then and how many you gave and to whom. Your time will come; leave me alone; leave me alone. You will tell this House about scholarships, how many you gave, to whom, when and so on. Dr. Moonilal: It was like hampers! Miss Mc Donald: Relate it back to the Bill. Hon. J. Warner: In Chaguanas a terminal of a smaller size cost $1 million, with no water tank to wash hands and, of course, one toilet for the whole staff. Therefore, I am saying to you, that these irregularities, these illegalities, thank God—we have a new board of directors—and they came to an end under this new board. [Desk thumping] In fact, PTSC has obtained a legal opinion. They have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Solicitor General and the Integrity Commission to find out whether anyone is guilty of misbehaviour in public office. Therefore the question is: What does Transparency International have to say about all of this? 424 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. J. WARNER] Because of corruption like this, the international community has formulated opinions on why we have to manage corruption. The picture is not good at all. In fact, this country was first ranked in the Corruption Perception Index in 2001. It was the first year this country was ranked in this Corruption Perception Index. “Ent?” That year we were 31st in the world; in 2005, we were 59th; in 2010, we were 73rd with a score of 3.6. Every year we slipped; we declined, under the PNM. Every year we declined under the PNM; that is a fact. Hon. Ramlogan: “Is because of de guard booth!” Hon. J. Warner: Between 2001 and 2010, under the PNM, under the leadership of Messrs. Manning, Rowley and Imbert, we slipped 42 places. This country slipped 42 places in nine years and that is the legacy of the PNM. That is your legacy. The question is: How do we now cure the legacy of the PNM? To cure it we have to do what the Attorney General said today. To cure it we have to have institutions and checks and balances. [Desk thumping] Hon. Ramlogan: “Any piano in de guard booth?” Hon. J. Warner: I did not go in; I could not fit. Hon. Ramlogan: “It have a piano, but no toilet!” Hon. J. Warner: The time has come for us to have a really long hard look at our anti-corruption legislation. We have to get to the root of corruption. We have to amend our legislation to deal more effectively with the cause and effect. We have to go after all wrongdoers. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not only bringing this Bill before the House, but we believe it is important to place this whole issue in the hands of a joint select committee that my colleague from Diego Martin North/East was very critical about. Mr. Imbert: “Yuh go send everything to a joint select committee; yuh go send a football field to a joint select committee.” Hon. J. Warner: He said that he noticed a habit. By the way, I just got a note from the Bankers' Association which said that they have no knowledge of any blacklisting of Trinidad and Tobago. The international insurance companies have said that there was no blacklisting of Trinidad and Tobago. The bankers have said so, the insurance company have said so. [Crosstalk] Mr. Imbert: No problem. 425 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. J. Warner: You will pay. Cheap, irresponsible statement; one said the day before, “Devaluation”, to frighten the country. You come today with blacklisting; irresponsible. Hon. Ramlogan: Wild and reckless statements! Hon. J. Warner: The last speaker said, and I quote him: “I notice a habit with this Government to send bills to a joint select committee for the Opposition to clean up the mess.” I will tell him why the Bill is going before a JSC. The joint select committee would have power to consult with stakeholders and interested persons. The committee would send for persons, papers, records and other documents and recommend amendments to the proposals. Why have we chosen the JSC? Let me teach you some parliamentary procedure. Erskine May is the proverbial bible of parliamentary practice. 7.00 p.m. In the Twenty-third edition, at page 738, Erskine May says, Member for Diego Martin North/East: “Select committees are appointed by the House to perform a wide range of functions on the House’s behalf. Most notably they have become over recent years…” Hear it again. “Most notably they have become over recent years the principal mechanism by which the House discharges its responsibilities for the scrutiny of government policy and actions.” Erskine May, page 738, Twenty-third edition, says so. He says at page 768, I quote again, Mr. Deputy Speaker: “Committees are regularly empowered to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.” That is what it is for. That is what it is for. To do our work for us? You can do our work for us? Dr. Moonilal: They are lazy. Hon. J. Warner: You can do our work for us? Dr. Moonilal: They do not want to work. 426 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. J. Warner: You can do the Attorney General’s work for the Attorney General? Dr. Moonilal: They are too lazy. Hon. J. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am saying, therefore, in Westminster tradition, select committees have been widely used to assist the House— Dr. Moonilal: I have never seen a lazier opposition. Hon. J. Warner:—and to solicit external views on Bills before they are laid in the House; as simple as that; no abracadabra; as simple as that. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Government is reviving this tried and tested Westminster tradition. [Desk thumping] This is why I am so concerned about the last speaker talking about this Government being so foolish. So foolish. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are asking stakeholders to send their views on dealing with corruption. Tell us your views. This must never happen again in this country to have the Calder Harts. Never again. [Desk thumping] Therefore, they must tell us their views. Tell us their views on what they want us to do. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am saying that is transparency, that is accountability and that is good governance, of which they know very little. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will go further. I would not deal with the Bill now because I know time is against me, but I will deal with just two or three points quickly. I am saying that there are some very refreshing changes that are being proposed in the Bill, and these changes shall be subject to the deliberations of the joint select committee. What are these? I will give you a few. The new law, as is being prescribed, will be charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of corruption; simple as that. Secondly, the commission would also be given certain powers to enable it to discharge its functions. Thirdly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the President will be empowered to appoint a chief commissioner, assistant commissioners and special investigators. The President will be required to consult with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, if you are still there, before appointing the chief commissioner. [Laughter] Dr. Rowley: Somebody will be here. Hon. J. Warner: If you are still there. Dr. Rowley: Somebody will be here. Dr. Moonilal: He has a lot of opposition. 427 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. J. Warner: I say if you are still there, number 12. Dr. Rowley: Somebody will be here. Hon. J. Warner: Therefore, I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that also in the Bill you will see some other important aspects of reform which include a new offence, which will be created, of concealing a bribe received or given by or to a person for doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction. So, therefore, you get a bribe, you pay the penalty for that. You receive a bribe? You pay the penalty for that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, under this proposed new law, you have a new offence called “illicit enrichment”. You see them living in their big houses in Maraval, Haleland Park, wherever. You have to know, of course, how they got this big house, where, of course, they got this money from; big cars, and so on, driving and whistling. “Where you get this money from?” Mr. Imbert: Look who is talking. Where you got yours from? [Laughter] Hon. J. Warner: I will tell you. Mr. Imbert: “Where you got yours from?” Hon. J. Warner: I will tell you where I got mine from after. Do not worry. Charge me. Charge me, but I will tell you something; I support the Bill. Unlike you, I support this Bill. [Desk thumping] Unlike you, I support the Ant- Corruption Bill and this whole Government, this whole side, supports the Bill; [Desk thumping] unlike you. You know why? We have nothing to hide; no cocoa in the sun. None of us have anything to hide. All right? We bring this Bill which you, from 2003 to now, did not bring. From 2003 to now, you did not bring this Bill at all. You are afraid. We are not afraid. “We bring the Bill.” Dr. Moonilal: They are lazy and afraid. Hon. J. Warner: Lazy and afraid. Furthermore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a new provision also to make it an offence for a person to act outside stipulated procedure so as to obtain a concession, exemption or licence. You cannot get a licence or concession outside stipulated procedure. You cannot say “Help me nah.” If the person is good, the person will get help. Simple as that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I end, I want to say that these are all very important issues which will go a long way in curing corruption, that evil which erodes this country. I feel that while we are talking about this Bill, we have a right, a duty to 428 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. J. WARNER] obtain the views of our stakeholders to make the proposal more efficient than it appears to be. That is what civilized democracies do. They consult, and we are consulting. I ask the question again: why are my friends on the other side against the Anti-Corruption Bill? What are you afraid of? What do you have to fear? Therefore, I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the end of the day we on this side have no cocoa in the sun. Mr. Deputy Speaker, murders in this country are visible. Flooding is visible. Bad roads and broken bridges are visible. What is not visible are the consequences of corruption. Corruption, I am saying, therefore, is an invisible crime. Unspotted at first glance, but it is as permanent as the air you breathe in Maracas Bay. Permanent, and we have to correct that. Wrongdoers make, they take and then they get away. That must stop. They take, they make and they get away. That must stop. If it takes this Government to do it, then so be it. We will. Dr. Moonilal: We will. We will. Hon. J. Warner: We shall. We must. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Motion to have a careful look at the anti-corruption laws is, therefore, geared towards making our system of governance stronger. The sailor on the other side, my good friend from Diego Martin West—the sailor who has now, of course, departed from his court martial call, is surely, unlike his colleague—I am sure he is in support of this Bill. You did not have your court martial and I know that one day you will pay a price for that, but I am sure, unlike your colleague, you support this Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this country has had to suffer because we seem incapable of fighting corruption. We have to find a way to deter potential culprits from planning and plotting to steal this country; to steal the moneys from the public purse and sometimes even the whole purse. We come before this House for all of Trinidad and Tobago. Everyone is affected. Every taxpayer; every youth; every pensioner; every worker; every CLICO and HCU holder; and every worker who wants to get an increase, they are all affected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Motion is to set the system right. This Motion is to set governance right. This Motion is to set our democracy right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unlike my friend from Diego Martin North/East, I ask the others to support it and perhaps, for once, the people of this country will say, as an Opposition, you were right for once. I thank you. [Desk thumping] 429 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dr. Amery Browne (Diego Martin Central): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see the hon. Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara quickly departing his seat. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would want, as this is the first sitting for the year 2011, to wish you, Deputy Speaker, and through you, the Speaker, happy New Year, as well to the Leader of the Opposition and all of my colleagues, hardworking colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I want to salute all of them as we continue to hold steadfast to the vision of a better and more developed Trinidad and Tobago, this year, next year and all the years to come. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also want to wish the Members on the other side, Members on the Government Bench, a happy New Year as well; and I am aware that there are those in the national community who are hoping that for this year the Government will turn over a new leaf and actually begin governing the nation of Trinidad and Tobago. They are hoping that the Government makes a fresh start for 2011, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after a very deplorable and disappointing 2010 under this UNC-dominated coalition. But I fear such hopes will be very much misplaced because, already for 2011, we have seen the signs that this UNC-dominated coalition has not recognized their failures. They have come once again with a measure that is pure PR and no substance whatsoever. It has already been exposed during this debate and they have set the tone and pace for more of the same in 2011—more victimization, more discrimination, more public relations, more gimmicks, more unemployment, more insults and personal attacks, and more friendly fire incidents. We have seen so many of those, and sad to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, more corruption in Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the reality. [Desk thumping] The Member for Chaguanas West took us all over the place. He is always boasting about putting Trinidad and Tobago on the map and he took us all over the place in his discourse today. Someone reminded me recently that anytime you hear Members opposite boasting about putting Trinidad and Tobago on the map, we need to remind them that Al Capone put Chicago on the map, and John Gotti put New York on the map, so you need to be careful how you put this nation on the map. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had the amazing reality today of the Member for Chaguanas West, the Vice-President of an organization known as FIFA, giving us a lecture in this country on preventing corruption. Could you imagine that, the irony of such a presentation, a FIFA Vice-President lecturing Trinidad and Tobago and our citizens about preventing corruption? Even some of the Members on the 430 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] other side had a look of horror and disgust on their faces. I am not going to call their names—they know who they are—a look of horror and disgust as we had to listen to that pious discourse from a Vice-President of FIFA. Mr. Deputy Speaker, amazingly—and words have power—the Member for Diego Martin North/East had complained about a three-tonne truck filled with cash in his constituency, and he made certain representation in that regard. Speaking in this House on a Bill entitled, the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, I heard the Member for Chaguanas West—I do not know if I heard rightly—do you know what he said on the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Next time he will send a six-tonne truck to constituencies to ensure certain results. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is that? “Joke is joke”, but this is serious business. You are coming here pretending to do the people’s business and committing a six- tonne truck—[Interruption] He said it in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Imbert: Full of money. Dr. A. Browne: Well, I am not going to say that part. Mr. Imbert: He said that. Hon. Members: He said it. Mr. Warner: I have said it in other places too. Dr. A. Browne: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will proceed. Every Member heard what he said. Mr. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, 36(2). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36(2)? Hon. Member: He said 36(2). Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, 36(2), there is no judicial review pending, so 36(2) is overruled, Member for Chaguanas West. [Desk thumping] Dr. A. Browne: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is amazing those on the other side cannot handle the truth. These are his own words that he spoke a few minutes ago and he is standing here trying to deny it now. Every Member heard, and every citizen listening heard. We had to sit here for years and listen to all sorts of representations on the other side, and we listened when the Opposition spoke; but now they “squeam” and squirm and throw all sorts of Standing Orders in the air, even though they are not even aware of what the Standing Orders book entails. So I will proceed in responding to the Member for Chaguanas West, Mr. Deputy 431 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Speaker. That admission with regard to a six-tonne truck and a promise of a six- tonne truck is something that we should be ashamed of in this honourable House. Shame on you for such a representation. He also went on to say that this Bill, amazingly, was about keeping their campaign promises. He went on to say that this Bill—and they say that every time they bring a Bill, this is about keeping our campaign promises. What about the other promises that were made on the campaign trail? Does this Bill address those? What about the swindling of the senior citizens, 160,000 of them, that has been presented very clearly for the citizens of this country that this Government has perpetrated? What about that? What about the swindling, well, the deceit of our panmen, our calypso artistes, our soca artistes and our chutney artistes? Same promises on the campaign trail; this Bill does not address any of that, but the Minister is saying that this is the keeping of campaign promises that is being presented. Mr. Deputy Speaker, then we heard a very bizarre argument being presented here today. The Member for Chaguanas West said he cannot believe that anyone would not support an anti-corruption Bill, and he was using it to somehow berate and reprimand the Member for Diego Martin North/East; avery bizarre argument. Because the Bill is entitled something about anti-corruption, he cannot believe the Member would not support an anti-corruption Bill; and he went on to the Member for Diego Martin and other people; “How could you not support an anti- corruption Bill?” What kind of argument—what kind of specious argument—is that in the Lower House of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker? 7.15 p.m. So in his opinion, in the opinion of the Member for Chaguanas West, it does not matter what the Bill contains. It does not matter that these clauses have been demonstrated to be unworkable; it does not matter that the Bill introduces fatal duplications in how the public trust is managed in this country; it does not matter that improper application of these measures could result possibly, ultimately, in increased corruption in the national landscape; it does not matter that this Bill, if implemented as is, it could serve to undermine the authority of the Integrity Commission; it does not matter that this Bill is poorly drafted and it does not matter that it is unworkable and inapplicable. He wants us because of the title of the Bill, he wants the Member for Diego Martin North/East to support it and he is saying, how could he not support 432 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] something called an Anti-Corruption Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, a bizarre, specious and empty argument, it really holds no water in such a debate as this. [Desk thumping] Hon. Member: Donkey logic. Dr. A. Browne: “Nah, nah”, I cannot say donkey logic. No, no, no! A vacuous argument; a specious argument! Mr. Deputy Speaker, then the Member for Chaguanas West, in responding, asked us to take him at his word in what I regard as a very political statement a few minutes ago when he went through a long discourse about corruption in transportation in Trinidad and Tobago. I listened to him very, very carefully, but in talking about what he described in his political statement as corruption in transportation in Trinidad and Tobago, I was waiting to hear him tell us about the largest, the biggest example of corruption in transportation and protective services in our history which took place on January 05, 2011, just a few days ago, when the police service was forced to allow illegal drivers on a restricted route along the East-West Corridor, when bus routes were abandoned—in Petit Valley and many rural areas in this country for a PR charade, many outlying areas suffered as a result of this charade which was created and engineered by the Ministry of Works and Transport and then they come to pretend that they are solving the problem that they themselves have created. I was waiting to hear some sort of explanation along those lines, but of course, we heard nothing about that, but he was talking about corruption in what he calls or describes—we were to take his word for it—as corruption in the transportation sector. He went on to say that if more money was saved he could have built bridges, he could have paved roads, he could have done more work, et cetera, et cetera, and I listened to him. Do you know what I thought? I thought that sounds like a very poor excuse for inability to perform and non-performance in the Ministry of Works and Transport. A very, very poor excuse! Mr. Deputy Speaker, you also have to listen to what they do not say. He said he would have built bridges, he would have paved roads if money was saved, but I was waiting to hear him say that if he had more money he would have paid the Soca Warriors. I did not hear that particular comment. [Desk thumping] I am sure that our national heroes are looking at every contribution in this honourable House hoping a certain hard heart would melt and soften a bit, but they had no such luck today when discussing the Anti-Corruption Bill. 433 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder why the Member for Chaguanas is defending this so-called anti-corruption legislation that has already been exposed as unworkable. I wonder why a Fifa vice-president would want to blindly support legislation that has already been demonstrated to be unworkable. Why would he want non-functional anti-corruption laws on the books of Trinidad and Tobago, and I would leave those questions for Members to consider. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Attorney General gave a very—where is he?— spirited introduction to this Bill. He is very spirited, I almost said spiritual individual, and very vibrant—and clearly he has taken to his duties with some degree of relish, so, I also listened to him very carefully. He said that if provision were made in the Integrity in Public Life Act to ensure that persons would give their names and other detailed information along with the allegations of corruptions—he was throwing allegations at the PNM activity—there would have been no complaints before the Integrity Commission. Those were the words that he said. I believe that he mislead himself and he may be in danger of wanting to mislead others, because he has not taken into account the many cases currently before the Integrity Commission to which persons have included their names and all the other details, et cetera. So to make that type of argument, that assertion simply cannot be supported by the facts. When you have an Attorney General trying to sell something along those lines and you realize it is a specious argument you begin to become concerned about the details of what he is offering. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Attorney General describes himself as on a war and many persons have talked, he used phrases like witch hunt, et cetera. He is describing himself a bit as a corruption czar, corruption buster, but in this regard he must also be regarded as an abject failure, if that is what his mandate is. This Attorney General has spent millions of dollars in his effort so far and he has clearly been given a specific and political mandate—thus far what has he come with to the nation besides “ol’ talk” and innuendo. Every citizen should consider over the last eight months detailed, high-profiled activity, highly paid lawyers, millions of dollars expended on these witch hunts, et cetera. What has he come with to the citizens of this country thus far? Zip, nada, nothing and we have heard more of it today, not even referencing the report that he was drawing this information from. Another long ramble of innuendo about piano and tailor. If those two issues are the justification for this rushed introduction of this Bill, we have a serious issue on our hands in this country. They have narrowed down 434 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] their hunt to a piano and a tailor who—you really wonder what is happening at the Ministry of the Attorney General. [Interruption] I am not going to bring the Deputy Speaker in this, but you know, the tailor might be known to some persons. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in introducing the Bill the Attorney General also said he gave the history of this legislation but I did not hear a certain name called of one of the—who must be considered, one of the architects behind this legislation and that was a former Attorney General in the person of Mr. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC. I was very curious as to why that name would not have been mentioned and I do not know if it is because Mr. Maharaj SC himself is becoming a little more active these days and he may be considered as getting ready to blow the whistle once again on the UNC. So maybe that is why they decided to leave his contribution out of the background of this particular legislation. [Interruption] It would have been nice. It would have been chivalrous if he had recognized that particular contribution. I did not hear it at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened to the Attorney General today; he specializes in these partial reports that he may have conceived. Nothing has been laid in the House, no evidence, no findings, no report presented; just innuendo as per usual and I want to tell him and this Government, the population of Trinidad and Tobago is tired of this long litany of empty talk. Listen, when George Bush sent Colin Powell to the United Nations—and history would reveal that there was a charade taking place—at least they took time to get some photographs, to get some satellite images, some graphs, some documents, and at least make a case in front of the United Nations. We see this Government time and time again coming with their hands empty, a little political statement typed on a piece of paper.

We saw the Prime Minister with this whole SIA debacle, a political statement on a piece of paper and this population, the media and Members of this bench are expected to sit and swallow all of this wholesale and now eight months later the Attorney General has nothing for us. Nothing, except more of the same “ol’ talk” and innuendo, we must be very, very suspicious so he gave us another story without even the effort to really present anything for the citizens of this country. They have become experts on that side of making empty political statements with no proof whatsoever. [Desk thumping] Not a single charge of a single public official. No proof whatsoever. All they remain doing is trying to complete work where some of their own colleagues are facing the courts at this time. That is really all they have on their hands right now in terms of anything of substance. 435 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Attorney General sounded once again like he is before an election campaign, very little to show, still empty handed, but the “ol’ talk” continues, and I am sure it will continue because that is all that they are good at. Very, very unfortunate, that is all they are good at. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the population has already woken from its slumber, and that occurred during the last eight months after the results of May 24. They know that to see where the Government is going on the issue of corruption, we have to look at where they have come from and they have not come from a very bright or encouraging place. You ask any farmer if he plants mango in the ground what he is going to get, he is going to get mango, you are going to reap mango; you plant “pommerac” you are going to get “pommerac”; if you plant Fifa corruption you are going to get Fifa corruption; if you plant dishonouring our national heroes you are going to get dishonoured at the end of the day. [Desk thumping] Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you plant stinging nettle you are going to reap stinging nettle. Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few weeks before May 24, with backroom dealing and all sorts of mysterious meetings, stinging nettle was planted in the national fabric of this country and we are reaping it today. It does not matter whether they sing or dance, it does not matter—they could bring a Bill with any cover that they want, present it and saying that they are now the corruption busters, et cetera; you can hang a sign on it, you can spray perfume on it, this nation has already seen through the UNC Government and what they are reaping is stinging nettle today. We all know the corrupt origins of the UNC dominated partnership, we all know the double-dealing, the infighting—remember a child’s arm was almost broken in Rienzi Complex with all of the wrangling—that is the origin of this, where we are today, this Government that we are facing on the other side, the overthrowers, the coups, the allegations of payment of potential voters, the videos are on Facebook and on the Internet that no one has denied up to this day, the back room dealing, the vision of power and patronage that has led us to this reality of square pegs in round holes facing us on the other side. That is the reality. Mr. Deputy Speaker, one Ray Davis once said, “Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betraying the working man, pocketing profits and treating us like sheep. We are tired of hearing promises that we know they will never keep”. Pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, we are tired of hearing promises that we know they will never keep, that sounds like the specialty of the UNC dominated coalition. You ask the senior citizens, you ask the panmen, you ask the artistes, you ask the victims of crime, you ask the URP workers, you ask the labour leaders, you ask any sector of society; they would recognize that this statement is applicable to the Government of the day. 436 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] A good sign of a government that is serious about preventing acts of corruption would be their commitment to strengthening and building strong independent institutions in the nation. That would be an excellent sign, not what?—2001 Bill they dusted off and brought before the Lower House of Parliament. This Government, instead of demonstrating any such commitment, has been doing the exact opposite in Trinidad and Tobago—the exact opposite! The best sign of seriousness in preventing corruption is to demonstrate commitment to strong independent institutions. What they have been doing unfortunately is the exact opposite. You saw what happened with the office of the Chief Justice and the bizarre way in which the interactions occurred very early; you saw what happened with the state media and that other pillar of democracy when reprehensible actions were taken in full view of the national public. We saw the attacks on the Integrity Commission that had occurred earlier in their term, attacks on the office of the Commissioner of Police and all the other symptoms of a government that is committed, not to strengthening these institutions, but to undermining them and to damaging them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what about the Police Service Commission? We look at this Bill and how this commission is to be established—clause 2(a) —it is very nicely outlined here, but you would recognize that this is a formula that applies elsewhere as well. 7.30 p.m. You would see the President has a role; the President would consult with the hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and appoint a person as chief commissioner and they would also appoint other positions within this Anti- Corruption Commission: “No person shall be qualified to be appointed an officer of the Commission who— (a) is a member of— (i) the Senate,; (ii) the House of Representatives; or (iii) a local authority; or (b) is an undischarged bankrupt.” 437 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Very familiar phrasing in this regard, but we are looking at how this Government treats with independent institutions in Trinidad and Tobago and we have to draw the attention of the national community to what has happened with the Police Service Commission. You want to set up a commission to deal with corruption, but at the same time, you are treating with the Police Service Commission in a way that reduces the public confidence in that institution and corrupts the very purpose for which the commission was appointed in the first place. Look at how they are treating with the commissions that are already established, and the record of this Government in this regard has been literally disgraceful, and this has been well documented in the media to this point. If this Bill is implemented as is, there is nothing to preclude the appointment of a politician or a former politician such as Mr. Nizam Mohammed, who is currently chairman of the Police Service Commission, to a position such as this, heading this Anti-Corruption Commission. There is nothing to stop the Government from doing that, and you cannot ignore that because they already have a track record in this regard. They have not told us how it is going to be different in this particular matter. What has happened— Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Diego Martin Central, I think I just want to caution you to 36(10): “The conduct of the Governor, Members of the Senate or House of Representatives, or of judges or other persons engaged in the administration of justice shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion.” I think you just called Mr. Nizam Mohammed on the Police Service Commission. Dr. A. Browne: Where does it fall? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36(10), it can be interpreted as such. Dr. A. Browne: Are you making a ruling or suggesting? Because I am looking at the Standing Order and it refers to the Governor, Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, judges and persons engaged in the administration of justice. I hear your grey area but I was not aware that the Chairman of the Police Service Commission was engaged in the administration of justice. I heard Members on the other side take us on a world tour of everything they could conceive or construe as acts of corruption or corrupting institution. I 438 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] am just giving them their own track record. It is not a long-term track record, you know; it is not 10, 15 years ago; it is today. This is how they are operating today and we cannot trust them with this poor legislation in this regard. Non-governmental organizations are on record as calling for changes in this commission because the public trust has been violated. Such changes have not been made and we are seeing all sorts of proposals for sideline meetings and discussions and negotiations, all resulting at the end of the day in reduction in public trust, undermining of independent institutions and ultimately facilitation of an environment in which citizens might feel corruption is the norm in Trinidad and Tobago. We have to look at the record of this particular administration. So we are not going to allow this Government to set up a new commission when some of the existing commissions are not being properly managed. I do not know where the Prime Minister is today, but she has been very silent on this particular matter. There are questions that have been asked in open letters to the Prime Minister in the media and in other spaces, asking her what is her position on this current debacle at the head of the Police Service Commission, and I do not think silence is an appropriate response to this particular crisis of the public trust. There are other cases. We talk about corruption and I was waiting to hear the Attorney General at least, in passing, refer to a major issue involving UNC financiers. He never even mentioned it. But that is probably the most famous example before the nation with regard to fraud or corruption in this country. I would not go much further into the matter but I would ask the question, and we are looking at the track record of the Government. One of the areas in which the State has influence in such matters is when the State mobilizes a legal team representing the State’s interest in matters dealing with corruption, fraud, extradition, et cetera, and it has been drawn to my attention that some very unusual and possibly strategic decisions were made, resulting in the opinion of those who brought it to my attention, of a weakening—not a strengthening—of the State’s team representing this nation and its citizens in such matters. The Attorney General in his winding up might wish to give us the reasons for the removal of Mr. Douglas Mendes from the State’s legal team, and it was already alluded to by the Member for Diego Martin North/East, the removal of Mr. David West from the Central Authority. The Government cannot, on the one hand, be weakening our efforts—maybe strategically on one hand—and then coming here with this weak Bill and saying 439 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 that they are the champions of preventing corruption in Trinidad and Tobago. It is all very, very relevant. What about the innuendoes and misinformation and myths that they propagated in their election campaign last year? After eight months of that relentless—and it continues to this day—not a single public official has been charged with a single act of corruption or misbehaviour in public office. How many cases has this Attorney General brought before the courts? I know there are all sorts of struggles and trying to stretch things, but it has been an abject failure thus far and I see he has been reduced to talking about pianos and a tailor, and that is not a very good sign for his future in terms of fulfilling the political mandate that has been handed down to him; scraping the barrel at this particular point. The UNC-dominated coalition has proven that when the topic is corruption, it is not a case of show and tell, it is a case of a lot of tell but nothing to show except their own poor record in treating with corruption and corrupt practices in public life. [Desk thumping] This Bill is just a charade. There was an attempt to explain. The Member for Diego Martin North/East asked, why the emergency? Why have Members been subjected—some of us to receiving this Bill two or three days before the debate, really in a reversal of normal operating procedures in the Lower House? What is the Government’s justification? They were unable to give any clear justification at all, and some of us are of the opinion that this is really designed to fill a gap in the Government’s calendar of activities. This is just designed to fill a little pause in the Government’s PR agenda for the beginning of this year, and as the Member for Chaguanas West was able to trumpet, “This is a keeping of a campaign promise”, et cetera; just more public relations, more of fool the people, fool the people, fool the people. [Desk thumping] The Attorney General dusted off an old—well, he did not even give acknowledgement to the author of much of this legislation, and pretending that this is some new formula to reduce corruption in Trinidad and Tobago because that was what they have been setting out to do. You cannot achieve those ends by creating a parallel body. The answer is simple. The Government must discard this foolish and counter-productive proposal, amend the Integrity in Public Life Act to cover illicit enrichment; strengthen the Integrity Commission instead of weakening it or undermining it and resource it properly with renewed investigative capacity. I believe that would be a more realistic, workable and practical solution. 440 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] Stop attacking and undermining independent institutions in this country, whether you are the Attorney General or any other person, and avoid creating parallel bodies in our national landscape. Also, it is very important that the Government start to think before they speak and think before they act. There was an old school teacher who used to say: Put brain in gear before you open your mouth. I wonder if the Prime Minister might wish to admonish Members of her Cabinet to begin doing that. This Bill that the Attorney General proudly triumphed for the nation today is full of so many contradictions and ironies, and the Member for Diego Martin North/East showed us many of them. I want to direct your attention to clause 11 which amends section 9 of the parent Act. There are so many contradictions and ironies in this Bill. You have a new clause 9A: “Except as provided in subsection (3), no witness in any proceeding in respect of an offence under this Act shall be obliged to disclose the name or address of any informer, or state any matter or answer any question if the answer thereto might lead to the discovery of the name or address of the”— informant. Sounds good, and there was some trumpeting of this even before, as whistle- blower protection and protecting informers, and it all sounds very, very, very good, but we have learned, and the citizens have learned over the last eight months, to take another look anytime this Government is saying that they are achieving anything, because they have the capacity to achieve very little for the citizens of this country. They are saying that they are bringing this new section—introducing a new section—to protect informers and defend whistle-blowers in Trinidad and Tobago, and one might want to assume that they have a noble intent in this regard. I think very, very differently. They have made heavy weather of this particular issue, whistle-blower protection, but I believe this is a very sinister administration and they have been seeking to fool the people. On one hand you see them crushing people with an iron fist and on the other hand they are pretending to care for them and love them and treat them nice, and we saw it at Christmas time as well. So on one hand they are putting this clause in place to say they are protecting informers and whistle-blowers in Trinidad and Tobago and on the other hand, do you know what they are doing? They are systematically and deliberately going through our labour force and the workforce 441 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 in Trinidad and Tobago and crushing and dismissing, without cause in many cases, every, and all potential whistle-blowers in this country. We see it happening in the URP. Everyone with some institutional knowledge, persons who have been there for eight months— PROCEDURAL MOTION The Minister of Housing and the Environment (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal): Thank you very much, Member. Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 10(11), I beg to move that the business of the House continue until the completion of the debate on the Motion before us. Question put and agreed to. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT) Dr. A. Browne: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on one hand they are saying they are protecting whistle-blowers and on the other hand, going through our workforce very systematically and crushing and dismissing—[Interruption] Well, it is not just URP, Member for Mayaro. Well, I am not going to trouble you too much because you are a nice guy, but we will talk a little bit about some of your concerns in a little while. That is one area in which they made certain promises to protect people; enhance their benefits; maternity benefits, et cetera; increase your salary, and what has happened? Those persons have been crushed and dismissed, many of those with institutional memory who would have the ability to look at what is happening in the programme now and point out issues like an increase in ghost gangs right across the board. These are the types of whistles we would want being blown; pointing out the issue of a certain religious group from Mucurapo having 20 gangs now to operate under the URP programme. That is what was brought to my attention; very, very serious allegations and you would want persons with some institutional memory who would be able to blow the whistle on the Government and expose what is happening. So they want to protect whistle-blowers with this clause, but on the other hand they are going through the system and really booting out persons who they feel might not be supportive of their political agenda and who might be willing to throw a red flag when they are straying, and you know they stray every single day in the UNC. You see it happening with contract workers right across the service. There is trauma; there is despair; there is disarray in the service right now, especially with regard to public workers of all ministries, including the ministry 442 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] of which I was head. We see it happening in the State media and what occurred there. A potential whistle-blower—a State media worker simply asking questions of the Government. That is all that was happening, and then subjected to a vicious attack in full view of the national public. Then they are saying they will bring a Bill to protect whistle-blowers and informers; ironies and contradictions in the Government’s action. The latest episode—and we see much protestation when 104 citizens of Trinidad and Tobago were summarily dismissed from the Sport Company of Trinidad and Tobago very recently, at all levels of staff, with some very bizarre rationale being offered. 7.45 p.m. These are persons—well it is having an interesting impact now, because you may have had potential whistle-blowers before, but what you have produced now is very real whistle-blowers and some of them are whistling and singing like canaries at this time. On Friday, and in the future, we are going to hear a lot more about that. The Government really is fooling no one when they are triumphaning a measure such as this. The workplace in this country—they want to talk about protecting informers—has never been more political or politicized than it is at this time, under this UNC coalition. That is the reality. That is what they have succeeded in doing between the years 2010 and 2011. We see it now being applied. Sadly, it hurts our hearts to see the permanent secretaries now. You see advisors to Ministers having to put out press releases defending the good name of permanent secretaries, because they are being dragged into this political game that the Government has been playing; trying to excuse their non-performance and failures, and pointing fingers at the hard-working permanent secretaries in this country; shifting them around and blaming them for eight months of failure to deliver on any promise or any vision for this country. So, the permanent secretaries are now implicated in this disarray, and they want to talk about defending informers and protecting whistle-blowers. Those are some of the very first persons to whose attention these matters will fall. We are watching that very carefully. This is a very Machiavellian approach to non-governance in Trinidad and Tobago and that is the UNC’s trademark. That is their DNA. That is their modus operandi. 443 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

What if a permanent secretary—anyway we would not go into that. To get rid of future whistle-blowers, that is the plan; they weed out this service and these institutions, but they also, those actions also serve—look at what is happening at the Sport Company of Trinidad and Tobago—to intimidate staff members who remain behind, because if I step out of line, if I say something untoward, this Government is so heartless, they will get rid of me in a second. It does not matter if I am mid-contract, pre-contract, end of contract or preparing for a contract, they will dismiss me. They do not even have to give a reason and they would give me a letter telling me today is the last day that I am entitled to set foot in my office. That is what has happened to these citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Then they tell us that they care. They will find these families and push a hamper in their hands and snap a picture with them and tell us that it is a caring, delivering, serving government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth in Trinidad and Tobago; toys for their children and so on. These families, the best thing you can do for them is allow them to be employed and to take care of their own families, the breadwinners. They intimidate those who remain behind. Can you imagine, with this scenario, the low level of morale in some of these companies, ministries, institutions and divisions? Imagine the impact on the potential for anyone to draw to the attention of a parliamentarian or the media, wrongdoing in a ministry; I am not saying of a Minister, or any other division. But some of them are talking. One former employee of the Sport Company of Trinidad and Tobago called an Opposition Member recently in tears. The individual was claiming that they were fired after expressing concerns about alleged corruption under the current administration. That is what the person called claiming. The individual said that they were alerted to the fact—listen carefully— that a private company was set up in an area known as D’Abadie/O’Meara. In the geographic area known as D’Abadie/O’Meara, a private company was set up to receive money for the cleaning of the National Stadium, after a notorious concert took place last year. Listen carefully to what this employee is saying. He is saying that this private company that was set up for this purpose, got paid. The company received payment, but they did not clean the stadium, and the employees of the stadium had to come in afterwards and complete the job. There have already been presentations in this House that state funds were put into that project. Taxpayers’ dollars were put into that project. [Interruption] Dr. Moonilal: Mr. Deputy Speaker, a point of order. 444 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dr. A. Browne: What is the point of order? Dr. Moonilal: Standing Order, 36 (1), the Member is being irrelevant. Dr. A. Browne: Could you imagine? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36 (1)— Dr. A. Browne: Come on man, this is a wide open debate. Crazy! That is corruption. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Subject to—[Interruption and crosstalk] could I finish Members? The Member has raised a point of order, Standing Order 36 (1) that says: “Subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 12 (Adjournment—Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance), debate upon any Motion, Bill or amendment shall be relevant to such Motion, Bill or amendment and a Member shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion.” The Member for Diego Martin Central is speaking about corruption as he sees it, so I have to allow the Member to continue. Dr. A. Browne: Amazing. They want to—Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you and I salute you. I will move on. I will not dwell on it—[Interruption] Oh dear. Oropouche, what a blessed place. That is all I have to say. Do not try that again. You cannot try that every day. We are to sit here and—sorry, I would proceed— and listen to all sorts of allegations being made. We are coming here; I am just relaying; I am not imputing improper motives to anyone on this side; I am letting them know. They want to talk about corruption 10, 15 and 20 years. As we speak, these potential informers and whistle-blowers are blowing and informing, and activities are taking place under this particular Government, and they have to sit and listen to it. In this employee’s opinion, this activity, this misuse of state funds was an example of corruption, pure and simple. State funds being put into a particular project. Someone who is acknowledged to be a friend, I heard it at a press conference, a close friend of a very high public official—[Interruption] Mr. Roberts: Standing Order 36 (5). Dr. A. Browne: What is he doing? He is wasting my time now. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36 (5) states: “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.” 445 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara, the Member for Diego Martin Central was not imputing improper motives directly. However, Member for Diego Martin Central, sometimes in speeches one could do an indirect movement. What I would caution is that the Member for—you could point a finger as a third movement, rather than a direct movement. May’s Parliamentary Practice has that in it. I would caution you to—what you are mentioning, I have allowed you enough leeway, but this hearsay what somebody told you and now you are pointing it a little to defined. What I would advise is that you have made your point and could we now move on. Dr. A. Browne: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Chaguanas West is protesting. When he was making hearsay allegations against a Member here—you presented nothing to the House. Come on! Take “yuh” time. We sat here and we listened. Take your time. Mr. Warner: I have the report. Dr. A. Browne: You have what report? What is the name of the report? When was it completed? The Member for Chaguanas West is on another charade as usual; PR specialist. Mr. Warner: Spell charade.

Dr. A. Browne: F-I-F-A. We will proceed. We will not allow him to distract us. He is trying to distract another political party at this time. I will move on. The issue as well, as was pointed out, is that the fees for use at the National Stadium, tied up in this whole issue, estimated at $145,000, was waived. I want you to bear this in mind and we will treat with this again in future, because a lot of information is now coming out, that was not revealed before. That is why we simply are asking on this side for a full audit, with these new revelations, of that particular project and the Prime Minister has not responded so far. I understand officials of the Ministry of Finance have quietly been calling the Sport Company of Trinidad and Tobago at the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs and speaking to the officers there. I do not know if the Minister of Finance—if it is his initiation, I salute him, or if it was—[Interruption] Mr. Roberts: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 36(5). That is in answer to a question from the Member for Diego Martin North/East, so imputing improper motives that there is some audit going on— Dr. A. Browne: What is he talking about? 446 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Roberts: Please! Stop being ridiculous. It is a question on the Order Paper to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, when you said point of order 36(5): “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.” That is what he is saying. I am going over it, Member for Diego Martin Central. Sometimes when, in a debate you can make indirect reference to a Member. What I am asking you is, if you want to stay on that line, to couch it in a different manner. Dr. A. Browne: We have heard the representations. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would allow you one more minute because I took your minute. Dr. A. Browne: All they are asking—I am not imputing anything to any hon. Member—is for the Government to come clean and conduct a full audit on this project. The protestations are very suspicious on the other side, because it is clear that they do not want that to occur. That is the objective. They do not want that to occur and the Prime Minister must speak on this particular issue. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Member’s speaking time be extended by 30 minutes. [Miss M. Mc Donald] Question put and agreed to. Dr. A. Browne: The Attorney General in introducing this Bill, defined corruption as “the dishonest exploitation of power for personal gain, private gain at public expense”. I thought when the Government responded to a question earlier on the Order Paper, the Attorney General might have been struck by the irony of that definition, because we heard presented in this House, an admission of the use of a State vehicle, in my opinion, improper use of a State vehicle, by a public official who was not authorized so to do. We have some simple questions for the Government on this matter. It is very simple. They want to talk about corruption. The Attorney General has defined it as “the exploitation of power for personal gain, private gain at public expense”. In any such case, the question would be: who authorized the use of a State vehicle by any high public official? [Interruption] 447 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Imbert: Mr. Warner said he did. Dr. A. Browne: No, I did not hear him say that. I did not hear the Member for Chaguanas West say he authorized it. We will check the Hansard on that, because that would be another serious question. Who authorized it? Who put fuel in this vehicle? How many times was it driven in this capacity prior to the accident taking place? What are the details? This is State resources. This vehicle was bought with taxpayers’ dollars. Why are these questions causing you pain and trauma? Mr. Imbert: “He do it too.” Dr. A. Browne: Was another vehicle hit? These are relevant points. You want to talk about pianos? Was another hit? Did they hit a bus stop? Did they hit a pedestrian? We need to hear some more information about this. [Interruption] No, no. Have a seat. We need some more details. We want to know from the Government, in their issue of transparency. The Attorney General defined what he is talking about with this Bill. What action is being taken by the Prime Minister in this regard? They themselves made these revelations. Will a report come to Parliament talking about the use of State resources? Someone just sent me a message about the types of results of those types of activities going unaddressed; allegation of a police officer using a police vehicle to give someone driving lessons in Sangre Grande. People, if the Government is going to abuse resources like that, what do you expect from other persons who have access to State vehicles? Who is going to pay the repair cost? Is it John Q Taxpayer? Is it Jane Taxpayer? As far as I am concerned, that fits the definition that the Attorney General presented in this honourable House. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 36(5) once again. To drive— Dr. A. Browne: What is he— Mr. Roberts: Excuse me. Mr. Deputy Speaker: One thing at a time. When somebody raises a point of order the mechanism is such that— 8.00 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just one thing at a time. When a Member raises a point of order, the mechanism is such that the Member who is speaking sits and the 448 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER] Member who raises the point of order would stand and say, “Point of order.” It is left up to the Speaker now to ask, what the point of order is. What is your point of order? Mr. Roberts: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. First and foremost— Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order? Mr. Roberts: Standing Order 36(5). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, so it is Standing Order 36(5). Standing Order 36(5) says: “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.” Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara, the Member for Diego Martin Central really and truly has not directly imputed any improper motives. He is within the parameters of what he is saying. [Desk thumping] Again, I caution the Member to kindly couch your arguments in a manner that does not indirectly impute improper motives, because I would have to rule. I just want you to understand that. Dr. A. Browne: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your ruling, and I am certainly not imputing anything against—I want to make it very clear—the Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara. The DNA of this Government is very clear and their modus operandi is very clear. I have come to the conclusion that they have been underestimating the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. The Government fails to recognize that empty PR and “ol’ talk” with regard to any measure they wish to take is not going to take them through 2011, in the same way that they limped through the year 2010. The citizens of this country have woken up. They have awakened since May last year. The population realizes that they have been hoodwinked, bamboozled and seduced by empty promises, and now those empty promises are becoming broken promises. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this weak Bill is a fig leaf to cover their inability to govern; to cover their undermining of institutions and systems in Trinidad and Tobago; to cover the deceit of senior citizens and junior citizens in this country; to cover their inability to improve our judicial system; and to cover their vicious incompetence when dealing with any challenges associated with life in Trinidad and Tobago. 449 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

When you make false promises to the citizens, you are corrupting the public trust. When a government makes false promises to its citizens, it is corrupting the public trust. This is the highest form of corruption. If you ask any sector in this country how they feel about this Government, they would have a very negative report. If you ask the senior citizens how they feel about this Government they are going to tell you that this is the most corrupt Government in the history of Trinidad and Tobago, and they are the most deceitful Government in the history of Trinidad and Tobago. If you ask the pan men now how they feel about this Government, they would tell you the same thing. If you ask the Clico depositors how they feel about this Government reducing corruption, they would tell you they have no moral authority to talk about corruption; they have no authority to talk about deceit because that is something that they are very good at. Well, do not even ask the maxi-taxi drivers, because they would have a very bitter report. If you ask the trade union leaders in this country, they would tell you this Government is corrupt and deceitful. If you ask the public servants, they are going to tell you the same thing. If you ask the national footballers, they would tell you the same thing; the amateur boxers would tell you the same thing. Sad to say, if you ask some of the COP membership—they are trembling at some of the sounds they are getting from the other side from the louder one—they are also very afraid of this Government. Imagine that! Members of the partnership are afraid of their very Government and some of the real strange activities that some of them are planning. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a very corrupt administration that we are faced with on the other side with a charade, bringing a very weak Bill, a non-functional Bill pretending to be corruption busters. Very sad! This proposal needs to go back to the drawing board. The Government is advised to amend the Integrity in Public Life Act, to strengthen the Integrity Commission, and expand its powers and to stop undermining our independent institutions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, history would record that a few weeks before May 24, 2010, a vicious stinging nettle was planted at a meeting in Fyzabad, and that nettle has grown up and it is now choking the citizens of this country. It is choking our children and it is choking itself, and you are seeing Members choking themselves on the other side; internecine warfare. This Bill, as presented by the Attorney General, will not reduce corruption in any shape or form. Saying this non-functional Bill is going to reduce corruption is like saying cancelling the OPVs will reduce the drug trade. It is like saying 450 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. BROWNE] attacking SAUTT or the SIA will reduce organized crime; it is like saying FIFA is a clean organization; it is like saying that allowing PH drivers to break the law will reduce lawlessness in Trinidad and Tobago; it is like saying firing people left, right and centre will reduce unemployment; and it is like saying that walking in the street and waving at a funeral will reduce disenchantment with your broken Government. The two cannot coexist. You cannot on one hand abuse every sector in this country, and on the other hand pretend that you care and that you are defending them with weak Bills like this. Mr. Deputy Speaker, until this Government sets its own house in order and stops the campaigning and its obsession with the PNM—the Attorney General is clearly a victim of that particular obsession—and stop fighting with itself as well and start governing the country, until that happens, corruption will not be prevented, and sadly in some ways it would be facilitated, and we are seeing examples of that every day. In ending, I would share the words of one calypsonian. We heard what is happening with the Calypso Monarch Competition. I am paraphrasing the words of one of our greatest ever calypsonians: Anywhere you turn somebody chanting to we; Vote for we and we go set you free; Seek inner peace and end all the pain, the same woman promising to go down again. Somebody promise to abolish the tax; [Interruption] Mr. Deputy Speaker, a Member should be heard in silence. I will call a Standing Order on the Member for Lopinot/Bon Air West. Somebody promise to gih we the facts; Dr. Douglas: That is mad man, Patrick Manning. Dr. A. Browne: It continues: Somebody promise to clean up the land, but in this clean land rat still killing man. Somebody clean out the weed well fast; Somebody letting the cocaine pass. 451 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Legislative proposal for the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act: somebody clean out the weed well fast; somebody letting the cocaine pass. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you. CLARIFICATION (MEMBER FOR CHAGUANAS WEST) The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Jack Warner): Mr. Speaker I rise on Standing Order 33(4). Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member for Chaguanas West has risen on Standing Order 33(4). He has indicated to me that he would be doing so. It is a precedent duly set that is going to be set in this House. Standing Order 33(4) says: “A Member who has spoken on a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which he, alleges has been misquoted or misrepresented, but he shall not introduce new matter.” Under this Standing Order, I understand you have at least one minute to do so. Hon. J. Warner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you. The last speaker said that I admitted I had a three-tonne truck in Maraval full of money so as to win the last election. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I never said so. I said, if it is, as has been said, that I had in Maraval a three-tonne truck full of money during the last election then next time I shall have a six-tonne truck so as to remove all of them on that side. I never admitted anything. [Desk thumping] JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT) The Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make just a few comments on this Motion in response to what the Member for Diego Martin North/East said. Whenever the international image of Trinidad and Tobago is put in jeopardy, it is our collective responsibility to be accurate about what we say. In this respect, the Member for Diego Martin North/East raised some alarmist bells regarding the issue of the Financial Intelligence Unit. I thought I would use the opportunity to apprise this House of the situation as it stands, so that we do not allow these unfortunate statements that perhaps would reduce the confidence of people in our country to go unchallenged. It was in 2005 that a mutual evaluation was carried out on Trinidad and Tobago, and its ability to handle issues relevant to the agenda of the financial intelligence community. Of the 16 core principles that had to be complied with, 452 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. W. DOOKERAN] Trinidad and Tobago had not complied with 15. The then government turned a blind eye to these considerations, and for a number of years ignored the need to comply with the requirements that would uphold the standards of financial intelligence in our own country.

It was not until 2009 when the FATF, which is the international body that looks into this matter, held a meeting in Abu Dhabi, to consider blacklisting Trinidad and Tobago, as the Member called it. It was then that the government of the day of which he was a part, hurriedly passed legislation for the establishment of the FIA Act almost at the 99th hour. As a consequence, Trinidad and Tobago was placed on the list of countries described as countries with strategic deficiencies. The term blacklisted really is not appropriate at all, and we never had that term applied to Trinidad and Tobago except in 2005. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Imbert: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have always found the Member for Tunapuna to be a gentleman, and I thank him for giving way. The report on the Financial Action Task Force has Trinidad and Tobago on a list of countries under a general rubric: High risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions. In my book that is a blacklist. [Laughter]

Hon. W. Dookeran: Just for further clarification, that was so since 2005. [Desk thumping and laughter] It was not until 2009 that the Government took the first step in order to deal with that issue, and they then passed the Financial Institutions Act which allowed for the establishment of a body to look into these matters. The non-compliance had to do with three other things. It was related to the issue of the procedures that had to be put into place to enforce the Proceeds of Crime Act; the regulations that were required for the FIU Act and, indeed, the regulations pertaining to financial intelligence; and the operationalization of the FIU. Those were the issues of non-compliance which were defined as issues where there were strategic deficiencies. So when this Government came into office in May 2010, it was clear that the agenda was not being pursued by the previous government to comply with these strategic deficiencies that were identified from 2005 and remained on the books for decision. It was in that context, that this Government began to look very carefully at how it could fulfil the requirements of compliance and the steps that we have taken to do so. 453 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

8.15 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the first instance, on the question of the procedure for the Proceeds of Crime Act to be operationalized by allowing for the freezing and confiscation of assets, a policy document had been prepared within the last three or four months and is now being discussed by the technical people before submission to Cabinet; a full policy document on this matter to deal with the issue within the last four months. In addition to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, regulations of which I made mention, pertaining to the FIU and regulations pertaining to the Anti-terrorism Act were, in fact, prepared, and consultations are currently taking place between the national community, including the Bankers Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the financial institutions in general. And those consultations have been taking place with respect to the regulations that ought to have been put in place some many years ago. We anticipate that those consultations—in fact, the deadline for those consultations was December 11, 2010, and shortly we will get the outcome of those consultations to finalize the regulations pertaining to that second area of deficiency. With respect to the third area of deficiency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which had to do with the FIU and the staffing and making it operational, first of all, I should state that it was correct that Mr. David West was engaged as the director of the FIU, but he was also involved on a retainer basis with the Ministry of the Attorney General. And I was advised that there was, indeed, a breach in spirit of the impartiality and the independence of the FIU in this particular matter. And hence, for reasons that became clear, he was no longer retained. What has happened since then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government began to look in earnest at the issue of staffing of the FIU, and it was on November 18, 2010 that Cabinet approved, or rather, Cabinet approved full regulations pertaining to the FIU on November 18, 2010. And then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Cabinet began to look at the other issues relating to the deficiencies, one of which had to do with the question of filling the vacancies. Cabinet took a decision—and I have the Cabinet information—on November 25 for the staffing of the unit with an Analyst Division, Deputy Director and Director and a number of other positions, and took the decision to start the implementation process, which, as I said, had been left a-begging for many, many years, because what we had had before was a pro tem arrangement. Immediately 454 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. W. DOOKERAN] after such a decision that was taken on November 25, 2010, advertisements were published in the daily newspapers between the dates December 9 and December 17, and interviews began on January 06 and continued as of today and may continue tomorrow as well. I say this, if only to give the assurance to this House, when it comes to the will of dealing with issues pertaining to corruption, this Government stands tall. [Desk thumping] We do not talk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we take the necessary action to put the institutions in place, equip them with the resources and then get them to do the work that is required within the legal framework that has been established. And the Member for Diego Martin North/East gave the impression that we were lax on this issue. If anyone was lax on this issue, it is the Government to which he belonged prior to now. [Desk thumping] Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: Would the Minister give way? Mr. Deputy Speaker, again I thank the Member for Tunapuna. He is a gentleman, unlike the one to his left. Is the Minister of Finance of the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago aware that as of December 2010 a number of foreign financial institutions are no longer willing to support persons resident in Trinidad and Tobago, and no longer willing to open and maintain financial and banking accounts with persons resident in Trinidad and Tobago as of December 2010? Is the Minister aware of that? Hon. W. Dookeran: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will answer this question by letting you know what the status of compliance is. What you are referring to is a non-compliance of those measures that were left a-begging for so long. [Desk thumping] It will appear that some institutions have been looking at that with some concern. But the fact remains that Trinidad and Tobago is not categorized as a non-cooperative country in accordance with the rules of that institution. I can say that. You call it blacklisting. I do not want to use those terms. The actual term is “non-cooperating countries”, and I can say categorically that we do not fall into the category of the non-cooperating country in this respect. [Desk thumping] But there is work to be done, and we must deal with these deficiencies, which, as I said, started in 2005 and became acute in 2009.

As of last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we submitted to the FATF, which is the international body dealing with this matter, an entire plan of action of the steps that we have taken, not only in the three areas that I have identified, but in all the 455 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 various areas that are required to ensure full compliance. And we hope that this matter will be done in an expeditious manner, and in the end we will be able to be categorized as fully compliant. Therefore, the alarmist statements that you have made are without foundation. [Desk thumping] In addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have sought membership in what is called the Egmont Group. The Egmont Group is an international body of members of FIU in the world, and to arrive at that membership, it is also required that we meet certain compliance in a number of areas. We are continuing our work to become eligible for membership in the Egmont Group, and we hope that at the June meeting of the Egmont Group our application, which is being sponsored by some other Caribbean countries, will be considered. We are taking every step that is necessary to have full compliance of all the measures, internationally and locally, legally as well as operationally, so that we can fight this issue of corruption and fight it effectively and fight it all the time and fight it for the next generation as well as this generation. [Desk thumping] So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is important for the Member to acknowledge to himself that these alarmist statements do very little for building confidence in Trinidad and Tobago. These are the facts as they stand. We have work to do; we are about to complete the work for compliance. We know that there are issues to be resolved, and we intend to do so. That is, perhaps, one of the best expressions of what we intend to do to support the intentions of the Act before us to ensure that we provide the necessary legal and institutional powers to deal with the question of corruption. I hope that we have corrected for the community what the state of affairs is, and we will take immediate steps to be fully compliant as soon as we have done our work in the areas I have pointed out. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Desk thumping] Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg your leave to invoke Standing Order 33(4). The Member has referred to statements made by me, and in accordance with Standing Order 33(4) I wish to offer an explanation of a material part of my speech which has been misrepresented. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Your explanation could be one minute long. Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Tunapuna has said that my statements with the effect that Trinidad and Tobago has been placed on a list of high-risk and non-cooperating countries is inaccurate and alarmist. I wish to read into the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will not be able to read all of the parts of this letter, but the material parts. 456 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The thing about utilizing 33(4) is that where you are misquoted—[Interruption]—no, no, no, no, but you cannot introduce new material. You follow what I am saying? So if you are going to read that into the record, you did not do it before, that is new material, which you cannot do. But you can say you were misquoted and how, based on the—but you cannot introduce new material. Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is inaccurate for the Member for Tunapuna to state that my statement of fact, my truthful statement that Trinidad and Tobago is now on a list of countries that cannot be supported by financial institutions—that is what I said. Mr. Deputy Speaker: He has misquoted you? Mr. Imbert: Yes. Mr. Deputy Speaker: You just clarified it. Next. All right, finish it off. You have twenty seconds. Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply wish to reiterate, I spoke the truth, and my statements were not alarmist, they were factual, and can be supported by documentary evidence. Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey (La Brea): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, corruption is the abuse of public office for personal or group gain or for other illegal or immoral benefit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, corruption is not only stealing from the public purse, it is not only favouring a people over another, but it also has to do with the depriving of a people of their just due. If we are going to talk about the prevention of corruption, then we need to look at a holistic view of corruption. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to quote from the guru of the last Opposition in his budget contribution in 2010. And he said: “What is required is not increases in penalties...these fines must be viewed for what they are; a desperate attempt by a Government on the ropes to grab money from anywhere possible to fund its squandermania.” We have heard from this Government for the past seven months, not a single way of how they are going to raise revenue, except by bringing legislation, draconian legislation, and trying to raise revenue. In Part VI of the Bill we see fines ranging from $500,000 to $1.5 million. That is how they intend to raise revenue in this country. 457 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker, more than that, in the whole question of squandermania we see a classic example in the situation with the hampers. One point three million was allocated for the hampers. Each constituency was supposed to receive 50 hampers. The average cost of a hamper that we received was $300. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 12 constituencies controlled by the PNM, each receiving 50 hampers at $300, will give you $180,000. If you take that $180,000 from the $1.3 million, it leaves you with $1,120,000, to be shared among 29 controlled constituencies of the UNC. That would work out to roughly about $850,000 or so per hamper.

Now, if, in fact, the 12 PNM-controlled constituencies got hampers valued $300, why should the 29 constituencies of the People’s Partnership get over $772.00 per hamper. That is corruption. [Desk thumping] If, in fact, the hampers they received were valued $300 it meant that more than 50 persons of the People’s Partnership constituencies got hampers. That could never be right in this country. That is inequitable as far as we are concerned. We see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, other examples of this kind of violation. But I want to turn a bit to my own little constituency in La Brea to show you how the corruption operates. In 1995 Mississippi Chemicals was destined for La Brea. There was a change in government, and what did they do? Mississippi Chemicals was diverted from La Brea to Point Lisas. That is corruption as well, where you are depriving a people to favour another. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is an example of corruption. My people in the La Brea constituency see the distribution of houses. And I will just call two names, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Betty from Three Hands, La Brea and Elizabeth from Nelson Street in La Brea, whose homes were destroyed by fire. Countless letters were written to the Ministry, both the Ministry of Housing and the Environment as well as HDC, asking for assistance for these people to get homes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, sadly, nothing; nothing, nothing, nothing. But the slightest thing that happens in one of the People’s Partnership-controlled constituency, houses are distributed. That is another example of blatant corruption in this country. [Desk thumping] Recently we heard about a UWI Campus going to Debe, and I salute the people of Debe for getting a UWI Campus. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the humble question: a UTT Campus was destined for Point Fortin, place earmarked already for the campus; government changed, and we hear now, no UTT Campus for Point Fortin but UWI Campus for Debe. That is corruption. [Desk thumping] The People’s National Movement will go on record as establishing the Point Lisas 458 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MR. JEFFREY] Industrial Estate in the heartland of the Opposition. You know why? Because we believe that everybody in Trinidad and Tobago deserves a good share of the pie. But, the UNC government, and sad to say the People’s Partnership also is demonstrating a similar scenario. I want to go to the situation with the Union Industrial Estate. It hurts, because we see the shifting of the goal post. Initially, they say no smelter on health grounds. As soon as facts were brought forward showing that the health and environmental issues are no longer valid, they came with natural gas. How the natural gas—[Interruption] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am asking for protection from the Member for Lopinot/Bon Air West. He is disturbing me. [Desk thumping] Mr. Deputy Speaker, no sooner than we showed them that the gas usage was minimal, they jumped on the whole question—they come with the economic argument, and we hear “No smelter”. What was done basically is the abuse of office. It is the abuse of office to deprive the people of La Brea of their just due. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we see only too well the whole question of a red herring being distributed. They are telling us about polypropylene to plastic; they tell us about glass factory and photovoltaic complex, shipbuilding and iron trans- shipment port. What we are saying here is this, another example of the corruption. In other words, giving us the impression that we are going to get that, when, in fact, we know that if this Government remains in power until 2015, not a stake will be driven at the Union Industrial Estate. We need to understand that in Trinidad and Tobago—this country of ours, this country we love—we must not only talk about equity and so on, we must practice it. We heard about the new politics and for a moment I felt good; new politics. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know the whole question about putting new wine into old wine skins. We know that problem. I want us to understand that we have a tremendous obligation in the question of corruption to really and truly weed out corruption. But, how are we going to weed out corruption if, in fact, we are practising otherwise? The Member for Diego Martin North/East went at length to show you some of the shortcomings of the Bill, and I will not repeat some of the shortcomings that he has identified, except to say that we on this side support legislation that will put the lid on corruption. But, Deputy Mr. Speaker, we cannot duplicate what is already in place. The Integrity in Public Life Act is already doing a fantastic job in this scenario, and to put this Bill before us again is really and truly to cause mass 459 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 confusion. There is a saying that the man who invented the rifle was himself killed by the rifle. The very aspect of the legislation is going to come back to haunt some of those, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or their friends on the opposite side. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the whole idea of—let me get it, Mr. Deputy Speaker— in Part III, 5A(1): “The Chief Commissioner or any officer of the Commission, authorized in writing, by the Chief Commissioner may investigate any person holding public office where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that that person— (a) maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past known sources of income or assets;” Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder who is to determine what is reasonable. I also want to put on the table, what about a man, for example, who was involved in the drug trade 20 years ago, and, maybe because of the loss of a daughter, has given up the drug trade and goes into a legitimate business like a supermarket, and he starts to earn surplus income, and he starts to maintain a particular lifestyle. Who is going to investigate that person, and from what level? In other words, if we say, for example, that on past known sources; how far back are we going to use to determine past? Is it going to be 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940, 1990, 2000? Mr. Deputy Speaker, we need some clarification in this whole scenario. And so, I want to ask this House that this Bill be withdrawn, and if we want to strengthen the Integrity in Public Life Act this is the way I say to go, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move. I thank you. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Hon. Dr. Surujrattan Rambachan): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I make my contribution, allow me to take this opportunity to extend thanks on behalf of my Ministry, and in particular of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the hon. Prime Minister to the hon. Speaker of the Parliament for all the facilities extended to us during the period of mourning, when the body of the late Sir Ellis Clarke lay in the rotunda. And in particular, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute also to the Marshal of the Parliament, who, with his staff, did a yeoman’s job to make sure that everything went as Sir Ellis and his family would have liked it to go. Thank you very much. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in contributing to this Bill here today, which really seeks to do a couple of important things: the establishment of the anti-corruption commission, the creation of a new offence of illicit enrichment, the provision that 460 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] makes it an offence for a person to fraudulently deprive the State of revenue to which it is entitled, a provision aimed at containing transnational bribery, which is so important in a global, or so relevant in terms of the global trade and global business, a provision for the protection of whistle-blowers, an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act, to provide for the making of confiscation for future seizure, restraint and charging orders in respect of bribes or illicit enrichment derived from an act of corruption. Let me just say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I heard comments made about whistle-blowers coming from the other side. In the private sector and in private business, organizations, companies, are, on a daily basis, introducing policies on whistle-blowing. In fact, it is part of the new ethical drive of organizations to conduct their business on ethical foundations, that they are actually introducing whistle-blowing policies in the company. 8.45 p.m. So to suggest that whistle-blowing is not part of the culture or growing in terms of the culture of business is not correct at all. Mr. Imbert: Which business is encouraging anonymous complaints? Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: In Trinidad and Tobago, there are companies that have set up policies on whistle-blowing. It is not for me to call the names of those companies, but there are companies in Trinidad that have policies on whistle- blowing in order to protect people. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I heard from the other side several statements being made about the Government not doing anything, about people not trusting the Government and what have you. If you notice very carefully, there is a concerted attempt to create fear in this country, and it has been coming in little pieces and little snipes. For example, it is coming in terms of there is going to be a devaluation in the country, when there is no devaluation, and which the Minister of Finance has made a categorical statement about. [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: What is wrong with you? It is slipping every day. It is devalued already. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, they talk about business in this country. I did not hear British Gas or BP or any of these companies or Repsol locking up shop and leaving this country. What I do know is that, under the tenure of the previous government, several companies folded up or did not even enter into the businesses which were announced by that government of that time. For example, what has happened to Essar Steel? What has happened to the 461 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 polypropylene to plastics project? What happened to the Ansa McAl UAN project? What happened to Mittal Steel during the time they were in office? Did Mittal Steel not shut down and there were certain threats to the continuation of that business? There is a whole list that you can provide, better than I can, about companies and businesses which you said were going to come to La Brea and all over that never materialized in 2009. Why? Why did those people pull out? Was it because they did not trust you? Why is it they pulled out? But I know where I sit in my Ministry that certain things are happening in the country that are going to be to the benefit of this country. I know, for example, that Ghana is talking to Trinidad and Tobago in order to get into business with Trinidad and Tobago in order to develop their rich oil and gas industries that have been discovered in Ghana. I know, for example, that Panama is negotiating now with Trinidad and Tobago a partial scope agreement which will allow products from Trinidad and Tobago to have preferential treatment in Panama, especially in the context of the construction sector that is now flourishing in Panama, and in terms of asphalt and cement, and also construction materials that are produced in Trinidad and Tobago. I know that the Vice Foreign Minister of Japan came here a couple of weeks ago and decided and told us that we must prepare to receive an investment mission from Japan. I know that people from Nigeria came here and asked us to get into the education of people there. I know that all of these things are happening and I know that more of that is happening. I know that under your time in your administration, people were not bidding for blocks out there to drill, but I know that under this Minister of Energy and under this People’s Partnership Government, several companies have bid and further bids are taking place for deep water in February. I know all of this, so to tell me that people do not trust this Government and to tell me that things are not happening for this Government is really unreal. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are saying that this Government has not achieved or this Government is not doing anything. The point has been made on this side, and made several times, that had there been more efficiency and had there been less corruption during the last eight years, we would have had money to do a lot of things in this country. We are still saddled by an unopened Tarouba stadium that has cost nearly a billion dollars. We are still saddled with that. Can you imagine 462 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] what could have been done with those funds? I could go on and on to show you all the cost overruns that took place on several projects in this country. If there was proper management of it, these things would not have happened. Mr. Jeffery: Piarco. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: But at the same time, you are saying we are not doing things, but if I may, this Government is utilizing resources in a manner that satisfies the needs of the people in this country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is this Government that moved the minimum wage from $9.00 to $12.50 so that a person can at least get $100 a day flat when he works in Trinidad and Tobago. As I say that, I want to say that there are companies in Trinidad that need to be told that they must pay the minimum wage and they must not reduce the number of hours that people are working because the minimum wage has been increased. I am sure the Minister of Labour will in time investigate and see what those companies are doing, because ours is an attempt to improve the lives of workers and to improve them to a new level in terms of the quality of life that they will achieve with this new minimum wage. I do not want to repeat it but I will. The establishment of the Children’s Life Fund is now going to give a lifeline to children; especially the children of poor families. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Tabaquite, I know you are in full flight, but what I would just like to do is bring the topic back on to corruption; because if we open up the debate on achievements, it will just keep going out of hand. Just kind of keep it to the Bill in question, please. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: I will have to talk. Mr. Imbert: But are you not going to talk, Paula? Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to show you and show the House and the national population that this Government, because it is dealing with reducing corruption, and intends to deal more so, will have additional money to do all these things that were not done by the previous Government and could not have been done because they were not concentrating on the needs of the people and they were not effectively and efficiently managing the resources of this country, leading to wastage. Because all of these things were not being done, and therefore, people were suffering for the roads, water, lights and the hospitals, and what have you, all because of the result of corruption in society. 463 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker, corruption unchecked could lead to the wholesale takeover of a government and a country. The threat that corruption poses to societal stability is unmistakable. Corruption diverts resources that would otherwise be directed towards the poor and the needy in this society. These resources are unjustly channelled into the pockets of corrupt individuals who do not want for the basic necessities of life while there are other people who need those basic necessities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of the People will tell you that there are about 20 per cent of the people in this country who are poor and living under the poverty line, and every time you save a dollar by corruption, you will be able to buy a loaf of bread or a couple of “hops bread” in order to feed someone who is poor in this country. Corruption undermines the institutions of society, particularly when it involves the suborning of public officials. Institutions that form the bedrock of society, such as the Judiciary, the protective services and the public, are undermined by corruption, and the society and its mores, its values, becomes victim of nonviolent but insidious assault. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to point out the importance of this anti-corruption commission and the importance of ensuring that this particular Bill is passed; but I want to say that whereas the former government would just railroad legislation or do things without consultation, this Government, although it has a clear majority, has come before the House with this Bill, and in the Motion had said it will go to a joint select committee and the widest consultation will take place. If that is not adhering to the hallmarks of democracy and freedom to be involved to contribute, then what is? Mr. Deputy Speaker, over 17 years ago, during the first Summit of the Americas in 1994, hemispheric leaders acknowledged the existence of rampant corruption, and, consequently, a commitment was made to address the issue of corruption through a hemispheric multilateral instrument. It was this commitment that bore fruit through the adoption of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption on March 29, 1996. As the Attorney General in his presentation said, Trinidad and Tobago signed and ratified the Inter-American Convention on April 15, 1998, and Trinidad and Tobago also signed the UN Convention against Corruption on December 11, 2003 and ratified it three years later on May 31, 2006. So having signed both 464 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] Conventions, Trinidad and Tobago signalled to the international community its general agreement with the policy to weed out corruption, and having ratified both Conventions, Trinidad and Tobago, therefore, indicated its willingness to be bound on the international plane to those obligations it had freely assumed. It is important to note this, because, when you make a commitment to the international community and when you sign these conventions, your integrity as a country is held in question until you fulfil the obligations and the responsibilities that endow upon you as a result of those signatures. Failure, therefore, to enact implementing legislation may be regarded by other state parties as paying lip service to the principles which the Conventions espouse, demonstrating scant regard to the obligations that Trinidad and Tobago has committed itself to fulfil. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are certain benefits of the Conventions, and we must see this Prevention of Corruption amendment in the context of what I am about to say. The Inter-American Convention lays the groundwork for cooperation between states in the battle against corruption. Similarly, the United Nations Convention lists as one of its stated objectives, and I quote, “to promote, facilitate and support international cooperation and technical assistance in the prevention of and fight against corruption, including in asset recovery.” Further, the UN Convention sets out elaborate provisions for the collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, both Conventions create a wide network of cooperation between like-minded states who want to be seen to be cooperating in the struggle. You see, international cooperation is necessary, given the globalized society in which we live, and in which we do business; and if we want to be a player in a globalized world, if we want Trinidad and Tobago to be among the global players and to be respected in the global community, then we must adhere to the Conventions and the responsibilities which endow upon us as a result of signing those Conventions. We must not allow our country and the people of our country to be marginalized. We must not allow this country to be seen in any negative light, but we must be there where the action is, and doing what is right in the interest of the integrity of Trinidad and Tobago and the self-esteem of the people of this country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, crime, including white collar crime, crosses borders. International cooperation ensures that states are in a better position to combat that 465 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 scourge. This is why the hemisphere and the rest of the world recognize corruption to be a problem that requires concerted action by states acting in defence of shared values. Inability to access the international network of cooperation established by the Convention impairs the ability of a state to combat corruption. You cannot combat corruption only within your own boundaries. Because of the globalized world and because of the transnational borders and because of the way business is conducted, you need the cooperation of states, other states, to combat corruption. If a state’s ability to prevent corruption or prosecute perpetrators of corruption is impaired, local and international perception of the existence of corruption is likely to mushroom.

9.00 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, reference was made earlier to Transparency International, and Transparency International has stated that over time, perceptions have proven to be a reliable estimate of corruption. There are three countries that I would like to refer to in terms of Transparency International, two from the Caribbean and Trinidad and Tobago. The country that is rated No. 3 in terms of global competitiveness according to the global index 2009/2010 is Singapore; Trinidad and Tobago is rated 86th out of 133 countries in terms of the global competitiveness index— mind you, we have gone up six points from 2008/2009—and Barbados that does not have the resources we have is rated 44th out of 133 countries. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the People’s Partnership Government intends to attract the best foreign investment in Trinidad and Tobago in order to create jobs, in order to create an economic future for this country and to make sure that our people have the best quality of life. But how do you explain that in Trinidad and Tobago, in terms of institutions? The global competitiveness index showed that we are rated 81st out of 133 countries in terms of its diversion of public funds. The diversion of public funds, do you know what that means? It means that funds that are set out for purposes are not used for those purposes. Secondly, we are rated 65th out of 133 because of irregular payments and bribes, and we are rated 77th because of favourtism in decisions of Government officials. What motivates favourtism? Favourtism is motivated by self-interest. Favourtism is motivated by self-interest in one way or the other. So public 466 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] officials tend to be motivated by self-interest which includes taking a bribe or other things, and that places us 77th out of 133 countries. If I may go down one more, business cost of crime and violence, we are rated 131st out of 133 countries. We are at the bottom of the list. Unethical behaviour of firms, we are rated 61st out of 133, but if you compare that to Barbados in terms of diversion of public funds, they are rated 23rd out of the 133 countries. They are way on top. Irregular payments and bribe, they are rated 28th. Favouritism of decisions of Government officials, they are rated 31st. Ethical behaviour of firms, they are rated at No. 20. Compared to us who are in the 60s, 70s and the 80s out of 133, that cannot be right for our country, and for our image. This is the global competitiveness index which is used by investors and which is used by other countries in order to want to do business with you, in order to establish bilateral relations with you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that light, you will begin to understand why it is so important for us to deal with crime as a whole, but in particular, with white-collar crime. White-collar crime and blue-collar crime tend to go hand in hand. Very often it is said, “If the priest could play who is me?”, but when people see white- collar crime in a society and people are getting away because of white-collar crime, the blue-collar crime “fella” says, “Well, I am going to do too”, what happens to the society? The entire society loses its morality and its value system and what have you. This score of Transparency International compared to the global competitiveness index—which is, Transparency International is another score—a current ranking of 73rd has detrimental indications for the reputation of the country for good governance, as well as for investment projects and I will show you why.

In the 2009 Transparency International Annual Report—this was published world-wide; countries reports are published world-wide—it gives in my view, a very bad impression of Trinidad and Tobago. One of the things that the People’s Partnership Government has sought to do in the selection of members of boards and chairmen of boards, is to ensure that we do not have overlapping directorates, because that can prove to be a recipe for corruption. The document records and says as follows: “Overlapping directorships: an invitation for conflicts of interest— With the relatively small entrepreneurial pool operating in Trinidad and Tobago, it is not uncommon for individuals to serve simultaneously in 467 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

multiple leadership positions at various public and private institutions. While this is perhaps inevitable in a country with just over 1 million residents, a recent case”—which they go on to detail—“highlights a growing concern that, when not properly regulated, overlapping directorships leave state resources and private shareholder equity vulnerable to allegations of manipulation and insider dealings” The case is recorded here and I want to read it for you because it is important to go back to it. I quote: “In March 2007 the company Stone Street Capital paid TT $110 million (US $17.8 million) for over 40 per cent of the shares of Home Mortgage Bank (HMB), which is partly owned by the state. At the time of the purchase, Stone Street Capital co-owner André Monteil was chairman of both HMB and the privately-owned Colonial Life Insurance Company (CLICO) Investment Bank…” Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am quoting from the 2009 Transparency International Annual Report, Country reports: Americas,—Trinidad and Tobago. The propriety of the purchase was called into question during a parliamentary debate on April 2007, when a Member of the Opposition questioned whether Monteil’s leadership positions with all these three companies involved, created a conflict of interest or led to insider trading. Monteil’s role as treasurer of the ruling party, the People’s National Movement, further called the ethics of the purchase into question. It goes on to say that: “Whereas even a few years earlier the purchase might not have been legal, legislative changes in 2005 and 2007 paved the way for the sales. The case was further complicated”—I am quoting—“by suggestions that financing for the private purchase of HMB shares was supported by public funds.” In 2007, a Member of the Opposition alleged that in February of that year, Clico Investment Bank accepted a deposit of TT $100 million from the Housing Development Corporation. Monteil was chairman of both institutions. Because the deposits occurred within a matter of weeks before Clico sold HMB shares to Monteil’s Stone Street Capital, some speculated that the HDC deposit to Clico Investment Bank gave the bank sufficient liquidity to be able to lend Monteil’s Stone Street the money to pay for the HMB shares. Transparency International said and I quote: 468 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] “Both events led to review of the purchase by government oversight bodies, but little has been uncovered. The Ministry of Finance discovered no evidence of wrongdoing in the sale of HMB shares and the Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission found the sale did not violate the Securities and Exchange Act, because HMB was not listed on the country’s stock exchange. Additionally, the Central Bank concluded that the trade met the conditions established by the revised Home Mortgage Bank Act. The prime minister”—who was Mr. Manning—“brushed off suggestions of impropriety surrounding the HDC deposit to CLICO Investment Bank, stating that it was a short-term deposit of the TT $60 million (US $9.8 million) made only to earn interest.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Transparency International said and I quote:

“Although no illegal activity was uncovered, leading PNM members conceded that the transaction undermined the integrity of the institutions concerned. The prime minister emphasised his displeasure with the purchase and noted that HMB, as an institution established by statute, had to meet higher standards of corporate governance and best-practice principles. Arguing that the original intention of the amendments to the Home Mortgage Bank Act to create wider public ownership of HMB had been undermined by Stone Street Capital’s massive purchase of shares, Manning referred the case to the commissioner of police, the Integrity Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. He further reassured parliament that the government, with the guidance of the central bank, would introduce legislation to ensure that the shares are re-transferred at the same price the shares were transferred in the first place. He also confirmed that legislation would be introduced to prohibit similar transactions from occurring again.” Now, Transparency International did not stop there. They said: “Although the prime minister assured lawmakers that revised legislation would be introduced before November 2007 general election, it was only November 2008 that the Financial Institutions Bill was brought before parliament. In the same month—” November 2008— “the promised ‘re- transfer’ of shares took place when HMB’s board of directors approved the National Insurance Board’s acquisition of 7 million HMB shares held by Stone Street Capital. Along with the re-transfer of the shares, HMB confirmed in a statement that Monteil has resigned as chairman and director of the bank. 469 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

This news” —said Transparency International— “came as a surprise to the country, which had been led to believe that Monteil had resigned in May 2007.” Then comes the next paragraph.

“A junior finance minister claimed in the Trinidad Guardian that, even weeks after the initial sale of the shares, neither the government nor the HMB board of directors had been aware of the transaction. Despite this lack of transparency, and allegations of insider trading, control bodies have declined to investigate the role of the private sector actors in the transaction or are moving very slowly in the process. In June 2008 the police confirmed that the case remains under investigation by the Anti-corruption Investigations Bureau, though no findings have been forthcoming. Such treatment gives credibility to the suggestions of one parliamentarian that Monteil’s ranking among the ruling party effectively exempted him from government scrutiny.” Anti-Corruption Commission, tell me if it is not necessary? Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was Monday, February 01, 2010 that Dr. Shafeek Sultan-Khan made statements—and this is from the Trinidad Express—about WASA, and a former Public Utilities Minister, Ganga Singh is quoted as saying that the level of corruption identified at WASA by chairman, Dr. Shafeek Sultan- Khan, is an indictment on the performance of the four Cabinet ministers who had responsibility for it since 2002. We go again. You talk about corruption and the need for this Bill. The Gafoor’s Commission of Enquiry. Saturday, June 22, 2007, Anna Ramdass: “Hell in Health: Manning refers commission report to DPP and police”. Hon. Member: When was that? Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: 2007. I will give you the date again, 2007. I am making a case why we need to focus on this Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, 2011, and to establish in it the four or five things that the Bill said, that were said at the beginning. I want to read for you this report from the Express: “The state of health care is in such a mess that it is to be probed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Commissioner of Police and the Integrity Commission.” 470 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] 9.15 p.m. The article in the Express continued: “In laying the 'Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Operation and Delivery of Public Health Care Services in Trinidad and Tobago'...in Parliament yesterday, Prime Minister Patrick Manning said: 'In view of some of the allegations contained in the report and for the purpose of further transparency I propose to send a copy of the report of the commission to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of Police and the Integrity Commission.” What has happened to the Gafoor Report? Had there been an anti-corruption commission, would this report have been put under the table? Would it have been drowned in the waters of Cedros, Member for Point Fortin, where you come from, or Westmoorings where you live? [Laughter] Would it have been drowned there? Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to correct the Member for Tabaquite and to let him know that my address is also 130 Bernadette Drive in Point Fortin. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Do you have any other address, if I may ask? [Laughter] There were some serious allegations made in this Gafoor Report. The commission wanted a forensic audit to be conducted with five regional health authorities by an independent external auditor, in conjunction with the Auditor General's Department, since the commission had found discrepancies and irregularities in the operations of the RHAs. She wanted an investigation into allegations of corruption, nepotism and mismanagement in the engineering and dental departments of the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex, where there had been alleged misappropriation of valuable equipment and large sums of money. That was why people could not get service. That was why we used to hear about private clinics doing all the private things and that the Eric Williams Medical Complex could not serve people, they had to come back, and equipment was missing. She even wanted an investigation into recruitment and selection practices at the Port of Spain General Hospital and the San Fernando General Hospital, because even then that commission of enquiry probably saw that plenty was wrong with the way people were being recruited, that there, perhaps, was 471 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 discrimination in the form of recruitment. Mr. Deputy Speaker, nothing happened it seemed. Would something have happened if we had the Anti-corruption Commission in place? Would something have happened? Illicit gain may benefit an individual, but it undermines a society. Trinidad and Tobago, as a party to the conventions I referred to, has to put the necessary structures in place to give full and vigorous effect to the obligations it assumed, both in 1998 under the UNC, when it signed and ratified the Inter- American Convention and in 2006 when the PNM ratified the UN Convention. You have a responsibility, so when you stand on that side and say, “We are not supporting this Bill,” you are telling me that you went to the global community, you went to the international community, you went to the UN and said, “We are signing this convention and committing,” but today you are singing a different tune. Where is the integrity in that? Integrity is when you close gap between what say you are going to do and what you do. It is closing the gap and bringing it together. It seems to me that there is a divergence in what you are doing. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is not here today, because April 23, 24 and 25 were tremendous days in this Parliament. That was when the current Leader of the Opposition was booted out as a minister and when he assumed a seat on the Back Bench. He was treated with very, very scant courtesy; he was ridiculed and called a “wajang”. His nose was rubbed in dust. [Interruption] What is getting you so angry, Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West? Mrs. McIntosh: How long would you go on with this? Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Hold on, hold on; do not get vex; cool it Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West. Do not get riled up; your heart will race too much. There is only one doctor here and he is a gynaecologist; he is not a heart specialist, so you have to be careful. [Laughter] The headline of the Newsday, a story by Carol Matroo of April 24: “Former Trade and Industry Minister Dr Keith Rowley last night said his concern over the way the state-owned Urban Development Corporation...was conducting its business, was the contributing factor to his dismissal from Cabinet by Prime Minister Patrick Manning.” Today, we know all about Calder Hart, but let us give Dr. Rowley his due. He stood up and said, “I am not agreeing with how UDeCott conducting its business.” 472 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] He told reporters, and I am quoting from the Newsday: “...he had issues with Udecott since he was Planning and Development in the last PNM administration and recently objected to plans by the company, chaired by Canadian-born Calder Hart, to construct a 60-room hotel on the Princes Building Grounds in Port-of-Spain as part of the performing arts academy, which is currently under construction.

Rowley also said he had taken steps to have Cabinet stop UDeCott from taking part in the housing programme when he was Housing Minister.” All of that is fine; let us go to a couple days later, May 07, election time. This is Dr. Rowley, one of yours, your leader; a man whom the country began to admire; they said, “This man stood for something, you know.” We all applauded him. Is that not so, Member for Chaguanas West? We said that the man stood for something. We were looking up and saying, “Hey, listen, there are people in this country who have values”. There are people in this country who stand for morality and integrity.” Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West, that is the thing you teach your children in the schools. But now you sit on the same Bench. You better listen even more carefully to what I have to say. On May 07, the same Newsday: “I’m a PNM sailor.” Anybody remembers that? You want to hear what he said? “PNM Diego Martin West candidate Dr. Keith Rowley last night attempted to reconcile his stance on corruption in the PNM with his continued support of his party in the 2010 general election campaign by arguing that ‘when a ship goes out to battle that is no time to throw the captain overboard’.” So what you do with the corruption? Dr. Tim Gopeesingh: Back pedalling! Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: That kind of comparison does not exonerate you from supporting corruption. If the corruption is there and one day you said it was there, then how come the next day for your own self-interest and probably a grab for power, you say that “I am a PNM sailor”?

“‘There is a political ship called the MV PNM, and as a sailor, when your ship goes into battle, that is no time to throw the captain overboard.’ 473 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

‘I am a sailor on the PNM ship and I know what my duty is and it does not matter what shape the ship is in, do not give up the ship.’” If Dr. Rowley becomes the Prime Minister and he has to protect the government and people on his side who are involved in corruption, you tell me he is going to compromise his own integrity, like he did here, for the sake of political expediency? That is what you guys are saying. That is what 12 hon. Members on the other side are saying. I know that the Chief Whip does not agree with that kind of behaviour, because she is of a different cut. [Laughter] I know she is uncomfortable to reflect and see that was really what happened. I am serious; I have a lot of respect for her. [Crosstalk] What I am showing you is why nothing happened with corruption and why all of them are of the same cut, same ilk, protecting each other. So one day it is good to say, “There is corruption,” but the next day, “Look out, you know, I have a chance to go back and be a minister.” Dr. Gopeesingh: One big happy, corrupt family. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is that one big corrupt family? Member for Point Fortin, I do not think you want to be part of any corrupt family. You are not, so cut yourself away from them. Which side do you want to be placed, on this side or that? Dr. Gopeesingh: You should never have joined them. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: On May 08, the headline was another one, and I want the Member for Port of Spain North to hear this:

“Rowley drops UdeCott talk At his constituency rally...”—quoting from the Newsday—“Dr. Keith Rowley failed to address a series of issues involving corruption in the Government, which have caused deep concern nationally and for which he was made to pay a high political price.” That is why we are here and you are there. [Desk thumping] Mr. Warner: Forever and ever. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: You talk about trust, confidence and integrity. It is things like this behaviour by the PNM that undermines the country's perception of your integrity and the country's perception of your trustworthiness. Therefore, 474 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. S. RAMBACHAN] they divorced themselves from you and gave this People's Partnership a commanding mandate to come and clean up the mess in this country, as we intend to do. That is why we are here today, after all these years, to bring this Bill. So, Mr. Deputy speaker, when we save, as a result of this Bill, in terms of corruption, we will be able to do what is necessary in this country, like dealing with the Navet trunk main: Twenty-nine kilometres of water main promised by the PNM since 2005, but never done, which is being done now in the interest of people. We will be able to do as we are doing, providing laptops for Form I students, which is more than a manifesto pledge. The Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West can say what she wants to say as an hon. Member, but let me tell you a little story. I went into my constituency of Tabaquite to a really very modest home, where the father in that house is a simple agricultural worker and they have four children going to school. One child got the laptop. The mother came outside and said to me, “I want you to thank the hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Education,” and I knew where she was coming from. At that time I did not know there were four children in the house. One child got the laptop, but even the Form V child was using it in the home. So you did not empower one child, you empowered the family. So scoff at it as much as you want. Maybe you could buy 10 computers for your children. Hon. Member: Aristocrat! Mr. Warner: Ten pianos. [Interruption] Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30 minutes. [Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh] Question put and agreed to. Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we deal with corruption. It is very important that we save money in this country. Look at the things we are going to be doing and we have started doing. Because we are going to be dealing with corruption, saving money and becoming a more efficient Government, the Ministry of the People and Social Development has been able to announce that housing grants to purchase building materials for the construction and repair of homes went up by $5,000, from $10,000 to $15,000. That is a 50 per cent increase in a housing grant. Household items went up; that is if you get burnt out and you want to purchase furniture and appliances. It went from $4,500 to 475 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

$6,000, a 33 per cent increase. The medical equipment grant, in order for persons to receive wheelchairs, commodes or special beds, went up from $6,000 to $7,500. That is a 25 per cent increase. The domestic help grant, part-time domestic help for three months, to help people when they come out of hospital and they cannot take care of themselves, from $1,600 to $1,800 for a three- to six- month period. Funeral grants went up from $3,450 to $7,000. We intend to do more of this, because we are going to save money when we have integrity and honesty in the conduct of public business. The Member for Chaguanas West made a good statement. He said it cost an additional 10 per cent to do business in Trinidad and Tobago because of corruption. We know of people who are called the “10 percenters” in this country. Mr. Warner: “Look them there.” Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: Have we forgotten Lock Joint? Let us go back to that day. It comes down from a line. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can go on. The housing assistance grant for houses affected by natural disasters; there was an increase to $20,000 from $10,000, a 100 per cent increase. Why did you all not do that? Why did you not take care of people in doing these things? 9.30 p.m. You talk about piano, he is right, what about: where are the priorities? Where are the priorities? We talk about savings, cost overruns on all of these big buildings on the waterfront and so on, what are they bringing back to the country by way of revenue? [Interruption] I have no problem being in it, you know why? Because I am saving rent—all the rents you all were renting all over the place but you intended to do something else there, that failed, but we are going to occupy it and save rent for this country and use that rent for the benefit of the people and empower the quality of life of the people in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think he is making a very erroneous statement, because a number of high-rise buildings were done in the vicinity of the waterfront and several of them—the government campuses were in fact to house government ministries for that very same thing, to avoid exorbitant rent. So I think your statement is quite erroneous, and many of you are filing into those very tall buildings which we have built for that same purpose. Miss Hospedales: That is right! 476 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: And we are using them. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Yes, but speak the truth! Hon. Dr. S. Rambachan: And we are using them, but the problem is you have to ask another question, was that the priority of the people in the country when that was done or whether other priorities should have been given interest too? Was it somebody on an ego trip that went into the building of big buildings? Ego trip into the big buildings and did not care? [Interruption] Let us look at the Tarouba stadium again; go back to that, $900 million, $1 billion, and today you have 200,000 people who cannot eat in the country properly. Is that what—speak reality if you want to speak reality. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is very necessary in my view to have this Prevention of Corruption Act. There are a couple of things I want to say before I close. The Sixth Annual Report to the United States Congress on the Inter-American Convention notes that the Inter-American Convention is regarded as one of the most important regional efforts among the growing number of international initiatives against corruption. The Inter-American Convention is open for signature to members of the OAS, and what the OAS has done, it has implemented a monitoring process for the Inter-American Convention which includes input from civil society. Mr. Deputy Speaker, an examination of the final report of the committee in 2005, 2007 and 2010 with regard to Trinidad and Tobago—and if you want to read the report I can give a copy of the report to my friend from Point Fortin, she would probably love to read this report because it tells all about Trinidad and Tobago in 46 pages. All about Trinidad and Tobago! What it says is that Trinidad and Tobago has fallen short of its obligations under the Inter-American Convention, consequent upon its failure to enact the necessary legislation. One can go on about it and tell you page by page and recommendation by recommendation what they suggest that we do, but one of the goals of the Inter- American Convention is to promote and strengthen the development of the mechanisms needed to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption. Ensuring the existence of the necessary institutional capacity is an integral component of the development of the mechanisms required under the Inter-American Convention. In this regard the creation of an Anti-Corruption Commission is a critical step. 477 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker, states are required to provide each other under this convention with the widest measure of mutual technical cooperation and the most effective ways and means of preventing and dealing with corruption and punishing acts of corruption. They are required by the Inter-American Convention to foster exchange of experiences by way of agreements and meetings between competent bodies and institutions and to pay special attention to methods and procedures of citizen participation in the fight against corruption. This is why it is so commendable that the Attorney General, in his Motion, stated that a Joint Select Committee will be established and a consultation with the wider community will be held so that the community will participate—you see when a community owns something the community defends it. When a community owns something, it does not only have to be material, it could be this whole thing about corruption, they defend it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in closing, our Government does not propose the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Commission because we wish to create a new institution. We do so because it is consonant with our obligations to create mechanisms to prevent, to detect, to punish and to eradicate corruption. We do so because reducing corruption will ensure a better allocation of scarce resources available for the development of Trinidad and Tobago. We do so because it will demonstrate unequivocally to the world that Trinidad and Tobago prioritizes the preservation of integrity and accountability in the management of public affairs and public property; and we do so because it makes Trinidad and Tobago more attractive to international investors who wish to do business in a country where corruption is not rife. We wish to make Trinidad and Tobago a better place to live, a better place to work, a better place to visit and a better place to invest money and to do business. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Desk thumping] Miss Alicia Hospedales (Arouca/Maloney): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is pleasure for me to contribute to this Bill—[Interruption]—to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Bill is another example of the incompetence of the UNC-A Government which seems to be in the habit of bringing legislation before this House that is very problematic, convoluted and unable to be implemented. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me provide you with some examples of this level of incompetence. They submitted to this House the Central Bank Act and then withdrew it because they realized that it was very complex, and also it raised a number of concerns in the public domain as well as a number of Members on this Opposition Bench also highlighted the concerns. 478 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MISS HOSPEDALES] Mr. Deputy Speaker, again they rushed to bring the Children’s Life Fund Bill, the Interception of Communications Bill, the Finance Bill, the Anti-Gang Bill, the Bail Bill and all of these Bills were brought with a number of problems. They had a lot of problems; they could not have been implemented. Additionally, the number of pages of amendments, you would not even imagine how many pages of amendments. I remember the Finance Bill that was brought before this House, 16 pages of amendments. The number of pages was as many as the Bill itself; just imagine that. That is to tell you the level of incompetence that they are operating by. [Interruption] They lack thoughts and they fail to critically analyze the Bills or the pieces of legislation before it comes to the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the level of incompetence that the Members of the opposite side have frequently displayed. Over the last few months, we have been time and time again just amazed at how well they “govern”. Over the last few months, they failed to explain why the legislation was necessary and what is the probable expected outcome for its implementation. All they have done over the last few months was politic—you know public relations. They are still in denial that they are actually in Government and continue to be on their campaign trail talking about the PNM. We are no longer in Government and you all must realize that. It is time for you all to begin to do the work for the people of this country. [Desk thumping] It is time for you all to begin to work. [Interruption] You have been doing nothing, nothing, nothing over the last few months. We are still waiting to see your plans for crime, for the implementation of crime initiatives in Trinidad and Tobago. We are still waiting; you have done nothing, nothing, nothing. [Interruption] Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we have constantly seen, again, as I said is PR gimmicks and the consistent application of their motto and this is what I realize their motto is: do it because it sounds good. That is what they have been doing, because it sounds good, because it looks good, they have been doing it over the last few months and that does not mean that it is good. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: They have been doing it because it fools the people. Miss A. Hospedales: As the Member for Point Fortin said, they have been doing it because it fools the people; fools the people; fools the people. [Desk thumping] That is why they have been doing it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this afternoon I sat here in disbelief, listening to the hon. Attorney General blurt out words such as—listen eh, I paid close attention to what he was saying: octopus of corruption, tentacles of corruption, virtual avalanche of 479 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 corrupt deeds, ingrained corruption that permeated the body politics, turned out the most corrupt characters and no change. He was very descriptive in his attempt to cast aspersions on the People’s National Movement administration. But while I was there reflecting on what he was saying I was enlightened by this to the fact that he was comprehensively describing his Government. [Desk thumping] Comprehensively describing his Government and let me repeat it just for you all to hear: [Interruption] octopus of corruption, tentacles of corruption, virtual avalanche of corrupt deeds, ingrained corruption that permeated the body politics turned out the most corrupt characters and no change; those were the exact words. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Tabaquite talked about corruption and let me ask you, how will you describe what I am going to ask you? High profile officials who make demands on persons to pay a certain amount of money monthly because they got jobs for them? How would you describe that? High profile officials who charged a fee for meetings prior to contracts being distributed, how would you describe that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? High profile officials who give out contracts without following proper procurement procedures, how would you describe that?—[Interruption]—who distribute contracts to the company of relatives. High profile officials who hire persons even when this does not fall under their jurisdiction without any interview process, how would you describe that? [Crosstalk] Mr. Deputy Speaker, how would you describe high profile officials who continue to renege on their promises? High profile officials who falsify documents to destroy the character of others? Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this not an octopus of corruption? [Interruption] Or as the Member for Tabaquite said, is not this absolute power which corrupted you absolutely? There are questions surrounding— Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: He said it. Miss A. Hospedales: Yes, he said it. He said it. There are questions surrounding the ability to effectively govern. When asked to be transparent and accountable they are found wanting. We still do not know who cancelled the offshore patrol vessels. We have asked, we have asked and we have asked and we have gotten no answers. Who is the agent for the HP laptops? We have asked and we have asked and we have not gotten any answers. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: And we would never be told. 480 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Miss A. Hospedales: Yes, I agree with the Member for Point Fortin, we would never be told because they do not want to be accountable and they refuse to be transparent in their action. 9.45 p.m. We have not been told how much is the actual cost to build the palace and where the SIA files are. We have not been told where they are. They just disappeared. Where are those SIA files? We still do not know. The Member for St. Joseph knows? Okay. We still do not have the answers. The Attorney General was correct in saying ingrained corruption that has permeated their body politic. The Member for Chaguanas West spoke about campaign promises. How would you describe the UNC-A Government's ability to deliver on their campaign promises? We need to know. We are still waiting to find out. They promised persons 60 years and over a pension; they promised a minimum wage of $20; they promised to reduce crime by December 2010. We are still waiting in vain. They promised to increase that first prize for the Calypso Monarch, Chutney Soca and pan to $2 million. Where is the Member for Mayaro? He should be here listening to this one. The Prevention of Corruption Act should have a clause to punish those public officials who continually perpetuate falsehoods and do not keep their promises. There should be a clause in the Bill that specifically speaks to that. The Members for Chaguanas West and Tabaquite rambled through their contribution to the Bill once again, as though they were on the campaign trail. They rambled. We heard about buses and how many buses and whatever, rather than responding to the concerns highlighted in the Bill that is before us today regarding the duplication of the functions that interfere with the investigative work of the Integrity Commission, Customs and Inland Revenue. We have heard nothing from them in terms of how they intend to address this issue. They have not answered the question posed by the Member for Diego Marin North/East: where will the lines be drawn? They have not answered the question. They rambled on and talked about this and that, as empty vessels making plenty noises, but they have not answered the question at all, at all, at all. [Desk thumping] They also did not tell us about the issue of the Anti-Corruption Commission's role in investigating persons in public life and in the investigation of persons who defraud the State. They have not really gone into detail in terms of telling us much about the role of the Commission. 481 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

For the information of the hon. Attorney General as well as the Members for Chaguanas West and Tabaquite, the research conducted by Transparency International in Zimbabwe supports the fact that the establishment of an Anti- Corruption Commission cannot work once specific things are absent in legislation. The first thing they said is that once the Commission is open to political interference, the Commission would not be able to work effectively, and based on the legislation, what we see is that the Prime Minister has a role in selecting the commissioner, and even the Member for Diego Martin Central had made reference to the Police Service Commission and the appointment of a particular member and the political interference that occurs there. So we see that this Commission automatically and at the outset, is unable to work. They also spoke about the lack of power to prosecute that will prevent the Commission from functioning effectively. They highlighted the fact that no sign of independence is another factor that can prevent the Commission from operating effectively, and what we saw here, we have not heard how the Commission would be funded. Is it an independent body or will it be under a particular ministry? We have not heard any of that. Mr. Warner: Joint select committee. Mrs. A. Hospedales: Joint select committee? The people of Trinidad and Tobago need to know about the Commission and I think it is our responsibility to educate the public. If you all are saying that you are bringing an Anti-Corruption Commission, you are responsible for telling us how this Commission is actually going to operate. Joint Select Committee is not going to provide us with the answers. Another significant factor is that there is no responsibility for preventative intervention by the Anti-Corruption Commission. Transparency International, Zimbabwe, said that the Anti-Corruption Commission should be responsible for educating people about corruption and the importance of staying away from it; the importance of not getting themselves engaged or embroiled in such actions, and the penalties as well. There is nothing in place in the Act to ensure that the Commission is actually involved in preventative intervention. We also want to look at the duplication of functions together with all the factors highlighted by the Transparency International, Zimbabwe, which basically will impact upon the ability of this Commission to function effectively even before it is established. What we have here is a Commission that will not be able to perform and in conducting research on anti-corruption commissions we saw a number of countries where these anti-corruption commissions are actually 482 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MISS HOSPEDALES] established and they are non-functional. They have not even solved one case because of the lack of independence and all the other factors which I highlighted. This should be a point of concern that the Members on the opposite side should take into consideration. We are forced to ask: What is the agenda of the UNC-A Government and why the rush? The Member for Chaguanas West spoke about their responsibility to world institutions. Is one such institution the IDB? I am forced to ask, because we look at the developing nations across the world which approached these international agencies for financing and one of the criteria for receiving the loans is actually the establishment of an anti- corruption commission. One question we would like to ask: Is the establishment of this Commission a criterion for the Government to access loans or to draw down on loans from that particular international institution? The UNC-A Government needs to tell the people of this nation the criteria for borrowing money from the IDB. We need to know what we are committing to or what they are committing us to; the impact it will have on us as a people and the potential fallouts that can occur as a result of their commitment to enter into loan agreements with international financial institutions.

The Bill also includes a new section 9A for the protection of whistle-blowers. But, again, we must ask, what level of confidence does the Government give to whistle-blowers after it has eroded the confidence of informants who, in times past, would have felt safe going forward to give information to intelligence agencies? We know the mess that they have created with respect to those agencies. The other thing that would have happened was the fact that the Members on the opposite side, we have seen examples of them using scare tactics, and, you know, one of the things that we would like to see in the Bill, if possible, is penalties included with regard to people who use these tactics. The Member for Tabaquite should be the last to talk about instilling fear. He also noted that people are saying that the dollar is devalued. This is a fact, because the dollar is now $6.45 for the purchase of US $1. The use of the Government campus; the Member for Tabaquite needs to be honest. Under the People's National Movement administration, the plan for the Government campus was to put government ministries into those buildings so that we can save rent. You know, the Member for Tabaquite comes here tonight presenting this as though it is his own initiative or his Government’s initiative to 483 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 put Government ministries into those buildings so that they can save rent. But that is far from the truth. It is a PNM administrative initiative to ensure that we would have saved rent by putting the government ministries in the government campuses.

The Member must learn to speak the truth at all times. I am saying, at all times. I know the Member for Arima is a very good person and the Member for Arima must pull the Member for Tabaquite aside and tell him about the importance of being honest; the importance of telling the truth at all times. [Desk thumping] I am also amazed at the Member for Tabaquite who seems to be in denial that they are in Government again. You know, every time we listen to them, they go on and on about this and that, that the PNM did and did not do and what they claim the PNM has done. He went through a long discourse about the rating of this country on the global competitive index; made accusations of corruption. Again, this is another witch-hunt with no sound basis for his arguments, as I said, just as empty vessels making a lot of noise. [Interruption] Yes, the Members at the back there are making plenty noise, you know. [Desk thumping] The Member also placed much emphasis on integrity and I really want to go slowly with this point. I would like to ask him, how does he define integrity? I really want to know and I wish he were in the Chamber to tell us how he defines integrity, because we, the Members on this side, believe that moral and ethics are tied to integrity. But out of the mouth of the hon. Prime Minister, the Member for Siparia, in an attempt to defend the Member for Chaguanas West who holds both private and public portfolios, said—this is what she said and I am going to read it very slowly. She said, “We are not concerned about morals and ethics.” Hon Member: What? No!

Miss A. Hospedales: Yes. She said: “That is BC. This is 2010. We have to move away from that. Our concern is with work ethics.” [Interruption] Yes, that is what she said; their concern is with work ethics. [Crosstalk] are you all paying attention? They are not paying attention, so as a very good person I am going to repeat exactly what I said. [Desk thumping] I was asking the Member for Tabaquite if he could define for us what integrity means; how he defines integrity. We believe, as I said, that morals and ethics are 484 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MISS HOSPEDALES] tied to integrity, but out of the mouth of the hon. Prime Minister and in an attempt to defend a Member of her Government—and we know the Member for Chaguanas West who holds both a private and public portfolio—[Interruption] [By order of the Chair, remarks expunged] 10.00 p.m. Dr. Moonilal: Member, a point of information. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Somebody said something? Dr. Moonilal: If you would give way—[Interruption] Miss A. Hospedales:—ethics. No, not this hour. Dr. Moonilal: Okay. No problem. Miss A. Hospedales: Our concern is with work ethics. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is at the heart of the way—[Interruption] Dr. Gopeesingh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, 36(5). She is imputing improper motives. Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I am saying is that, as I just mentioned hon. Member, the procedure is— Dr. Gopeesingh: She is misquoting. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether she is or not, there is a procedure that you stand up and say point of order. She sits or the Member who is speaking sits, and then you say which point of order and allow me to rule. Dr. Gopeesingh: Standing Order 36(5), she is implying improper motives. Hon. Member: Have a seat. The Deputy Speaker is on his feet. Dr. Gopeesingh: Sorry. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36(5): “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.” Member for Arouca/Maloney, what you are doing is quoting the Prime Minister. Now I would like to tell you, when you are making a quotation about a Member of Parliament or anything, you are supposed to give the source of your quote and if you cannot give the source of that statement then it becomes imputing improper motives. If you cannot give the source of it, you will have to withdraw it. 485 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Miss A. Hospedales: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this will be continued. Dr. Gopeesingh: Withdraw it! Hon. Members: Withdraw the statement. Miss A. Hospedales: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is at the heart of the way in which they operate, but we are—[Crosstalk] I said I have moved on until another date. [Crosstalk] Dr. Moonilal: No, you cannot move so. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Could I rule? Member for Arouca/Maloney, if you cannot quote the source of that statement, you have to withdraw it. Dr. Gopeesingh: Apologize! Miss Cox: “How much speakers it have here?” [Crosstalk] Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, sometimes it is supposed to have decorum in the House and it should be so practised by Members of the Government, more so than that of the Opposition or everybody included. [Interruption] I understand. I am trying to rule, Member. Member, I am trying to rule. Member for Laventille East, I am trying—I am sitting here, I have no Deputy Speaker, I would like to continue the debate and I would like you all to allow me to do so. Member for Arouca/Maloney, if you cannot quote the source of that statement, you will have to withdraw it or else—are you going to withdraw it? Yes or no? Miss A. Hospedales: Yes, I am confident that she said it, but because I do not have the source with me now I will withdraw. I will come back with it on Friday though. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, Member for Arouca/Maloney, it is within your rights to come back with the source. The Deputy Speaker will now have to expunge your statements from the record. I direct the Hansard reporters and the Hansard to expunge that part of the Member for Arouca/Maloney’s contribution and you can continue. Miss A. Hospedales: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we on this side believe in having morals and ethics and we will operate by that. The proposed amendments in this Bill that the Members of the Government are actually bringing are unrealistic, inapplicable and need to be reconsidered in the context of the work of the Integrity Commission, Customs and the Inland Revenue. 486 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MISS HOSPEDALES] In ending, we would like to agree with the Member of Parliament for Tunapuna who said, when it comes to the will of the Government to deal with corruption, we stand firm. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask: stand firm on what? Firmly on corruption? I thank you. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Justice (Hon. Herbert Volney): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to join the debate on this Motion to have this matter referred to a joint select committee of the House. I have sat patiently today and listened to the contributions of Members on both sides. Regrettably, what I have heard from the other side has seemed to lose the focus of the debate. They seem to have lost a view of the goal, the post, within which they must shoot the ball of their respective contributions. To this moment as I speak, I have great difficulty in understanding exactly what they have been saying all evening. What I can say for those on the other side who seek to speak about corruption, is that, from where I live in St. Joseph—I can speak for myself—when I hear the sound of a police siren coming it is not to my home, and I am not sure that the other person who have engaged in governance in the last dispensation can say the same. So the Members opposite seek to throw suggestions within our nine or eight months in Government—it is as many as those—that there has been corruption on this side of the House. There are two particular Members of the House, the Member for Arouca/Maloney, as well as the young Member for Diego Martin Central who seem to be—he looks very young to me. He is still very green. It would seem to me although he has spent some time before me in this House— trying to convince the national community that we on this side are in denial and that we have not realized yet that we are in Government. On Friday when the moment will be had in the Finance (Supplemental Variation of Appropriation) (Financial Year 2010) Bill for us to speak again, the Opposition side will appreciate the amount of work that this Government, this People’s Partnership Government, has done since being given our respective portfolios in early June, late May of 2010. I do not want to go into them this evening because of the lateness of the hour. There are many persons still watching the Parliament Channel who would be trying to hold up to hear something intelligent, certainly on this side of the House not having heard it on the other side of the House. [Desk thumping] I want to remind Members opposite that while I had been in the other estate for some time, I recall that during the period 1986 to 487 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

1991 the Government then started at the time—it was not the Government of those opposite—the swoop against corruption that had been messing with the national psyche for many years before, going back to the days of O’Halloran. If Members present would recall the contribution of the Member for Pointe-a- Pierre from his statement in the budget debate, he gave a long dissertation on corruption from times that I am not aware of. It would be good for Members opposite sometimes to take the time to look at the Parliament Channel at home— when they are not in the Chamber—and listen to persons of the ilk of the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre who has been here before, who is one of the elder men in the Parliament. The point is that dealing with corruption has not been one of those areas over the years since Independence, that the PNM governments whenever they were formed after whatever election—corruption had not been an issue that they had pursued in this House of Representatives and, as a result, all progressive legislation has had to and has come from governments that have been formed. First, the National Alliance for Reconstruction government had the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1987; then you had the Proceeds of Crime Act of the last United National Congress government. That would have been Act. No. 55 of 2000, Chap. 11:27. These Acts all formed part of a compendium of efforts to correct bits and pieces of work that had been in progress, that had stalled every time the People’s National Movement formed a government in the interregnum. They have come in between progressive governments and have consistently ignored the issue of corruption. The record is there, the Acts are there, the legislation is there. In fact, the Motion before the House today is a Bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 09, 2000. This Bill sought to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987, and the object of the Bill which is presently attracting the attention—hopefully the cerebration of those opposite—is yet to be seen—[Interruption] Dr. Gopeesingh: They decerebrate. Hon. H. Volney: Yes! The object of the Bill is to give effect to certain following reforms: the establishment first of the anti-corruption commission with power to investigate allegations of corruption, the creation of the new offence of illicit enrichment, most pertinent, and I would really like when the time comes— and this matter is carried into the sessions of the joint select committee—that the 488 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. H. VOLNEY] offence of the illicit enrichment be extended, not simply to public officials, but to all officials, to all persons who suddenly without working a day in their life exhibit certain wealth that it be deemed to be proceeds of crime. So those who worked hard for the little that we have, at least, will feel a sense of balance and equity that those who display wealth that they have not worked for, or apparently not earned or acquired in legal and legitimate ways, will be brought before anti- corruption boosters, whether it be the commissioner or in whatever form it may be. 10.15 p.m. In order that these issues of illicit enrichment be addressed and to drive fear into the minds of those who cast their eyes away from the law, in order to gain a benefit to which they are not entitled; to drive fear into their hearts and their minds that they will not go that way, because they will be exposed by the wealth that they display and they cannot account for— I have heard on the other side that we are seeking to, by this measure, diminish, emasculate or in whatever words, the power of the Integrity Commission; not at all. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill provides for an investigative unit, an administrative unit, to go at corruption, by investigating it on the complaints, either of citizens or of authorities within the governance structure of the country. For example, we recently heard of the appointment of the Director of the Police Complaints Authority. There are hundreds of complaints that have been made and over the years, there have been hundreds of complaints made against rogue police officers. Some of them are legitimate complaints, others are not good; the complaints are noteworthy of investigation. But, the point is, when you have institutions that have no teeth, as the Police Complaints Authority, with hundreds of complaints to be investigated, and you have one investigator, then it is like having no authority at all. This is the sort of thing that has happened during the interregnum years, the years of reign, the years of misgovernance between 2002 and 2010, where you have authorities like the Police Complaints Authority with no teeth. A chairman retires, no one is appointed to fill the position. You have an authority that is meant to have teeth in it. [Interruption] Investigators? No investigators have been appointed. Where you have an office like the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, where you have 72 positions—very important 489 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 positions—of prosecutors, and you have over 40 vacancies—now, that is just an indication of the way of governance of the People’s National Movement. It has been so for years. There has been no interest whatsoever in correcting these shortcomings of governance. This Bill lapsed first on November 03, 2000. It was reintroduced in the House of Representatives on July 20, 2005, as the Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, 2001. What had happened is that it was meant to put teeth into what was a toothless tiger. It was meant to put teeth in the anti-corruption law, in order that issues of corruption could be investigated by independent authority. This Motion today is not for the House to pass this measure. It is to hear whatever constructive criticisms the Opposition may want to offer. We are a party of inclusion. We want to include the Opposition in something that concerns corruption; an opportunity. We have the numbers on this side that we can pass any measure that we wish to pass, but we have given the opportunity to the other side—to see if there is anything of value on that side—to make a contribution. I have sat here unhappily all evening. All I have heard is a group of parliamentarians who seem to be in denial of whether they are really in Parliament. As I have said, come Friday, this country will be reminded of the achievements in the short period of time. Over and over, what has been happening is that every time those opposite have left the government, they have left such a mess that it takes time for the government that follows to clean up the mess; mess in all ways. First of all, you have to discover the extent of the mess. You discover that persons are being appointed to jobs three days before a general election, important constitutional positions, three and five days or a week before a general election. Why the haste? Contracts, millions of dollars—even up to today, what is happening is that there are people working out there doing helter-skelter and all kinds of work on the ground in contracts that were issued just before the last general election. It takes a government a little while, under those circumstances, to take stock of where we are, before we can start to move forward. The Minister of Finance, the hon. Member for Tunapuna, will tell you that the Bills still keep coming and they are not $2 million, they are $37 million and $40 million. They keep coming in and in. That is indicative of the role of misgovernance that this country has had enough of. “Nuff” of, as the young people say, and it is left for us on this side to bring some sense of responsibility and honour back to governance in this country. 490 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. H. VOLNEY] This is why we find it important to table such a Motion as this at this time. It is to let the national community see that we are not going to be tolerating corruption, because this year will ensure that those who have put their hands or their fingers in the cookie jar will see the face of justice. One of the things that our hon. Prime Minister has done in her wisdom, is to have created a Ministry of Justice. This Ministry is a non-litigious Ministry. We try to be almost like a step between the third estate and government. In other words, we are about ensuring that justice is served in this country, by transforming what needs to be changed. In this regard, we are introducing a compendium of bits and pieces of legislation that will transform the face of justice in this land; something that the PNM government has not done since the United National Congress lost office, or office was taken from the UNC in that 18/18 constitutional toss-up. I have seen the wheels of justice grind to a halt. I felt, being part of the administration of justice, as if I were driving in a truck, a Bedford truck, without tyres on the wheels and it was not comfortable. It required that, for my own sanity, I get out of this Bedford truck and come out and try and put, little by little, some rubber tyres on the wheels and the system, so that the truck could move forward again. One of the things that the Ministry of Justice is spearheading first is the abolition of preliminary enquiries. This matter has been approved by Cabinet. Preliminary enquiries are going to be abolished. It is coming. When persons who commit the crime, whether it be a corrupt crime or otherwise, they will see the face of justice almost before the sun sets, rest assured of that. That is the kind of legislation that this country has been asking for, for decades. The Ministry of Justice will also ensure that those who are brought before the courts will be tried quickly. It will mean that the talk over years, the decades, about bringing justice to the eastern counties down to the west, along the East-West Corridor, where the incidence of crime is highest, will be realized in our first term in Government. This is a clear indication of the resolve of our People’s Partnership Government to deal effectively with crime. And while change does not come overnight, it is surely on the way. As I stand here, I know of it. It is the persons and the Ministries that do not make the most noise that are working the most, quietly. I can tell you, when the changes come, when the legislation starts hitting this House on criminal justice reformation and transformation, those who have 491 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 been involved in corrupt acts—When this bit of legislation is finally approved, after it goes before a Joint Select Committee of this House, and hopefully with the assistance of those opposite who, I am sure, will not want to see corruption in the land—we are waiting with bated breath to see the sort of contributions that they will make— We will surely have an authority—unlike the Integrity Commission, that has its own cadre of investigator—that can go out there and bust corruption. 10.30 p.m. What we need to hear from those opposite is, how do we maintain this independence for the commissioner? How do we insulate these public officials whose duty it is to bust corruption? How do we insulate them? Have we heard anything of that from the other side? We have heard nothing productive. Nothing constructive has come from the debate on the other side. Of course, there is still the Member for Port of Spain South to speak. Well, I know she cerebrates. I know she puts on her thinking cap before she opens her mouth, but I cannot say the same for the rest. Now and then we may get little sprinklings from the other side, but I look forward to the Member’s contribution. I heard the Member for Diego Martin North/East, and he was at his lowest poor today. [Laughter] He made no substantial points. He sought to mislead the House, and put the country’s good name on the line in matters that he knows nothing about. He probably has a little spy somewhere who fed him a little half information, and did not get all in time, and this has been happening. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Government is going to start enforcing the law. We are going to start looking at the Proceeds of Crime Act. We are going to deal with it. We are going to put the teeth into the Financial Intelligence Unit. This unit was set up by the PNM government. The Act was passed by the PNM government, at a time when senior Members and those opposite were all part of the Cabinet. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Financial Intelligence Act is part of a required compendium—if I may use the word—I am short of words tonight—of legislation that international bodies wanted this country to pass in accordance with requirements of treaty obligations. It was passed in such a way that it had no investigative power. What is the point of having an Act that provides for no investigative authority? That is precisely what has happened with this legislation here; the Anti-Corruption Act of 1987. 492 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. H. VOLNEY] The last UNC government brought this Bill in order to do what we are presently doing, put teeth into the Financial Intelligence Unit and the legislation that governs it. Why? The PNM did nothing to give empowerment to those who administered that Act. Again, on the issue of the Anti-Corruption Act, the PNM did not do anything in eight years to give teeth to that legislation. The Integrity in Public Life Act, the PNM did not do anything to strengthen it, to allow it to be such that the Integrity Commission would not have to depend upon third party institutions like the Fraud Squad or other police units to carry out their investigations for them. Why? When it comes to corruption, the PNM like it so. That is the only reason. You see, they are on that side now and we are on this side, and we have the numbers where we can make meaningful and progressive amendments to all the laws that have been left there hanging toothless by the past PNM government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is now well past 10.30 p.m, and I do not have to belabour the point that we have the resolve and we are going to pass the laws that we have to pass. When the police siren is coming, it will not be for the Members on this side. I say no more. I have enjoyed my contribution here this evening, and I thank you. [Desk thumping] Mrs. Patricia McIntosh (Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to make my contribution to this evening’s debate on the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chap. 11:11. Though as I stand, it is with some amount of disappointment in the opinions expressed by several Members on the other side. I would have expected that the debate of a Bill in this Parliament would entail the expression of pros and cons, very positive criticisms, and assessments of every aspect of the Bill, so that in the final analysis we could arrive at the legislation that would benefit all of our citizens greatly. Before this Bill was debated, when it was laid in the House, it was intended for a joint select committee and, obviously, the Attorney General and others associated with the laying of this Bill would have thought that it would have generated sufficient arguments to warrant it being taken to the joint select committee. I really do not believe that Parliament is a place when Bills are laid for the Opposition to calmly say, yes we agree. I do not think that is what we were elected to do here. I think our job is much more serious, and we have to examine what is laid before us. [Desk thumping] 493 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

I feel I can speak for every Member here when I say that, indeed, we are interested in eradicating corruption from our land, but not by all means. It is not that we would not look at the Bill but, certainly, if we do not agree with everything in the Bill it is our responsibility to state this, and when we do, to receive in return from hon. Members opposite insults, I find it very disheartening. As a new Member of Parliament, I did not imagine that this is what I was elected to come here for. I feel insulted. At 10.39 p.m. I feel that I could have been at home with my family, if this is what we have to take when we proffer our opinions. [Desk thumping] Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Explanatory Note of this proposed Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill speaks to the implementation of further and more effective measures for the prevention of corruption by establishing a commission for receiving and investigating allegations of corruption; the number of corruption and corruption-related offences and providing protection for informers or whistle- blowers. I am going to start with this last issue. I am indeed concerned about this whistle-blowing issue. I understand where you are coming from, but it worries me that our society would be transformed into one of snitches and canaries where people will feel very guarded looking over their shoulders, unable to express themselves if they feel. We have a fun-loving society and sometimes our joie de vivre and our freedom of speech—we say several things. We make jokes, “picong” and laugh, and who knows how this will be taken. Who knows who will report that we said so and so. I am given to a lot of fun and saying funny things, who knows, sometimes in my expression, and somebody who is given to such sentiments as I am, I may be taken in a wrong way and reported to the commission. I am seeing a society developing where we are under very suppressive laws; where there is witch-hunting and where “mauvais langue” is encouraged. I am seeing the “mauvais langue” coming from the opposite side, and it is worrying me. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have seen some of my hon. colleagues on the other side, and I heard the Member for Tabaquite say that he was shocked and surprised that people feel intimidated and people are worried and unhappy. The only thing I can say is, who are the people with whom you associate? Who are the people with whom you speak? Obviously the people who surround you are people on your side. When last have you gone to the grass roots of the PNM and spoken to those 494 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. MCINTOSH] poor souls? When last have you visited Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West and spoken to my constituents who are intimidated and fearful of what the society is becoming? You must look at this and take it constructively so that we could have a more equitable society. We are addressing this Bill that seeks to amend an already existing Act that purports to address corruption and promote integrity, transparency and best practice in public life. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my contribution this evening will therefore be structured around corrupt practices and its attendant characteristics and best practices and its attendant characteristics. So I will be making reference to the following values: integrity, accountability, transparency, responsibility and the flip side of those values: dishonesty, deception, lack of trust, low dodges, camouflage and plagiarism of ideas. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill under review simply does not appear to be an amendment, but rather an entirely new Bill. I say this because of the number of new parts and sections that have been introduced. I have counted five new parts and, certainly, at least 23 new sections. What this means to me is, what is being done here is simply adding more and more layers of control and bureaucracy that would undoubtedly render the attendant processes and procedures much more cumbersome and unwieldy, ultimately reducing the effectiveness of this proposed legislation. 10.45 p.m. In addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we already have the Integrity in Public Life Act that purports to do the very same, very much the same, without the very cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures that we see proposed in this Act. Is it not possible that we could have improved our Integrity in Public Life Act? Is it not possible that we could have set about enforcing the various sections of this Act? Is this Government determined to make new laws just to give the impression that it is working and fulfilling another of its campaign promises despite all odds? Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has become the custom of the UNC-led coalition to fulfil campaign promises with indecent haste, without the processes and procedures having been well thought out. And when we try to do that here, to think them out, and to flesh them out, we are met with opposition and insults. This Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, 2011 is certainly no exception. This UNC- led coalition loves to come to this honourable House and proclaim that they have yet again fulfilled another campaign promise, shouting the word “Done” and reinforcing it with an imaginary tick, by a gesture of the hand. 495 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we educators are fully aware that a tick on paper or an imaginary tick in the air does not necessarily translate into a tick in favour of best practice. This is evident by the pitifully poor performance to date of this UNC-led coalition. After seven months of having assumed office, this very fractured Government has visited upon this unsuspecting public a host of broken promises and failures. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am linking it back to the issue of corruption, because they have not been honest with our population, and I want this panel of judges here on this side of the House to assist me in assessing them. So we will put the ticks and the “Dones”. The senior citizens grant fiasco: tick, done. The Alutrint fiasco: tick, done. A progressively failing economy: tick, done. An escalating crime situation: tick, done. Labour unrest: tick, done. Christmas hamper fiasco: tick, done. Panmen fiasco: tick, done. PH drivers fiasco: tick, done. Growing public disenchantment and disgruntlement in general: tick, done. A government plagued by infighting: tick, tick, tick, done, done, done. Mr. Deputy Speaker, all of these failures are taking—[Interruption] There are more. All of these failures are taking a serious toll on this Government, which has responded by resorting to low dodges in this honourable Parliament. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bills are now being submitted to Parliament in a very untimely fashion—very late, as a matter of fact—in an attempt, I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch the Opposition asleep, off-guard, and to frustrate and belittle the hon. Members on this side of the House. But I would like the hon. Members on that side of the House—the other side of the House—to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Members on this side are very much awake and very much aware of the low dodges to which this UNC-led coalition is descending. This Government just cannot be trusted. For the past seven months their plan was to denigrate the PNM, as if the PNM had never accomplished anything good. They resorted—[Interruption] That is not true. Do not sit there and say that. They resorted to playing psychological games. Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, corrupt practices, because corruption covers a wide range of practices. They resorted to playing psychological games in an effort to brainwash an unsuspecting public and turn them against the PNM, and moreover to camouflage their own fumbling and pitifully poor attempt at governing the affairs of this country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Members on the other side spend most of their contributions decrying and hurling the worst insults towards the PNM, making political speeches and attacking this side on nefarious and alleged notions of 496 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. MCINTOSH] corruption. We witnessed this in the presentation of the Attorney General and contributions of all the others; the Member for Tabaquite, the Member for St. Joseph, that is all they do. It is a plan. I swear that the hon. Members have been in a training session where they are told to start—it is a plan: brainwash the public, denigrate the PNM, denigrate the PNM, denigrate the PNM, and that is all they do. Come with a positive approach. Come with an approach to work with us. Do not tell us you are working with us. Come with a plan. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the past seven months I have sat here and listened to the opposite side. They skirt around the issues. That is dishonest. They skirt around the issues and evade the questions from my honourable colleagues, and resort to the most sanctimonious and scathing of attacks on the People’s National Movement. It seems that their philosophy was, and still is, if we could make the PNM look bad—[Interruption] Ms. Roopnarine: Point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mrs. P. McIntosh: I am speaking of corrupt practices. Ms. Roopnarine: Point of Order 36 (1). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Point of Order 36 (1): “Subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 12 (Adjournment—Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance), debate upon any motion, Bill or amendment shall be relevant to such motion, Bill or amendment and a Member shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion.” The Member is responding to questions. She is responding to what was said here today. The debate, I have been trying to keep it a bit tight, but however, it has gone outside the boundaries, so I will have to allow her her time, because, once the debate is not confined to the subject matter and starts to go out of the subject matter, this is what occurs. So Member for Oropouche West, I will have to overrule you. So continue. [Desk thumping] Mrs. P. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, apart from responding to what has been said, the insults hurled at the hon. Members on this side, I am speaking of dishonest practices and low dodges on behalf of the UNC-led coalition. [Desk thumping] It seems that their philosophy was, and still is, “If we could make the PNM look bad, then the UNC-led coalition would eventually begin to look good.” But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unfortunately for them, this is not happening. Their strategies are ricocheting on them, having a reverse effect on the public, who have 497 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 grown weary of all this foolish and repetitive diatribe. The public is fed up of it, and they are saying that. Who do you all listen to? Do you have your heads in the sand like ostriches? Do you listen to what the public is saying? They are fed up of it. They are fed up of hearing about the PNM, the PNM, and what the PNM did, and what the PNM did. In Shakespearean language, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are being hoisted by their own petard. Then, this UNC-led coalition would present plans that are plagiarised or borrowed from PNM initiatives—that is dishonest—and claim them as their own, because, you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they have no plan of their own. This UNC- led coalition was never able to sit as a truly cohesive unit, listen to me, and devise plans for propelling this country forward. You were never able to do it. Even the other day when you sat, you were not able to do it. Then they would tell the people they are serving them, serving them, serving them, all the while fooling them, fooling them, fooling them, and that is dishonest. Mr. Deputy Speaker, corruption begins with dishonesty. And we in here, if we are dishonest, why are we bringing all these anti-corruption Bills when we are dishonest—at least the other side? This UNC-led coalition is a Government of deception and just cannot be trusted. And it is ironic that they should now seek to present, in a very untimely fashion, this amendment on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 11:11, while all the while their modus operandi has evoked questions, doubts and suspicion in the minds of the public that is growing more and more disenchanted, and more and more disillusioned. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for St. Augustine, a young man—I call him young man because I could be his mother—a young man for whom I have the greatest regard, I will also remember his inaugural speech. Though he lambasted the PNM, he said that he entered politics to change the face of politics, to wipe out corruption, before he embarked on a scathing attack on the PNM. However, I should like to tell my honourable friend that the change he is seeking should begin with those on his side, and I will go further to say why. The people in Trinidad and Tobago voted for change, but what is patently clear is that they got short-changed, and the Government must be wary that some of its own members might fall victim to all these new amendments, especially the sections in the new Part V of this bureaucratic web that is being proposed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we expect the public to repose confidence in us as legislators, we the Members of this honourable House, must ensure that our conduct in public affairs is beyond reproof. 498 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. MCINTOSH] Mr. Deputy Speaker, suspicions and concerns expressed in the public domain are sufficient to prompt me to respectfully advise Members of this honourable House to avoid clandestine rendezvous with business associates for the purpose of influencing Government tender procedures. Are you listening to me, St. Joseph? Did you hear what I said, Member for St. Joseph? Because on the night—in the late of the night on September 28, in a popular place of entertainment, a Member on the other side met with certain associates to influence Government tendering procedures. So if that is what we are about—and then we—hypocritically bringing this Bill here and insulting us. I wonder where this country is going. I am concerned. I am concerned. [Interruption] I am not going away from the Bill at all. I am talking about corruption. And I know who it is. And you know, I was hoping that the guilty party would stand and take ownership of that deed. I might have to force him to do it. I might have to bring evidence and force him to do it. [Interruption] Hon. Member: Bring it. Mrs. P. McIntosh: That is the response. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in addition, I must also advise the hon. Members against involvement with any contractors who are major tenderers under this present Government. Mr. Imbert: “Who doing that?” Mrs. P. McIntosh: In this regard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to refer to the new Part V of this Bill that speaks to bribery, solicitation and other offences, and I quote 5I(1) that speaks specifically to bribery in regard to contracts. “Any person who without lawful authority offers an advantage to a person in public life as an inducement or reward for giving assistance to or using his real or apparent influence in relation to any matter referred to in subsection (2), commits an offence. (2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are the— (a) payment of the price or other consideration in respect of any contract or subcontract as referred to in paragraph (b); (b) procuring, promotion or execution of any contract or subcontract with a public body for the— 499 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

(i) doing of anything; (ii) performance of any work; (iii) provision of any service; or (iv) supply of any article, material or substance. (3) A person in public life who, without lawful authority, accepts or solicits any advantage as an inducement or reward for giving assistance or using his real or apparent influence concerning the— (a) payment of the price or other consideration; or (b) procuring, promotion or execution, of any contract or subcontract as is referred to in subsection (2), commits an offence.” 11.00 p.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reason I read this part is because I want it abundantly clear for any Member opposite who knows that he is guilty of engaging in such illicit activity with contractors to stop it, because I have the evidence. [Crosstalk] I will bring it; timeliness. It is not the time, but I will bring it. While promoting legislation to clean up corruption, this Government must zealously guard against forming unholy alliances with smart men and scoundrels to perpetrate corrupt practices on this unsuspecting nation. The Members of this Government must be careful to truly serve all the people, not some of the people, and not serve their own interests. They must guard against taking an unsuspecting public for an unceremonious ride. I now wish to turn my attention to the issue of the laptop fiasco. [Crosstalk] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak to you without being interrupted. The hon. Minister of Education had advised the public that the laptops were under a three-year warranty and should any of the machines malfunction they would be serviced, repaired and replaced by a local agent representing the manufacturer, Hewlett Packard, a company that had been the subject of corrupt practices internationally. However, the Minister failed to disclose who exactly this local agent was, but the public is asking. What exactly are the financial arrangements and the relationship issues surrounding the retention of this local agent? Mr. Deputy Speaker, the public has been asking these questions and the public deserves answers, after all, public funds were used to purchase these laptops. [Interruption] 500 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dr. Gopeesingh: Will you give way? I will answer you now; iGovTT signed an agreement or a contract with Hewlett Packard International. Hewlett Packard International would have had to deal with the question of service in the country. They would have entered into any relationship with any organization or team of people. We understood that they entered a relationship with Digidata. Their financial arrangement with Digidata has nothing to do with us. We are not in any relation financially with Digidata. We are in a relationship with Hewlett Packard. Whatever arrangement that Hewlett Packard has made with Digidata, that is their arrangement. We have had a very clean arrangement with Hewlett Packard and it can stand scrutiny for the world to see. Thank you. Mrs. P. McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome that information. I will just ask the question: “Whither goeth we” in this country in respect of corrupt practices? That is all I would like to ask. Dr. Gopeesingh: I gave you the facts; those are the facts. Mrs. P. McIntosh: The facts are rather perplexing. Should the Government continue to maintain grey areas in its operations, it may run the risk of the citizenry becoming suspicious about the financial arrangements and relationship issues in all the projects they undertake.

This UNC-led coalition continues to govern this country by deception, conveniently forgetting that most of them—some of them barely got away by a technicality—were Members of a UNC Government which was plagued with corrupt practices, with their ex-leader being sent to prison for dishonesty, some of their members and financiers still before the courts and some in jail on charges of corruption and dishonesty. They have forgotten; they have convenient amnesia. They have forgotten that part of their history. In a few years, they have forgotten and all they can do is attack us and attack us. But the holy book speaks about people in authority pounding on those what are not in authority. [Crosstalk] One must always lead by example and not say, “Do as I say, but not as I do.” As parliamentarians, we must never be found guilty of serving our own interests, but instead we must dedicate ourselves to serving the interests of the people who elected us to represent them. The hon. Members on the other side love to refer to the winds of change that are blowing. I would like to refer to the motivational author, Jim Rohn, who said that “It is the set of the sails, not the direction of the wind that determines which way we will go”. I strongly advise the hon. Members opposite to set the sails of 501 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 governance with a keen sense of responsibility, integrity, transparency and accountability, so that the winds may blow our beloved country of Trinidad and Tobago in the right direction. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Legal Affairs (Hon. Prakash Ramadhar): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my great privilege, once again, to share in this House’s debate. Generally, after 11 o'clock, my conversations are reserved for my bed and my wife, [Laughter] as a result, I will temper it down and not be as critical as my friend, the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West, and to further temper it, she has referred to my mother so, therefore, you have won me over. However, with the profuse number of ticks you spoke about, I thought you would refer to those bloodsuckers who have inhabited the politicians of the past. You spoke of DNA; some Members on both sides spoke of DNA. I was born here and I grew up here. My longest memory of politicians has generally been of those who have been corrupt. I remember the Member for Tabaquite speaking to Lock Joint, the racing complex, the DC9 scandal, the Japanese Garden, Mount Hope, the Hall of Justice, the financial towers; almost every single thing in our history is polluted with corruption. Hon. Member: The rice scandal, the desalination plant! Hon. P. Ramadhar: I am hearing it over and over along that side, that this legislation is an attack on the PNM, I cannot understand why they are so defensive, unless you have cocoa out in the weather, you should not be afraid of it. This legislation is for all of Trinidad and Tobago, not just politicians of today, but also politicians of tomorrow, and we must understand this. There are those amongst us who have come to serve. All of my colleagues have the most noble of intent. Early in our term, we decided to bring legislation that would ensure that though there may be temptations along the way, we have brought this legislation to guide our very own and for future governments.

I remember what happened to the PNM in 1986. They were demolished on the wave of an intent to cleanse the nation. That came in the wake of the O’Halloran, Prevatt and a host of other scandals. Who amongst us, except the very young, will ever forget that statement by, I think it was a minister in the PNM government, Mr. Desmond Cartey, that “all ah we tief”. I want to put it on the record that I have not stolen, nor do I intend to. 502 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. P. RAMADHAR] We realized that this was the history we inherited. There is almost a national culture that we believe almost everything in public life is corrupt, has been corrupt and will be corrupt. But are we going to accept that or are we going to make a difference? That is the question I pose. I have heard my learned friend speak about strengthening integrity legislation. Did you? Dr. Browne: Yes. Hon. P. Ramadhar: Really? Has corruption been effectively eradicated or substantially so? [Crosstalk] May 24 came once again in the wake of the corrupt allegations against Mr. Calder Hart and UDeCott, so for two times you have lost power on the basis of corruption. Are you going to allow this nation to go forward without taking any step, as of now, to protect the politics from those who may fall to the temptation? How do we do this? We do this by putting legislation. We know it may not be the best, of course, and that is why we came as a joint select committee offering, so that we will work together and thrash it out? These are simple things, so I do not understand all the heat that we have been getting all evening as to where we are going. When we speak to whistle-blower legislation, it is very simply to protect persons who may have information. My friend from Port of Spain North/St. Ann's East muttered words to the effect that she had evidence about some misdeed; well take it to where it should go. Do not make allegations in the wild, so that people could point fingers at anyone here and say one of them “in ting”. If they “in ting”, deal with it. If you do not have sufficient evidence, but you have enough to cause an investigation to begin, this legislation would allow that. So you will be able to make a report and be protected. If there is merit in it, investigations will continue; it is as simple as that. If there is no merit, we have to assume that those who will populate these offices will be persons of integrity, intelligence and of ability to know how to sift out malicious rumour mongering and allow for those who are guilty to be pursued and for those who are innocent to not be hounded. I thank you, Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's East, for reminding me of a statement I made, and I stand by it now as strongly as I ever did, that I came, in a large part, personally, to help change the face of politics, but because of the long history, to be fair, to be honest, your party has given politics a bad name. Many politicians have given it a bad name.

Hon. Member: What about the UNC? 503 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. P. Ramadhar: We have just come out from a period of incredible wealth, $300 billion, and our population—I do not want to go through the painful reality to ask where has the money really gone. We are not going to do things, as a new government, to prevent that from ever recurring. In 1986, the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) inherited an empty Treasury, so too in 2010. As we work to rebuild the economy and to strengthen the financial position of our nation, at the same time it must be done, not only do you build, but you protect. This is what this legislation was intended to do; it is as simple as that. 11.15 p.m. Why do we fret? Why do we howl? Why do we condemn? It may not be good for you and I say do not be all that defensive. We would work together and we would find a better formula if there is a better one, but I want to say that I am not and none of my colleagues here, in the face of all that we know has happened, because we make decisions today based on our experience of the past to protect the future. We are not going to allow things to continue or dangers to prevail. We are not going to throw our hands up in the air and say that this is a corrupt nation and do nothing about it. At every level you find some level of corruption. That is true! You go to the licensing office—you heard over the years of persons who work there and tell you they could do this for you or they could do the other and you pass some money. This week in my Ministry—I could tell you this—an old lady from deep South came to pay for something that would have cost $17, and some predator came to her and said “I will do it for you”. Poor old lady, did not know better; “I will do it for $700”. Thank you parliamentary secretary for bringing that to my attention. Well, we have put things in place to ensure that those things do not occur in our Ministry and that we were able to find that out and deal with it. Even in this hallowed House, my constituency office was victim to corruption where names were allegedly put—you, too, Member for Diego Martin North/East. Mr. Imbert: Not mine. Hon. P. Ramadhar: Not yours? Well, we do not know yet and I saw we had a note to ensure—La Brea—I mean, how awful is it, the highest House in the land is now victim to corruption and we are going to sit quietly and allow nothing to be done. When we speak— Mr. Imbert: People are charged before the court. 504 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. P. Ramadhar: They have been charged of course. I make no finding or any other than what is in the public domain. Mr. Imbert: Do not say nothing is being done—[Inaudible] Hon. P. Ramadhar: No, they have been charged, of course they are, but the point being that the culture which permits anyone to believe that they could do things and get away with it, that is why I am coming now to the illicit enrichment. How many of our citizens know of persons who work in offices—I will give you a wild example, say Board of Inland Revenue, another one where you give out planning commission—and their salary may be very, very modest but they are driving BMWs, X5s, Mercedes Benzes and live in the most posh areas? Everybody talks about it; nobody does anything about it. This is what this legislation is about. If you are innocent and you are pure, you have nothing to worry about. If, however, you have been victim to the temptation then you have a lot to consider. That is what laws are about. Mr. Deputy Speaker, to tell you the “honest” truth I could not understand why all of us had to get up and speak to this. It really, to me, is a non-issue. This is legislation this country has craved and needs. You have concerns, yes, and that is why, again, I say, we would work it out. Simple and easy! So the hour is very late and I know I would make more friends if I take my seat now, but I just want to say this before I—that corruption in my humble estimate has been the source of the decay of this fabric of society. I have spoken to many young persons and I come from a practice where in the courts I dealt with criminal law and therefore I have had a lot of interaction with young people who have gone awry of the law, and you know what most of them tell you, is that everybody does do it; from Prime Minister right down to the police officers, “everybody taking bribe, why I cannot do it?” Are we going to accept that? Is it that we are all going to be tainted and brushed with the same brush, those who have led lawful, good and decent lives? In the politics there are good and decent persons. Certainly! Are we not going to redefine who is who and what is what? Are we not going to return to truth? The only way you could do that is by making it almost uninhabitable to be corrupt. The laws that we have had have failed us because if anybody here believes that corruption is not rampant, I ask you to stand now and say so. Nobody has stood. I take it to mean that we accept that there is a great deal of corruption in this country. 505 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Imbert: We are tired. Hon. P. Ramadhar: Well, you are tired for a long time and you could have your seat for a very long time, but we stand here to protect this country. We stand here no matter what hour, many of us have given away our entire lives to be in the service of our people. Hon. Member: So have we on this side. Hon. P. Ramadhar: I agree, but if you are a part of that, you are willing to serve purely but not for personal benefit then we must do dramatic things sometimes, but meaningful things—and you know the old saying that, “fortune favours the bold”. I am a believer in that. Of course, one of my friends has said, that you do it, but not at any cost, but you certainly do not do it at no cost or not do anything at all, and that is what has been the criticism against my friends on the other side. We have taken the steps and we must do it; it is our duty to our people. Mr. Sharma: You are going good, Sir. Hon. P. Ramadhar: Thank you very much, having been complimented by Mr. Sharma, Member for Fyzabad. I thank you all and a very good night to you all. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Miss Joanne Thomas (St. Ann’s East): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity this evening to give my input to this debate. Firstly, I want to extend New Year greetings to you and to all Members of this House and to their families. Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a personal note I look back and I say, one year ago neither of us in here would have even thought that we would all be here filling these positions today. I want to urge us to just represent that position to the highest level of integrity. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I look to this Bill I see many similarities to that of the Integrity in Public Life Act, and I am very curious as to what will be the underlying reason to pull this Act from the shelf to bring to Parliament at this time. [Interruption] Is it a case of the easy way out to give an impression? Give an impression to whom, Mr. Deputy Speaker? People are no longer naive and unlearned as before. [Desk thumping] People are watching us. They are watching the Government, keeping abreast of every move, every action and they are in their right. 506 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MISS THOMAS] People depend on the Members of this House to educate and advise and I want to let the children of this nation and the people of this nation know that they have a responsibility too, to ensure that we Members do what they put us here to do. [Desk thumping] I want to encourage them, to check the Parliament website, go into it, get information; there is a wealth of information there and they would be able to check on us to make sure that we are in line. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my colleagues have competently addressed all the concerns as regards this particular Bill. I want to just go to two aspects of the Bill, two administrative aspects. I refer to section 2B: “Persons appointed to the Commission under section 2A shall possess the qualifications which the President deems necessary for the performance of the functions assigned to the Commission by this Act.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, whereas, there should be no concerns as to the discretion of the President as regards persons appointed, I am of the opinion that some specific measures as regards disqualifications should have been highlighted. From my reviews the only measures identified as disqualifying a person for appointment to the commission, is that a person must not be a Member of the Senate, must not be a Member of the House of Representatives, must not be a member of a local authority and must not be a member who is an undischarged bankrupt. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you tell me, what about a person who has been convicted of a crime? What about a person who may occasionally experience temporary insanity? And know this, I am not prejudiced in any way against anyone. It is just that this position is a very important and critical one and it demands the highest level of performance. [Interruption] No mention was made about the criteria for qualification or the criteria for disqualification to be a Member. Dr. Browne: Excellent! [Desk thumping] Miss J. Thomas: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as an HR manager certain things stand out to me. Does the Bill identify any cause for termination? What about if a person for whatsoever reason is incapable of performing his duty and functions of this Act? Does the Chief Commissioner have the authority to terminate this person or is it the duty of the President after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition? Who does the firing? Mr. Deputy Speaker, just like in the life of a human being beginning at birth and ending at death, similarly the work life of a person starts at the hiring process and ends with termination which can either be voluntary termination or forced 507 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 termination. I have seen no mention in this Bill about termination of a Member of the commission. These two areas are of great concern to me as an HR person and it is for this reason I have brought just these two aspects to the House with any Members having dealt with the other aspects of the Bill. [Desk thumping] So with these two bits, I support my colleagues in not supporting this Bill, thank you. [Desk thumping] The Minister of Trade and Industry (Hon. Stephen Cadiz): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is 11.30 p.m. and I will be very, very brief. [Interruption] I would like to bring the business aspect when we are talking about corruption and the prevention of corruption and how it affects business on a whole, because people feel the only thing that corruption does is fill people’s pockets, but it damages the economy in no small way. It creates all kinds of uncertainties, it creates issues of business people not wanting to get involved, to tender and what have you, which, of course, affects the whole business climate. Before I do that the Member for Diego Martin North/East, who—I am not sure if I am glad to report, is in fact my Member of Parliament—was talking about my take on crime, where I have not said anything when we were talking about crime. 11.30 p.m. I really and truly find that that was a bit of a low blow, but that is the nature of the Member for Diego Martin North/East. The one thing I would say for this Cabinet led by the hon. Prime Minister is that every single Member of the Cabinet is involved in dealing with crime. There is a direct responsibility of the Minister of National Security and unlike previous Ministers of National Security, he is one person who does not run from it and there is no old talk about a decrease in the increase or anything like that. So I just want him to know that we are very much there in dealing with crime, in all aspects of crime, and one of the biggest crimes that we see here, of course, is the crime of corruption, because I am fed up when people in the Caribbean start calling us "Trickidadians". Why you think they call us “Trickidadians”? It is not because of pan and they like us and Carnival and what have you; it is because the Caribbean views Trinidadians and Tobagonians as corrupt people. They view us as that. That has been a view for decades now. This is not a view from May 24; it is decades this thing has been going on. Why? Because the governments of the past, and one government of the past, nearly 50 years, nearly half a century ago, 508 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. S. CADIZ] has caused the Caribbean to look at Trinidadians and Tobagonians in that light, and they have to take responsibility for it, but I am not going to go there, because we already know what happened in the past with the Members from that side. We already know and as I say, it is 11.31 p.m. and we are not going back into that.

When we are talking about attracting investment and attracting foreign direct investment into Trinidad and Tobago, one of the areas that is looked at very, very closely is what is the level of corruption in the country, and people who are Fortune 500 companies do not go and invest in countries that are deemed to be corrupt. They do not, because they have to report to their shareholders, and that is a major hindrance to Trinidad and Tobago attracting serious money in the non- energy sector. That does not come from seven months or eight months of any particular government in office; that has come from decades of corruption. That is why we moved from 35 when the index first came out in 2001, to 73, and I would like to know from 2001, 2002, coming right up to 2010, who was in office. As far as I know it was Members from that side, including the same Member for Diego Martin North/East and the Member for Diego Martin West. They sat there and they all did zip. They did absolutely nothing to contain it. So when they talk about this Act coming in here; bringing the Act to Parliament and the penalties and what have you, the only reason you should be fearing penalties when it comes to law is because you might just be charged. [Interruption] You could laugh, but when you expended, Member for Diego Martin North/East; when your government misspent and mismanaged and stole the greater part of $300 billion of taxpayers' money, it is right for you to sit down there and laugh, because nobody from your side was ever charged for it. Nobody was ever charged! And here it is that you have a responsible Government coming into office and one of the main pillars of this Government coming into office is to weed out corruption and, still you all can sit there, all 12—well, sometimes 12, sometimes 11, sometimes not so many—but you can sit there and laugh at it and you all make a big joke out of corruption.

That has always been the issue of the other side. The issue on the other side is that they do not understand that corruption is wrong. It is not in their blood; it is not in the DNA. PNM thief; PNM steals; PNM mismanages money and they do not see anything wrong with that and, therefore, they can actually sit there without understanding what is going on here. 509 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mrs. McIntosh: Without understanding? Hon. S. Cadiz: Without understanding. You all have absolutely no understanding of the issues surrounding corruption, and it was said here earlier. Every single dollar that is stolen from the Treasury, every single dollar that is stolen from the taxpayer, means that somebody is going to suffer for that. Whether you like it or not, you all have been a corrupt administration and for the first time we are getting this legislation in a country that is known—we are known as "Trickidadians"—and we are bringing in an anti-corruption Act that is going to deal with corrupt people. The one thing that we have to do as a responsible Government is to build an honest and decent society. [Interruption] Member for Port of Spain North/ St. Ann's West, my Lord, I did not know you were being corrupted by the other side already. “You see how PNM does operate”? You come in here, Member for Port of Spain North/ St. Ann's West—you came in here as a very decent, loving person and in seven months you get corrupted already. That is the problem with the PNM. The PNM cannot deal with things in an honest, decent way. They even corrupt their own honest and decent people, and that is what we are dealing with. As I said, I am going to be to very, very brief— Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order, 36(5). He is imputing improper motives calling me corrupt and telling me I came in as a decent person and I am corrupt. Mr. Deputy Speaker: He did not call you corrupt. He said you have been corrupted. Member for Chaguanas East, could you please withdraw the statement? [Desk thumping] Hon. S. Cadiz: I withdraw the statement that there is corruption—I withdraw the statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the only thing that the other side has talked about tonight is the penalties and here it is, if you thief the taxpayers' money you are going to pay for it; you have to go to jail and you have to pay the fine. It is very simple. That is the only way we are going to deal with this corruption, and the history of the other side is a history again of mismanagement and theft from the public purse, and the only way we are going to stop that is for them to understand what the penalties are. All I am going to ask is that if the other side does not want to deal with corruption and they want to tell the citizens of this country that they have no intention of dealing with corruption, well then do not support the Bill. It is very, 510 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. S. CADIZ] very simple. Just leave it alone, but you go and you tell the population of this country that after the decades of stealing, if you come back into power by some flukes, that you are going to thief. That is all you have to tell them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you. [Desk thumping] Mrs. Paula Gopee-Scoon (Point Fortin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am only going to be about 10 minutes so let me first speak to the Member for Chaguanas East. You opened your statement or your very brief address by speaking of Trinidadians, by generalizing and saying that Trinidadians are known to be “Trickidadians.” That is an improper statement and it is an indictment on the people of Trinidad and Tobago to say that Trinidadians and Tobagonians are corrupt people. [Desk thumping] That is what you have said and that cannot be taken away. As a matter of fact, when people refer to us as “Trickidadians” it is not because we are corrupt, it is because we are known to be clever. That is the general consensus out there in the Caribbean, that we have made so much progress, that Trinidadians always find a way forward; that we are clever-minded people. That is the general thinking behind us being called “Trickidadians.” [Desk thumping] And you, Member for Chaguanas East, are exhibit A when it comes to a “Trickidadian”, because when you were marching with your people you said you will not seek political office and here you are, sitting there as a public official. [Desk thumping] You are exhibit A in terms of a “Trickidadian”. The Member for Tabaquite, let me just clear up once again, because you always say things with a very smiling face but I will tell you, there is always a sting behind it. Yes, I do live in Point Fortin as well as in Westmoorings. I am in my constituency regularly and what you are trying to imply is that I am not regularly there. I do not want to talk about those of you on the other side who have multiple homes and I would not talk about if it is a case of home is where the heart is, because many of you will be wealthy. Okay. Let us get down do business. You were speaking about investors leaving Trinidad and Tobago and you said that in 2009 something like four investors have left Trinidad and Tobago’s shores and projects were not materialized, however you want to put it. At this stage you want to change your story. But what I am saying is it is disappointing that as a seasoned—I would say that you are a seasoned and senior Minister because you were involved in this business for a long time. You should have known that when you make statements like that— 511 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Point Fortin. Could I just ask that you include me in the conversation? Also, the Member is the Member for Tabaquite, not “you”. So through the Deputy Speaker, you say the Member for Tabaquite and just kind of include me a little bit in the conversation. Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Member for Tabaquite spoke about investors leaving this country or changing their minds on investing in this country and what I am saying is that he failed to put it in the proper context which is that of the global recession, that many countries could not come because of their connection. Many of them, their financial circumstances were tied to the American financial system and, therefore, they could no longer make these investments. This does not apply to Trinidad and Tobago alone. That applied throughout the world. This is what I do not like in particular about the Member, when, in fact, he is smiling and saying these things, expounding on it without giving the truth to the nation, which is, putting it with the backdrop that there is a global recession in place and that has affected investments. The Member goes on to talk about investments, but not one investor in the last seven months has come to Trinidad and Tobago; not one new investor has come to Trinidad and Tobago. If my research serves me right, I only know of one possible investor that is talking to us at this time, and I believe that is about the MovieTowne complex extension or so. So I do not think that this Government has done very well in terms of attracting any new investments and I do not think we have anything to look forward to. He spoke about doing business with Nigeria and I think that is helping Nigeria to monetize its energy resources and so on, and then he spoke about the Japanese business persons coming here and Panamanian businessmen coming here as well, as if it all began yesterday. I want to say that all of this started with the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the work of the Ministry of Trade and Industry under the PNM administration. [Desk thumping] I am very pleased and I accept and acknowledge all that he has said in terms of the conventions and the treaties that we have signed on to regarding corruption and that all occurred under the PNM administration. [Desk thumping] He spoke a little bit about conflict of interest and I am going to come to that as my final point. I am a little sorry to have to go back on the FATF issue, but I am going to be colour blind and I am not going to talk about who is blacklisted or grey-listed or anything like that, but I just want to seek to correct the Member for 512 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. GOPEE-SCOON] Tunapuna. Again, he went on to—there are, in fact, two sets of lists that one can look at; one, which is the public statement which are for those countries—there are only two countries on that list: Iran and the Democratic Republic of Korea, and those are very serious offenders, so that there are all sorts of reservations that have been made about doing business with these countries, and that is on that public statement. 11.45 p.m. There is another list which Trinidad is a part of, and I am looking for it, the list with the 33 countries who have not been compliant, and who have been deficient in varying ways. So Trinidad and Tobago—both the Members for Chaguanas West and Tunapuna spoke generally about the three areas of deficiencies that we were working on. What I want to do is to inform the Member for Tunapuna—maybe his technocrats were not updated—that the three areas of deficiencies would be: (1) implementing adequate procedures to identify and freeze terrorist assets without delay; (2) implementing adequate procedures for the confiscation of funds relating to money laundering; and (3) establishing a fully operational and effectively functioning FIU, including supervisory powers. I want to update you that No. 2 has in fact fallen off and that is because of the work we had done as well. So it is in fact just simply two efficiencies that we are dealing with—two main efficiencies. You could check with the CFATF office in Trinidad on Sackville Street and they will give you the correct position on that. Notwithstanding, I still do not agree that you have merely relieved David West from him position. I still want to contend that in fact it was a political move. I am disappointed that you did not see the merit in moving as quickly as possible to ensure that Trinidad and Tobago becomes fully compliant with FATF and CFATF and whatever changes needed to have been made, you could have made them later on. But the point about it is, there are very, very serious repercussions to us not satisfying the requirements, all of the 40-plus recommendations, and one of the points is that if we do not do it, the FATF has the right to in fact transfer us into that category of the public statements where Iran and Korea are. So there should be some anxiety on your part to move very, very swiftly. 513 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

It is very serious. As the Member for Diego Martin North/East was saying, apart from the FATF taking action as they see fit, individual countries will in fact take action and warn their financial bodies, their professionals, their business people about having a relationship with Trinidad and Tobago in any which way. There are far-reaching consequences and for a country like ours where we depend on foreign direct investments, it is important. Therefore, a country like ourselves where we trade significantly with Caricom, where we intend to trade with Central America, Europe and also in Latin America, it is important that you move swiftly to do so because as I said, the effects can be far-reaching. Mr. Roberts: Would the Member give way for a question, please? Just one small question. Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: Go ahead. Mr. Roberts: Thank you, Member for Point Fortin. You said that the removal or the firing or termination of Mr. David West was political; are you stating here in the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago that you have information that Mr. West was a member of People’s National Movement? Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: I would like to move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me close off on the FATF and say that Trinidad and Tobago does not want to be regarded as a pariah nation an outcast, and I would ask the Minister of Finance, the Member for Tunapuna to move very swiftly to expedite compliance with all of the FATF requirements and the CFATF requirements. Regarding the Bill, I said I will be quick. My own view on the Prevention of Corruption Bill; it is supposed to be technically an amendment, it is not. As a matter of fact, my view is that the changes are immense and I want to agree with the Members on my side who have proposed that what we seek to do instead is to amend the Integrity in Public Life Bill. [Interruption] I am seeking some protection. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member for Point Fortin has asked for protection from the Members for Diego Martin North/East and D’Abadie/O’Meara. Continue. Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: What I am saying is that this Bill does not seek simply to amend, but it is—they have introduced some rather big chunks which are of concern to us, to me as well, beginning with Part IV which deals with the private sector. I am sure I am speaking on behalf of all professionals and business people who would be captured under the private sector. This is a very serious invasion 514 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. GOPEE-SCOON] into what goes on in businesses and in professions as well. This Government is seeking to permeate and leach through a lot of relationships. This is a different venture and I think before they go there, there should be consultation. In fact, I think there are other pieces of legislation that can take care of this aspect, the business of the private sector for the time being. Apart from the public officials, this is also capturing the foreign public officials. And by the way, if you look in the definition section of “foreign public official” this captures Heads of State and government as well. This is really far- reaching as it is. You are talking international organizations, Caricom, United Nations, et cetera. I think it has gone too far, but I am not sure if the Government really sat and thought of what they are doing and what enacting this piece of legislation involves, if it is that it really has to come to life. It crosses so many borders, that you were in fact seeking to capture a lot of instances here. There are a number of circumstances that can be captured here. I am not sure if they looked at the cost of establishing this commission, and the questions that the Government need to look at as well: how many cases do you really expect to treat with, monthly? Do we have the manpower to deal with the extra police that would be required, all the additional judges? What about the jail space, and the administration space? This all comes up to tremendous cost and my feeling is that the Government really has not thought out what it is getting into if they are truly to give life to this piece of legislation and that it will not be passed and sit on the shelf. Also, this legislation seeks to give the impression that this Government is holier than thou, and that is not the case. This is the very same Government who was voted out in 2001 on the basis of corruption. The airport scandal and I am sure that some of my colleagues made reference without actually calling the name, the “airport scandal”, but the point about it is, I do not think the Members on the other side have the moral rectitude to actually impose something like this on the population. Mr. Speaker, this business of corruption is a very wide thing and it encompasses dishonesty, bribery, immorality and wickedness as well. So it goes very, very wide and I do not think enough thought was put into it. Again, I do not think the Government has worked very hard in terms of preparing itself to bring Bills to us, to bring meaningful Bills to us. They have just picked up something that was there and they brought it, but I do not think they are ready to truly implement this piece of legislation and it is very, very disappointing. Lastly—[Interruption] 515 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Sharma: You have nothing else to say. Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: No, I have something else to say—if it is that the Government is going to bring this type of legislation to the Parliament, I think it should firstly look at its own members and look at those around them because charity begins at home and if it is at all this legislation could have been made retroactive, some those persons on the other side will no longer be there. Hon. Member: That is right. Mr. Sharma: Nonsense! Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: I am going to be short, but this whole business of conflict of interest, I am going to come back with it. Mr. Sharma: When? Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: I am going to come back with a Motion on it because I am not satisfied that that it is in the best interest of our Trinidad and Tobago and the integrity of our country. When one looks at two articles in the press—I am not going to be judge and jury here this evening, there is no time for that. But when one looks at two articles in the press, first being the Guardian of December 06 and heading being “The Jacks of two trades”, I will quote from that particular article: “The English to overtures to Jack Warner included…” Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Diego Martin North/East? Mr. Imbert: Yes, Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Could you just turn it down and let me hear the Member for Point Fortin? Mr. Imbert: Certainly. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thanks. Mrs. P. Gopee-Scoon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I said, I am going to quote because I want some introspection to be done as to whether or not the Government should really be bringing this piece of legislation without fixing its business at home first and I am just going to lay on the table these two articles. I will give you an excerpt of one now. One entitled “The Jack of two trades” from the Guardian Editorial of Monday, December 06, 2010. Let me just read: “The English overtures to Jack Warner included football clinic hosted by David Beckham on local soil for young football hopefuls, an English football 516 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. GOPEE-SCOON] team friendly match in Trinidad and Tobago and as the time grew closer for voting, much more intimate efforts at persuasion.” That is just one article. And I go to another article in the Express of the very same day. Headline of that article is “Warner in secret meeting with Putin”, and I will quote again:

“Controversial FIFA vice-president Warner, who has been linked to alleged ticket touting, had a one-on-one meeting with Putin...” It went on to talk about Putin visiting Trinidad and Tobago and I quote: “This pledge was an irresistible sweetener for Warner who knew Putin’s visit would increase his own standing on the island where he is a rich government minister.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I said I will not be judge and jury this evening, but this hints to the matter of corruption and corruption of public officials; the whole question of conflict of interest and it puts in question some of the Members on the other side, and this is something that we must take into consideration. This is serious business. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you. [Desk thumping] 12.00 midnight The Minister of Local Government (Hon. Chandresh Sharma): Thank you very, much Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me congratulate you for your conduct in that Chair today. I observed that since 1.30 p.m., except for the tea break, you did not move from there. Is that your medical training? You have done exceptionally well, Sir. Member for Point Fortin, one of the things that Members of Parliament are required to demonstrate is a higher level of intelligence. When you looked at what the Member for Diego Martin North/East started, you have done worse than him and that is very difficult to achieve. You must not start bad-mouthing your country. You must be proud to be a Trinidadian. For you to say—you must not be economical with the truth. The Parliament does not allow me to say you must not lie, so I will not say that, but you cannot say you are not aware that people are not coming to do business in the country. There have been many business houses coming here. Even the Member for Diego Martin Central knows. The national community knows. When you say falsehood here, you look foolish and it is my duty to help you. 517 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Fyzabad, try to address the Chair, after giving it such nice kudos, and refer to the Members by saying Member of the constituency they represent and not “you”. Hon. C. Sharma: Thank you very much. Why would a Member, a former Minister of government, say lies in the Parliament? Why? Mr. Imbert: Point of order, Standing Order 36(5). Hon. C. Sharma: It does not apply. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very difficult to rule, because he said: “Why would a Member, a former Minister…” He called no names. Mr. Imbert: He is talking about her. Mr. Deputy Speaker: But, he did not say that. Member for Diego Martin North/East, the Member for Fyzabad asked a question: “Why would a Member, a former Minister lie?” He did not direct it to anybody, but I am going to caution him on that now. Member for Fyzabad, if you are insinuating indirectly to any Member on the other side, I ask that you not do so, and if it is done again I would have to ask you to withdraw or expunge it. Hon. C. Sharma: I was not referring to these godly people on other side, but they know. The Member for Diego Martin West has not spoken in this debate and for good reasons; I suspect he would speak after. Let us look at what is happening. We are in this debate today—that is global. It is happening all over the world. We have, on the other side, Members of the former government. The Member for Point Fortin said to us and the national community that no person or business houses are seeking to do business in Trinidad and every one of us knows that is a falsehood. What prevents any one of you from getting up and saying: “listen, that is not true. This is our country. We need the business”? The Member is aware, even when she was a Minister of Government, that there were parties showing interest. Some of that has continued. [Interruption] Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Member for Fyzabad. Hon. C. Sharma: Now, make sure that it is intelligent. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Member for Fyzabad, this being your maiden contribution, I would expect better from you. What I said is, for the last seven months, no new investors have come into Trinidad, and as far as my research has 518 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [MRS. GOPEE-SCOON] shown, no investors have shown interest in coming, save and apart from one investor who is showing, I believe, some interest in the MovieTowne extension. That is what I have said. Hon. C. Sharma: And you took two minutes to make yourself appear totally unprepared. Whenever you speak, you must think. You have read—where did you do your research, is it in the comic section of the newspapers? Every God’s day you cannot get a flight out of New York, Miami or Toronto right now. It has been sold out for the last two or three months. It has been sold out beyond March and April, because people are coming here to do business in energy and hotel. You said you knew of one at MovieTowne, how did you become aware of that? Did the investor tell you? Did you read of it? Mr. Warner: Juliana. Hon. C. Sharma: What prevented you from asking? Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: What is your point? Hon. C. Sharma: That you must not tell half-truths in the Parliament. You are speaking to the national community. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Standing Order 36(5). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Fyzabad, direct it to me, when you indicate that you should not do this. I try to keep a line, so that you come back to the Member for Point Fortin or whatever the case, accusing a Member of saying half-truths in the Parliament. If you think a Member has said anything that is contrary, there are provisions in the Standing Orders to direct it and not directly impute it to a Member in the Parliament. Once again, Member for Fyzabad, could you withdraw that statement? Direct your contribution to me and refer to the Members by the constituency that they represent. Hon. C. Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have said—and I am withdrawing if it affects the Member—that the people of Trinidad and Tobago are very much aware that Trinidad and Tobago continues to attract international investors. I am saying that, as Members of Parliament, it in our domain to know. It is no secret that many investors have been coming over the last seven months, more so, since the election of the new Government. In the past, people were holding back, because they did not have confidence in the last government, for whatever reason. When this new Government came on board in May, immediately after—that is a practice all over the world when new governments come into office. It happens all over the word. That is known to every citizen in this country. 519 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

We have also reported, as a Government, of development, because we want the citizens to know what is coming into the country. We also invite people and when we invite, we invite the people of Trinidad and Tobago. As Members of the Opposition, you are not denied that right as well. When you are Opposition, it does not mean that you cease to function. You are part of the Government and you also have a right to attract investors to have a right to engage the Government. Of course, that is the point, because if it is that you are claiming in seven months, you are only aware of one investor, then you are misleading yourself and the national community. I want to move on. I do not want to engage you for the rest of the morning. Why is this legislation so very important? We have to go back to the history. The People’s National Movement has been in government for almost 50 years. What is the trademark of this government? Mr. Warner: Corruption. Hon. C. Sharma: It is known as the masters of corruption. It is unfortunate. It should not be so. The classic example is to look at what obtains in Trinidad at this present time. In the last PNM government, which lasted for a period of eight years or more, more than $300 billion was circulated in this country. When you look at the value of goods and services obtained by the Government, it does not exceed $150 billion. It is crystal clear to the average citizen of Trinidad and Tobago that $150 billion cannot be accounted for in goods and services. You could look around in any one of our projects. It means to say that large sums of moneys have been moved by government or its agents, however they have moved it. UDeCott is a good example. They have not delivered a single project within budget. Today, the Minister of Works and Transport demonstrated a building 13 by eight, which should not cost more than $120,000 that cost close to $800,000. This is what the PNM administration had been doing. This is why this legislation is so important. When you look—the Member for Diego Martin North/East claimed not to know of the Public Transport Service Corporation, for which he had responsibility. Look at the quantum of money that was used and abused. Look at the moneys they paid out on non-services and the abuse of the use of the buses and this former Minister claims not to know. In any other countries, they would be facing different kinds of trials. And it goes on and on. Every single project by the past government—on and on and on, corruption after corruption after corruption. Why are they defending this so strongly? Why do they not want to be part of it? Why are they hiding behind it? 520 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] Let us look at some of the other projects. Can the past government say to the national community, “Listen, we have done project A and it was within budget.”? The answer is, no. For every major expensive project, there were cost overruns. Are we not ashamed of Scarborough Hospital? Close to $1billion and nothing to show for it? Brian Lara Stadium, close to $1 billion and nothing to show for it. Where has this money gone? It is sitting in somebody’s bank account. I pray to God that it is none of them there. The list goes on. The government building at Chancery Lane, San Fernando—[Interruption] keep quiet and listen—$296 million; $700 million later and not yet finished. All of us, as parliamentarians—I want to thank you for an invitation that you issued earlier today. The industry standards all over the world help us to understand and these are presented after much research by different players and not a single project, including the residence of the Prime Minister, has come within budget. All the international watchdogs have said that is the easiest way for governments to move money. I have not said that, Sir. That is what the research is showing. Can the previous government and Members opposite tell this country how it is, in every project you have moved 100, 200 or 300 per cent cost overrun? [Interruption] Beautiful, the Member for Laventille East/Morvant or wherever she is from, wants to move on. There is going to be a workshop here conducted by—the invitation came from your good self. One of the sessions is about accountability, legislation and integrity in public life, as they relate to parliamentarians. It means that the fact that the CPA Parliamentary Seminar for Trinidad and Tobago is taking place, says something. It is important for Members of Parliament on both sides of this House understand that we are the custodians of taxpayers’ money. The fact that that the Government changed—the only reason the government changed is because you have failed to deliver whilst in government. What were some of the charges? The national community was not benefiting from any delivery of goods and services. The hospitals were in a mess, but we were spending large sums of money. Many patients were going into the public health hospitals and could not receive simple medications that are not very costly, but we were spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Again, the international observers and the local observers indicated that there was corruption in that area. Then we went to the Ministry of Works and Transport, under the watch of the Member for Diego Martin North/East. Again, when you look at what we are delivering in those same projects today, it is a lot different. In fact, earlier today, 521 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 or yesterday, the distinguished Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Diego Martin West and, I shared a platform where we opened two bridges. I shared this with the Member for Diego Martin West, as I share with all my colleagues here and the national community, the cost to construct both bridges is being covered by the Ministry of Local Government and is as follows: 80 feet of Bailey bridge—I have done the research and that is why I showed it to my distinguished friend. Under the PNM, Sir, this was of course in excess of $1 million. Minister of Finance, I delivered this for $180,000. We did not stop there. These are learnings that would benefit us. 12.15 a.m. I will not be a Minister for the rest of my life. Somebody else will come and that person will have an opportunity to look at the conduct of this former Minister whom they would be very disgusted with. I delivered a 40-foot bridge for $130,000. The Prime Minister said we must deliver within budget; open tender. More than that, tenders were invited to transport and install the bridges for this project. G&P Sawmilling Industry of Penal was awarded the contract. Do you know what is very important? You have two governments to look at. The PNM was there up to seven months ago and you have the People’s Partnership. We have to look at delivery so one would know where corruption obtains. I want to highlight what obtained with respect to the installation of these bridges to make the point how we reduced corruption by involving the players and ensuring that a Minister does not sit and say, I want A, B, C, as was obtained under the PNM. I am going to highlight the exceptional work that was done by the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Local Government, Mr. Creese; Mr. Alvin John, Civil Engineer; Mr. Jameel Mohammed, Technical Officer and Mr. Alexander, Engineering Assistant, from the Ministry of Local Government. The invitation to tender for the contract and the awarding of the contracts was done in two days. The bridges had collapsed and persons were unable to access their homes. Within two days, we applied the law as obtained, and we were able to award the contracts. Look at the cost we bring it to! Mr. John at my Ministry initiated the efforts, and the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Creese, gave the needed approvals and they worked closely with the Diego Martin Regional Corporation. The first bridge was completed on Christmas eve day. We did not say that tomorrow is Christmas Day and we are not going to work. We knew that we owed 522 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] it to the national community. We said that we would make ourselves available to them 365 days a year, 24/7. Under the PNM, you were not going to have persons working on Christmas eve. The second bridge was completed on New Year’s Eve when many persons were preparing for their Old Year’s Night parties. We made sure we delivered to the community and within budget. Both contracts were awarded within two days. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is clear that this legislation is long overdue, and the Government must be commended for doing what is right. Our duty is to bring the legislation here. We indicated that there is going to be participation by having the joint select committee so that all the concerns could be addressed. I listened to the Member for Diego Martin North/East. Look at the dirty work he is prepared to do! He attempted to capture media highlights by saying a falsehood in the Parliament—we were blacklisted—and there is no truth in that. How could a former Minister of a government do something like that? It cannot be love for country. It is greed for power. If one asks a simple-minded person in Trinidad, why would the minister do that, that person is going to tell you that former Minister is caught up with office, and he cannot adjust to being in Opposition. He is accustomed to having his way and making large sums of money. [By order of the Chair words expunged] Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 36(5). How can he say I am accustomed to making money whether [By order of the Chair words expunged] Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Fyzabad, that was imputing improper motives; legally or otherwise. Please expunge it from the record. Hon. C. Sharma: The Member said that he is sick with power, but we have to move away from that. You cannot suddenly be in government and have all the answers, and want all the support for legislation and when the legislation comes and it is not favourable to your conduct and lifestyle you protest. Legislation is not about personality, but it is about the majority of citizens. You cannot legislate for all the people all the time, but you always have to act in the best interest of the majority. [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: What about the vehicle you crashed? Hon. C. Sharma: This Member is asking—sometime ago he crashed a ministry vehicle. Mr. Imbert: You crashed the vehicle! [Laughter] 523 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hon. C. Sharma: Today, when the Member for Diego West asked the question— Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member is imputing improper motives, Standing Order 36(5). I never had anything to do with any ministry vehicle, it was he. He crashed the ministry vehicle. [Desk thumping] Miss Mc Donald: And he left it in the rain. [Crosstalk] Hon. C. Sharma: Allow me to respond. I do not drive the Ministry vehicle. Mr. Imbert: What! And you are putting that on the record? Hon. C. Sharma: On the Hansard record. That is the first thing. The second thing is I have never crashed any vehicle. Mr. Imbert: You are putting that on the record? [Interruption] Hon. C. Sharma: You can make an intelligent contribution after. Do not drop your standard like the Member for Diego Martin North/East. You are a potential leader and you have to earn it. The practice of the Opposition—this is happening with the Member for Point Fortin straight up—is to make attempts to attack personalities of Ministers. For instance, three or four speakers on the other side attacked the Member for Chaguanas West. It is about greed and jealousy. This is one of the most achieved human beings on this side of the earth. There is no question about that. What is his fault? To be accessible, to achieve and to be successful. When you compare the Member for Diego Martin North/East and the Member for Chaguanas West, this is no cheese and plenty chalk. How does the Opposition intend to operate? It is by attacking personalities and creating all kinds of things. The Member for Arouca/Maloney manufactured something in her mind and presented it as if it obtained somewhere. With the exception of the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West every one of them is about personality attack. The Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West is permanently a victim syndrome. They attack her here and do her this and that. We are not going to do you anything. Do not worry. So, everybody has his or her own style. When one looks at it, it is about non-achievement; absolutely no achievement. I admire the Member for Arouca/Maloney because she is consistent. It is the same speech sitting after sitting—[Desk thumping]—and only the dates are changed, nothing new. The Member for Diego Martin Central is contesting the 524 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] position of political leader on that side so he is competing with my good friend, the Member for Diego Martin West. [Desk thumping] He has nothing to say, only a set of fancy phrases. There is a comedy show on TV, I forget the name of it, and it is as if he is practising to go on that comedy show. This is the Parliament and you have to be real. You have to present statistics and real information. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 36(1). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36(1) points to relevance. As I indicated to the Member for Oropouche West, the debate has been opened so wide that the Member for Fyzabad is just answering what was said, so I have to overrule you. [Desk thumping] Hon. C. Sharma: Do not miss the point. This legislation is to protect you and the interest of Trinidad and Tobago. We have a responsibility, and when you stand to speak, you also have to make an intelligent contribution. The average citizen who is listening to you or watching you on television must say this is going to add value. Nothing you have said today has added any value to the debate. Absolutely nothing! If I were to ask you what was your main point, you cannot answer. Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: What is your point? Hon. C. Sharma: My point is that you have said absolutely nothing of value. [Desk thumping and laughter] That is the point! I have had the good fortune of being in Parliament for the same period as the Member for Diego Martin West and the Member for Diego Martin North/East. Over the years we have seen practices; a particular approach to doing things. We also served in the Opposition, and when the government of the day brought any legislation there was a code of conduct on our side. The first question we asked ourselves was whether this legislation was going to add value to people’s lives, whom we represent. If the answer was yes, it had to be supported, and we asked about the concerns we had. For Members to come session after session and condemn everything, it means that you are not doing your duty. You cannot hide by trying to appeal to the emotions of the people. When we come to this Parliament it is not about emotions, but it is about real-life situations. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a Member of Parliament—on both sides we have to meet our constituents, and we know what they are suffering from. We know their shortcomings. When we look at the billions of dollars spent in various ministries and there are no goods and services at the end of the day, it tells us that something is wrong. 525 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

When one looks at WASA, it is grossly overpopulated and the majority of persons came through PNM recommendations; no process. When one looks at Petrotrin—when it was under the UNC watch, the former Prime Minister described it as “Petrosingh”, racial overtone. Today Petrotrin has moved from a contract of $9 million which was given to a PNM supporter to $127 million. I think it was Cudjoe Construction. That was obtained under the PNM. The point is, why do you avoid reality? Are you not aware of the corruption under your watch? Mrs. McIntosh: You live in the past, we wish to move on. Hon. C. Sharma: The Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West is saying it happened in the past. We are talking about the PNM and the PNM is the past. So we are moving on with the People’s Partnership with the legislation. [Desk thumping] The UNC is part of the People’s Partnership. Do not fear that. Listen, when you reach that level you really do not have anything to say. You have really gone through. The point is we have to look at what obtained in the past. Look at WASA! Today we have spent billions of dollars in WASA and many homes are without pipe-borne water. How do you answer that? Look at the schools! Billions of dollars have been spent. Today, the Siparia Secondary School is closed because of the failure of the plumbing system, and the list goes on and on. If you continue living in denial—you have made mistakes and there is no question about that, but you cannot pretend. Look at how the Member for Diego Martin North/East treated with the issues raised with PTSC. He said he knew nothing about it. All of us have responsibilities for organizations under our watch. Do you think we can go to our Prime Minister and when she asks what is happening at company X or Y, we could hide and say we do not know? That is not allowed at all. Members opposite know about corruption everywhere except under the PNM. This must disturb the people of Trinidad and Tobago that under the PNM they have failed the country and we can correct it by this legislation. This legislation is not about spite. This legislation is to protect the national interest and to ensure those of us who are responsible for the public purse can account at the end of the day. This is intended to help us. It helps us with checks and balances. 12.30 a.m. No longer will we be able to come in the future when this legislation obtains and say we do not know. You will never have a situation where a former Minister, like the Minister of Works and Transport, having seen what obtains at The Public 526 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] Transport Service Corporation saying “I do not know.” Never again; cannot happen. You design systems to treat with it. Now, that should be misconduct in public office. Mr. Imbert: You think so? Hon. C. Sharma: Of course. When you said that the country was blacklisted, that is misconduct in the eyes of the public. Why do you do those things? What do you hope to achieve from them? And you keep on moving and moving and moving. So when you are in Opposition, it seems as if your only role is to disturb the peace of the country. It seems as if your only role is to prevent any investments from coming into the country. You do not want a higher quality. That is how you are coming over. I served in Opposition, and I do not recall a similar conduct at all. I will raise any issue, but never to prevent investments. Hon. Members: What? Hon. C. Sharma: When investments come to the country who benefits? All the people of Trinidad and Tobago; all the investments. I remember in Opposition, for the first time in the history of Trinidad and Tobago—and for the new Members of Parliament, it might be some learning for you, and even the not so old. Miss Hospedales: You are teaching? Hon. C. Sharma: Yes. We must always learn from each other. You may not be able to contribute any learning, but still make the effort. In Opposition Cedros fishermen were affected. While they were going to fish in the waters, the Venezuelan boats would attack them. It was drawn to the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of the day, who was the Member for San Fernando West, Hon. Ralph Maharaj. He did absolutely nothing. The PNM did nothing. You know what the Opposition did? I was the spokesperson for foreign affairs then. I went to Venezuela and met with the authorities and resolved the matter. So the point I want to make is that in Opposition you can also perform. You can also do good. You must not be a messenger of bad news. You must not appear “bad-mind”. Right now, “yuh coming over bad-mind”, spiteful, “I hate the country.” You must move away from that. That is how the country is seeing you, because every time you stand up to speak, you are criticizing, you are finding fault with everything. We do not bring legislation. You are not bringing legislation. You bring legislation, it is no good. 527 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

You cannot be pleased because you are in Opposition. You are protesting your Opposition place. Listen, when you are in Opposition, you have earned the right to be in Opposition. Now you must earn the right to get back in government by good conduct, by good performance. You must not appear “bad-mind.” When you look at some of your faces, it is a horror story of spite, of hate, of malice; “I don’t care.” [Interruption] Let me see yours? Really. So we cannot continue that light. Dr. Browne: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 36(4) and Standing Order 36 (5). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36 (4) and 36 (5). “It shall be out of order to use offensive or insulting language about Members of either Chamber.” And: “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.” Member for Fyzabad, first, let me indicate that you are sailing very close to the wind. Couch your language in a different manner not to offend the Members on the other side. Hon. C. Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I really wanted to say, when I look at your faces, I do not see love. I do not see care for Trinidad and Tobago. I do not see peacefulness; no love for Trinidad and Tobago. I do not see brotherhood in you. I do not see sisterhood in you. I see no element of care. And I am begging you to demonstrate to all of us in Trinidad and Tobago that you care for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. I want you to say—I want your facial expressions and your body language to say to the investors, “Come, our country is open for investments, and together with the Government we are going to join hands and bring all the investors and create more jobs and more wealth for all the people of Trinidad and Tobago.” We want to say to those international investors, we are going to pass legislation where no officeholder, whether in Opposition or in Government or elsewhere, will take bribes and will mislead you, and you will not have to meet any legislator at any level to give a bribe to get work done here. That is what we must say collectively. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago is for all the people, including the Opposition. You are not separate from us. 528 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Miss Cox: No? Hon. C. Sharma: No. You are not separate from us. The framers of the Constitution provided for this. This obtains in hundreds of countries. There is an Opposition in the United Kingdom, wherever else, and there is a role for us. And we were there, and we understand it best. You know, when we were in Opposition, the government of the day treated us very badly. We did not protest. We did not scare away investors. We bided our time. We served. Under Local Government history was created. Within two months—in fact, within 24 hours the Minister of Local Government met with all the elected officials. There were 134, 131 came. Three asked to be absent. Soon after that, a five-day workshop was conducted by the University of the West Indies to make sure they understand their roles; to make sure corruption was reduced; to make sure value for money came. But more than that, as Minister of Local Government I sat with all 14 corporations. It was the first time a Prime Minister visited almost every single corporation. [Desk thumping] That has never happened under the PNM. As the Minister I have gone to every single one. But more than that—and your PNM friends are telling you that—in every single electoral district in Trinidad, all 134 represented by members of the PNM, UNC, MSJ, NJAC, COP, in every one, three projects started. That has never happened. This is a Government for all the people. [Desk thumping] I feel so proud to be part of that. That is what I wanted to achieve. I am ready to go any time. When we can govern for all the people, when we can make sure—you know, this learning will go to the global parliamentary community. [Interruption] Yes. You were a Minister, and you must reflect—I am sure you would have done good—but I want you to reflect and see the amount of wastage that obtained under your watch—each one of you who were ministers. And if it obtains under me, draw it to my attention. I feel very proud when our public officers, under the guidance of their Minister, can deliver a bridge that would have come close to a million dollars, for $180,000. And that is what we are about. And that is why we must, at all times, make sure that the legislation that we bring to the Parliament helps us in the discharge of our duty. And this legislation is intended only to do that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, every Member of Parliament has an office day, and when they go to their office they meet citizens. When the Member for Diego Martin North/East goes to his office and the Member for La Brea and I and the 529 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Member for Diego Martin West and any other Member, we see citizens who come in front of us. They do not wear UNC badges or PNM badges or COP or People’s Partnership badges, they come as citizens, as constituents, they come as individuals and they seek our help.

And what are some of the concerns they raise with us? What are some of the matters they want attended to? Some are not getting pipe-borne water; some roads are in horrible condition. But you know what they say to us? They say, “MP, this country ha’ so much a money” or “had so much a money. What has happened?” You know what they also beg us to do? To make sure we do not repeat those sins, wastage of money that obtained under the PNM. We have to reassure them, it will never happen, and part of that reassurance is this legislation. So do not hate the legislation. Embrace it; see it as good, and do not dislike us for bringing legislation because of past experiences. Do not dislike your Government for doing what is right. [Interruption] But that is what you are doing. Because, you see, in your presentation—I had the opportunity to listen to every single Member of the Opposition who spoke today, and that is what was coming over, except for the Member for St. Ann’s East who made two observations and also made some recommendations. The rest of you were heavy only on criticizing why this cannot work. Tell us how you think it could work.

Opposition also has a role in helping to produce good legislation. That is why there is a—[Interruption]—of course there is. And that is—[Interruption] Exactly. The Member for Diego Martin North/East is questioning that, because his duty in Opposition is not to make anything happen that can add value to the lives of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Imbert: You have the votes. Vote it. Do your work. Hon. C. Sharma: And he dismisses it as, “That is all yuh work only”. But Government is about Opposition and Government meeting in this Chamber and discussing these issues. That is what I understand it to be. We subscribe to the Westminster system, and this is what obtains in all the countries that subscribe to this approach. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is very clear, the time has come in this country where larger levels and a higher degree of maturity are required of all our Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. And when we come here, 530 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] having made some statements, scored a couple points—that is okay—we must get down to the real issue for our meeting here today, at 12.41 on Saturday morning, to do what is best for the country. [Laughter] We must not forget that $300 billion having gone through the system, and nothing to show for it at the end of the day. Hon. Members: Thursday morning. Hon. C. Sharma: Thursday morning. We have to make sure when we come here we pass legislation, as we are attempting to do this morning, to benefit all the people, and we will go and report to them. As you know, we have given a commitment to go back to the national community—community after community on a Monday night and report, and to consult with, and we will be saying what legislation we brought to this Parliament. In fact, I could extend an invitation to you. The next meeting will be on the 24th—on Monday. And you listen and hear us report to the national community; hear us respond to them: the emails they send us; the letters they send us; the text messages they send us; when they come to our offices and they consult, and they ask questions, we give a commitment that “We will treat with all your concerns.” One of the major concerns of this country of people over the last 50 years has been corruption under the PNM Government. And they waited for a Government—it was attempted under the Government of 1986 to ’91. And they have waited for this new Government under the watch of our current Prime Minister to make sure we are brave, we are strong, we are committed and we are fearless to bring legislation that will reduce that corruption, until we can get it to the point where it does not exist anymore. You heard from the Member for St. Augustine; one isolated case of somebody at the Ministry charging or accepting a sum of money to do something that was not allowed, and treating with it immediately. Under the PNM you would have never heard of that. Under the PNM, in every institution they allowed corruption to enter, because they practice it themselves, it would appear. And the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West is confirming some of the concerns: discrimination—what else you said? Mrs. McIntosh: Victimization. Hon. C. Sharma:—and victimization that obtained under the PNM will no longer obtain under the People’s Partnership. [Desk thumping] I give you that assurance. As a new Member, I give you that assurance. I am glad you raised that, 531 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 because every report—you would recall the cases that our good friend, the learned Attorney General, did in his previous manifestation was about discrimination, inequality of treatment under the PNM. Since the People’s Partnership, you are not seeing any of that anymore. Hon. Members: What? Hon. C. Sharma:—any of that anymore, except the ones you manufacture. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you see the excitement. You see what it takes to excite the Member for Diego Martin North/East? What a sad state of affairs. He is excited when he feels there is some inequality of treatment; they get a new lease on life. That is why I said to let your body language and your faces reflect love for the country. Let them reflect a degree of care. [Interruption] 12.45 a.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30 minutes. [Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal] Question put and agreed to. Hon. C. Sharma: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have waited for this day, [Laughter] when I would not have to fear if I would get an extension or not. Under the PNM you could not obtain this, because they did not want you to speak the truth. They did not want you to expose their shortcomings, especially the Member for Diego Martin North/East. Mr. Imbert: Only you. Hon. C. Sharma: Having said that, I have been looking at some of the global parliamentary practices that obtain, especially the one for which we are also members. This information is available on the CPA website and from CPA printed material that comes to us ever so often. In more and more countries they are asking Members of Parliaments to become more involved in governance issues, on both sides. They are asking more parliamentarians to understand the importance of not wasting taxpayers’ money, not taking advantage of their positions. I think it was the Member for Chaguanas East who said that when we lose a dollar via corruption, we deny a hospital bed or a recreation ground. Trinidad and Tobago has become one of the places of learning in terms of what obtained in the 532 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] past. Many countries, when they look for examples of corruption, Trinidad and Tobago provides the learning. It is very unfortunate, and for us very disturbing and embarrassing. It is very, very sad that has happened. Under the PNM, for whatever reason, maybe some of the Members opposite were not in government then, but when you reflect from 1996—the John O’Halloran period, the Francis Prevatt period, to one senior minister of government, I think it was former Minister Desmond Cartey who said, “All ah we tief,” referring to all the people in the PNM. That has gone all over the world. When Transparency International and the accounting bodies of the world look at corrupt practices, oftentimes they look at industry standards. It is similar to a family; a homeowner going to the grocery with $1,000 and he comes back with all of it spent, but with $300 or $400 in groceries. Where is the next $600? Was it gambled? Was it wasted on something or was it given away? You heard today about pianos. Some of these Members opposite cannot play a radio and they bought pianos for $5 billion. [Desk thumping] [Laughter] What signal does that send to the national community? What tune are they playing, “tief, tief, tief; corruption, corruption, corruption”? [Laughter] That has to change. I wish to ask my colleagues opposite to reconsider their position on this piece of legislation; let Trinidad and Tobago benefit from it. Today is the first sitting of the House for this year; let us make a concerted effort to revisit how we conduct ourselves. Let us move away from personality attacks. Let us be proud of each one of us and very proud of the Member for Chaguanas West. Do not hate him for his successes. [Crosstalk] Mr. Imbert: “You stabbed de man every day.” Hon. C. Sharma: You are a master at stabbing; you stabbed the Member for Diego Martin West; I will never forget that. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: That is very true; you sat right here. [Crosstalk] Hon. C. Sharma: I have waited for this day to raise something. As colleagues on both sides, we must be brothers to each other. [By order of the Chair, remarks expunged] Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 36(5). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Fyzabad, that is not good. Do not go that way. Expunge that from the record, please. Hon. C. Sharma: When I look at the Member for Diego Martin North/East's conduct—[Interruption] 533 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 36(10), you cannot talk about the conduct of a Member of Parliament like that. Hon. C. Sharma: When I look at the former Minister's performance as a colleague, as a brother Member of Parliament and what he did to the Member for Diego Martin West, I say to myself, if ever I have to do that, I would leave this Parliament. Mr. Imbert: “But you stab Panday!” Hon. C. Sharma: I would not want the citizens to see that; I would not want my children to see that conduct; it is disturbing. In this House we are our brother’s keepers. When a brother MP would go out of his way to do something like that, it really shakes the confidence of all our people. Mr. Imbert: What about Panday? You sick! Hon. C. Sharma: It says to us that we have to be very, very careful with how we conduct ourselves. That also comes from a particular approach. What would lead a Member to do what the Member for Diego Martin North/East did to the Member for Diego Martin West? It says something about his mentality; it says something about his approach; it says something about our own governance structure. It says that we are failing, because people look at us. The citizens look at us, not only at our performance as Members of Parliament and Ministers of Government; they also look to see the kind of relationships we develop with our brother and sister MPs. We must always remember that we are expected to act as role models. That conduct is very, very close to something that we do not want to see at all. It could be described in all kinds of ways. As indicated earlier, the legislation that we brought today was not presented as a surprise. This was on the Order Paper for some time. Hon. Members: What? Hon. C. Sharma: This was on the drawing board for both sides and when you were in government. So for the Opposition to pretend that this is brand new— more than that, we gave a commitment in Opposition, as we give in Government, and as I expect you to give in Opposition, that any legislation required to improve the quality of life, to increase accountability, to make sure that work done and contracts awarded are transparent, you would lend support to it. We gave that undertaking as Members of Parliament. When we took our oath of office, that is what we subscribed to, so you cannot come and change midway, when it appears to be convenient to you. 534 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. C. SHARMA] When you went to the electorate to ask for their votes, you told them you were going to better their lives, whether you were in Opposition or government. You cannot suddenly find yourselves in Opposition, and rightfully so, and criticize everything. Mr. Imbert: You did it for six years. Hon. C. Sharma: If that is your learning, you are going to fail again. I feel very proud being a Member of this Government and that the leadership of our country tells us that we must do what is right. We must not fear discharging our duties. We have taken an oath of office. Whether you support the Government or not, we will come here, week after week, and do what is best for Trinidad and Tobago. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West): Mr. Deputy Speaker, since this is the first time I have had an opportunity to make a contribution for the New Year, at this early hour of the morning, I would like to wish all my colleagues a happy and rewarding 2011 and I hope that during the few moments assigned to me I will be able to make a contribution to the matter before us. We have had a long session on this matter of a Bill which seems to evoke all kinds of emotions about this issue of corruption. I propose to refer to a number of the offerings of the debate, to ensure that the record is correct, because there are some things we cannot leave unchallenged. My colleagues in the Government brought a Bill to the House that was supposed to treat with the issue of corruption and it was meant to minimize, eliminate or ameliorate instances of corruption, but the entire debate coming from the other side, was as though the Bill somehow was to deal with Members in the Opposition.

Members talked about us saying that this Bill was an attack on the PNM. Nobody on this side for the PNM made any representation that this Bill was an attack on the PNM. Mr. Imbert: Not one! Dr. K. Rowley: I do not know that any Member sitting here in this House has any fear of any legislation in front us today saying that this somehow poses some threat to the PNM. 535 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

My friend from Oropouche East has a great sense of humour. As Leader of the House, half of the Government Members were sleeping and he thought that he would bring them to a state of alertness by asking my colleague from Fyzabad, who was sleeping for most of this debate—the Member for Fyzabad was awakened and asked—to enter the debate and, true to form, my distinguished colleague from Fyzabad did not fail me in his performance. [Laughter] On the Hansard record today, this morning, my colleague from Fyzabad put the following argument, which I must respond to. In accusing the PNM of gross, mass corruption as our hallmark, he said that the GDP of the country, which means the gross domestic product, was $150 billion and that over a period of eight years of PNM governance, government's revenues were $300 billion, so $150 billion was missing, “is corruption, somebody tief it”. [Laughter] Mr. Warner: “Where de money gone?” Dr. K. Rowley: Do not dare associate yourself with that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, $150 billion GDP and Government's revenues is $300 billion, so you cannot account for $150 billion. The hon. Prime Minister would know it was a good thing that was said just after midnight when most of our children were asleep, because somebody might have written that in their project for a class and gotten zero. Where is that logic coming from, that you compare GDP with Government revenue and determine corruption, looking for thieves and, therefore, you are defending a piece of legislation that will somehow impact on corruption? [Crosstalk] That is the contribution of my friend from Fyzabad. 1.00 a.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply say I would like to confine that argument on behalf of all 41 Members, for all other 40 Members of Parliament that that logic is confined to the source and the source only—in the fertile mind of my friend from Fyzabad. [Desk thumping] I do not think anybody else in this Chamber would want to be associated with that, and even our visitor, the Attorney General, would not want to associate with that logic. Mr. Sharma: Tell us the figure then? Dr. K. Rowley: [Laughter] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I made some notes here, he said the Scarborough Hospital, $1billion; nothing to show for it. I seem to recall that it was this Government in July of last year, that told the country that the Scarborough Hospital was scheduled for opening in September of 536 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] last year. When September last year came the Minister said, she will not give a date now because there are some happenings with respect to purchase and installation of equipment which seem to be a moving target, and therefore, she would wait until certain things happen to give the authorization for those contracts to be awarded and only then would we be in a position to know when we would get the new opening date. So, having moved the date from September last year, as of now we have no new date for opening, but the important thing, the point I am making is this, one Minister of Government is promising an opening, September 2010; my friend from Fyzabad, another Minister of Government is saying, we spent $1 billion there and nothing to show for it, and he is still saying it is the truth. Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is still trying to convince me that that statement is the truth. [Interruption] That is called a hyperbole. You so want to make the point that you over-make it; there is a Scarborough Hospital about to be opened according to your own Minister of Health. Mr. Sharma: How much money you spent on it? Dr. K. Rowley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to know that the Member for Fyzabad has experienced an epiphany of some sort and is representing the Government which has changed its position completely— Mr. Sharma: Say what you want! Dr. K. Rowley: Last year, the year before, the decade before, he was telling us, that it would not be so again and that is a good thing. Early days in this Government’s life, and he is saying that there will be equity in the use of Government resources under the new Prime Minister I am glad to hear that, because under the last UNC Prime Minister, in a government of which he was a part, it was not so. Because when the road tax was collected under the UNC, $150 million worth of it, not one cent was spent in the Diego Martin Corporation, and if you do not believe me talk to my colleague from Diego Martin North/East, he was there. Hon. Member: Not a red cent! Dr. K. Rowley: The road tax, none of it was spent in the Diego Martin Corporation, eventually we abolished the road tax; but while the UNC was in office, that is how it was done. So if today he is telling us that a new arrangement for equitable distribution would be the order of the day under this UNC coalition, we have made some 537 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because in Hansard, time and time again, we protested under the previous UNC government about that arrangement of the road tax not being used equitably. So, if I am to believe him now—and I think this morning he and I shared a ceremony in Diego Martin West. I welcomed him into my constituency, because you know wise men came from the East and end up in the West. He came down to visit us and we cut the ribbon for two Bailey bridges. Again, even then the spirit of welcome, he cannot be trusted to tell the whole story, because he said we opened two bridges, one 40 feet and one how many feet and they only cost a few hundred thousand dollars, and that is corruption, because the PNM would have built it for more. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me tell you what the story is. These kinds of bridges across gullies, because it is a couple of Bailey bridges over two gullies which brought some relief to people going home, what we were doing before were building those bridges out of reinforced concrete and steel. That kind of engineering has a kind of cost associated with it. Okay? We have done that for years in this country, built reinforced concrete bridges. On this occasion these Bailey bridges are out of steel and Bailey bridges are a sort of temporary high- maintenance bridges, eh, but they can be built, put in place relatively quickly, put into use and they are much cheaper than reinforced concrete bridges. But a reinforced concrete bridge would last a lifetime unattended, so while it cost more it has a longer lifespan. A Bailey bridge costs less but does not have that kind of lifespan. You are comparing apples and oranges, but in so doing my friend from Fyzabad sees corruption in the discrepancy in price. That is his logic. Mr. Deputy Speaker, not every mismanagement of Government money is corruption. There can be waste without corruption. There can be! This Government has threatened to jail half the country. I was quite surprised, one time I heard the Prime Minister herself promising. The Prime Minister is an eminent lawyer. Jail is either the sixth or seventh step in the process: Dissatisfaction starts with allegations, you are saying that something is wrong—allegations; after allegations come the searching and finding of evidence. After evidence, if evidence is sufficiently strong you have a charge, that charge now would trigger a trial; that trail could bring about a conviction; after the conviction the bench or the chair will now sentence and that sentence may or may not be jail. Those are the steps that you have to walk if you are treating with corrupt acts during criminality. We spent the whole day here with our colleagues trying to convince us who more “tief” than who. That is how this debate has gone, as if that is of any relevance to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. If their money is being stolen by 538 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] the PNM or the UNC they do not care, they do not want to know who the “tief” is, they do not want any “tief”. You spent the whole day telling us who more “tief” than who, but with respect to the PNM you are at the allegation stage. Allegation! If I am to join you in trying to prove who more “tief” than you, you walked all seven steps and were found guilty. The last UNC Prime Minister, head of the Cabinet is out on bail from jail, [Desk thumping] but you spent my whole night trying to convince me that who more “tief” than who, and if it is a singular aberration, I would have said okay, it is an aberration. Once one person, accident; twice, habit, purpose; now Ministers, not only the Prime Minister, a number of Ministers, have gone past the allegation, the finding of evidence, the charge case of the previous UNC government; persons have made jail out of UNC contracts; persons are staying away from the court, fighting tooth and nail to not have their day in court. That does not do us any good, but do not come here and try to give us revisionist history. When you make the debate one about who more “tief” than who, it cannot be that you have any distinction in the matter, because the record will show that while there were allegations of corruption on the PNM government in the beginning, in the middle and in the end, allegations against the UNC, evidence has been forthcoming, people have been charged and convicted of wrongdoing. [Desk thumping] So when you want to play the game of who more “tief” than who, as if that has any relevance to the people of Trinidad and Tobago other than wrongdoing ought not to be tolerated, you are not going to embarrass us into voting for foolishness. I notice that not one Member on the Government side engaged the substance of the arguments made by the Member for Diego Martin North/East on the specific weaknesses of the Bill. Not one of them! Every one of them sought to beat us down in the PNM into believing that because you can make threats and “buss mark” about things that are going wrong or you found wrong in the ministries, that we would somehow succumb to that kind of entreaty and we would vote for legislation knowing that it does not make sense. Well, that would not work. I would tell you from now, you might as well not go to the special committee with it; you have the majority, you might as well vote for it and pass it into law, because the PNM will not be encouraged into putting “dotish” statute on the books [Desk thumping] because you try to tell us about who more “tief” than who. 539 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

We pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the legislation has its origin and its purpose in trying to satisfy some generic request from an earlier commitment in some treaty. These treaties, held out to the world, take into account that different countries are at different stages and have different kinds of structures. But this Government does not seem to want to appreciate that we do have some positives in this country, and therefore, if other countries need certain things it might very well be that we have gone beyond that. Only today I made the point—and it has been made during the week of our recognition of the passing of Sir Ellis—that the Australians came to us to ask for assistance in finding out how we made that transition from a colonial situation to a republic and did it so smoothly. There was something for the Australians to learn from us and I am sure Sir Ellis distinguished himself in talking to them. So when we have in this country an Integrity Commission of long-standing—we have experienced a decade or two of it—we know how to tell other people what are the pitfalls about it and where strengthening might be done. The first years of the Integrity Commission saw a commission which was simply a receiver of declarations. That is what the first Integrity Commission era did. All that was required was that members in public life covered by the Integrity Commission were required to file those declarations. The intention was that if you filed them and they are there as a reference point and you are somehow later on found to be in receipt of or having control of assets which are outside of the perimeter of what you have filed, that reference point at the commission would be a base at which you can be challenged and prosecuted. Then there were arguments that, look, this commission is a post office, and in fact a person could steal something, declare to the commission and simply say, well, I have done my duty and I am good to go. We lived that for years, and my colleague from Siparia who—I think a few of us from that era, we were here, and what happened? Another government came in, that issue was still with us and we amended the Integrity in Public Life Act, on the prodding of the commission itself which felt a little fettered in treating with some of the issues that came before it. The commission asked for investigative powers. I was a Member of that Parliament. I have been in this Parliament since 1987. I have seen this thing evolve. I have seen the Parliament give the Integrity Commission wide investigative powers. In fact, I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the investigative powers of the Integrity Commission are greater than the powers of the police service, and I will show you how. If a policeman comes and asks you something about something he is investigating, you can refuse to 540 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] cooperate, you can refuse to tell him anything, and that is how most criminals treat with the police, just shut your mouth, he has to go and find the evidence elsewhere and then get at you. In the Integrity Commission situation, if you refuse to cooperate, that in itself is an offence. While they are conducting an investigation if they ask you for something and you fail to provide it, that failure is an offence. It is not so with the police, so that gives the Integrity Commission a penetrated power that the police service does not have, and that power was given to the commission by Parliament by amendment to the Act. So the Integrity in Public Life Act of 2000 is quite different to the original one, we have that in place, and today my colleague from Diego Martin North/East went on in detail, pointing out clause by clause where the powers of the Integrity Commission lie and what the commission can do. 1.15 a.m. Lo and behold, I have to sit here this morning and listen to a former High Court Judge get up here, in seeking to support this piece of legislation that is full of flaws—the only thing I can recall from his contribution—he could get up here this morning; the Member for St. Joseph, former High Court Judge to whom we all thought we could look for some guidance on a matter of this nature; what does he do? Seek to misrepresent the truth and the facts in support of the Bill, and hear what he had to say, “The Integrity Commission depends on the Fraud Squad.” Nothing is further from the truth. The Integrity Commission has its power to investigate without the Fraud Squad. If it chooses to involve the Fraud Squad, fine, but the Integrity Commission can, and has been known—and I know that because in my own personal situation when allegations were made against me by your colleagues, the Integrity Commission, without reference to the police service, hired and paid out of its own account, a foreign investigator. The investigator was a foreign forensic investigator. What Fraud Squad? The Integrity Commission has the power to hire its own investigator from the private sector to investigate the conduct of any public official. Then I have to listen to my colleague from St. Joseph, a former High Court Judge, come here, trying to make a support for this piece of legislation that does not warrant support, 541 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 and anybody listening to him on television or on the radio, would say, “Well, if the MP for St. Joseph says so, is so”, not beginning to dream that he is wrong; he is misleading and incompetent in the process; absolutely no use to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. Suppose we take his advice and on that basis decide that this legislation is worthy of support and it goes on the books on his advice; wrong advice? I wish that in winding up the Attorney General—he is in the Chamber somewhere—would be good enough to acknowledge that our colleague from St. Joseph is wrong and there is no need to twist the situation to provide any support. You understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If he is labouring under the misconception that this Commission is required because the Integrity Commission has to depend on an incompetent or poorly staffed Fraud Squad, then he is supporting the Bill on a wrong premise, but maybe if somebody pointed out to him that it is not so, and we already have on the books the Integrity in Public Life Act with wide powers, with freedom to hire investigators from anywhere in the private sector and also to use the police service if they so desire, then he may not take that position, that we need to burden this country with a parallel commission to do exactly what the Integrity Commission is set up to do; to do exactly what the Integrity Commission is detailed and resourced to do. So we will end up with an Integrity Commission so resourced and so empowered, with a parallel organization; something new, called some commission, for which we will now go and hire staff, hire a board and a chairman and a whatever; another layer of useless bureaucracy under the guise that by multiplying these agencies, we will somehow eliminate corruption in Trinidad and Tobago. That is what we have been asked to do and the PNM is saying that we are not going to be part of that nonsense, and because we are saying that, we are now being identified as people who are supporting corruption, and the height of the folly was when we invited the Member for Chaguanas East to join the debate. The poor gentleman had nothing to say, so he got up out of his slumber and he made a most interesting intervention. I am trying to find it somewhere in my notes. He spoke about something that I really want—I cannot find it in my notes, but the Member for Chaguanas East spoke about crime. His specialty was crime. When he was outside of Government his campaign was that the PNM was not serious about crime and they were allowing murderers to take over the country. That was his campaign. He dragged a coffin all over town, climbed on Keith Noel’s name, got into Parliament, lost all interest in crime and he is now telling the country that the Members of the PNM, office holders within the PNM organization are inherently corrupt; we are disposed to corruption. 542 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] That is a gentleman who, when he moved from an interest in fighting crime to an interest in having a political existence, he chose to join not the MSJ; he did not choose to join the NAR; he did not join the COP; he did not join the DAC, he joined the UNC. He was so opposed to crime that he joined the UNC at the height of its corrupt practice. [Interruption] Not true? When the UNC was at the height of its corrupt behaviour in Trinidad and Tobago, when the Prime Minister was charged for corruption; the Minister of Works and Transport was charged for corruption; the Minister of Energy was charged for corruption, that was when he joined the UNC, so he cannot talk to us in the PNM. He has no interest in any moral position about corruption. He was simply called to join the debate and, of course, he thinks that by getting up and throwing it out at the PNM we will somehow, under the weight of their allegations, abandon our position of sense and say this country does not need another parallel Integrity Commission-type organization. It does not matter what you call it. If you want to amend the existing law to strengthen it to introduce new provisions, you could do that very simply; amend the Anti-Corruption Act. As my colleague showed today, one Act refers and feeds into the other. You could amend that if you wish, but to come and tell me you want to create a whole new bureaucracy where the Integrity Commission would refer matters to this Crime Commission and this Commission would refer it to the Integrity Commission, not one of them addressed that in their contribution today; not one. How do you address that? My colleague from Pointe-a-Pierre, I know he is a very sensible—I do not want to call him a wise old sage, but I am saying he is a very sensible—public figure and I am sure he would not want to support a situation of building structures in the country’s administration where one agency is doing something; has the power to go to completion; the widest possible power, and for some inexplicable reason you will create another agency to parallel it and fund it and staff it, and then even when you do that, in the element of waste, you have the entire problem intertwining; competition for the same product, and at the end of the day a law in itself by its existence, does not guarantee an absence of the crime being committed. What the law does, it sets the parameters of behaviour and if you violate the law, then there are crimes identified and you are punished according to your misconduct. Contrary to the arguments you heard today, the existence of the law on the law book in no way is a guarantee or even a method of preventing crime—no way—because if that were the case, when the Integrity in Public Life Act was 543 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 passed, it should have had a damper on corruption, but from what we heard, from all our friends on the other side today—and I verily believe a lot of it to be true— it did not happen that way. The very existence of the Integrity in Public Life Act did not mean that people stopped being corrupt. It created a possibility that if you find them and you identify them, there are laws there to penalize them. There are consequences. The whole argument today was, let us pass this law to fight and end corruption. No! It does not go so. It has to have other processes and that is where we come in with this whistle-blower arrangement. Yes, there can be provision in the law, an amendment to existing law to take into account persons who provide that information; what we call whistle-blowers. But it cannot be carte blanche; anybody could say anything and trigger a major investigation; a spiteful investigation, an expensive investigation because somebody feels, “I doh like how you look; you look too prosperous and, therefore, I think you are ready for an investigation.” I could whisper in somebody’s ears, “I doh like the house you have; I doh like the car you have; ah think yuh tiefing”, and that random thought of some malicious person could put the State’s machinery in gear to bring about an investigation. Otherwise, we will end up being the most investigated nation. As a matter of fact, right now, the way these Ministers are going, every single one wants to outdo the other one in “bussing some mark”, and “this investigation; that investigation; this investigation; that investigation”. Where is it all going to end? After all these Ministers talking about all this corruption that they are having to confront in their Ministries from the last administration, we expect by now that they would have run out of handcuffs in St. James. But no, all we are getting from the Government is this one “bussing mark”. As for my friend, the Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara, he has got a Phd in that. As for the Attorney General, everything that passes his desk that looks like news, he wants to “buss” that. I heard my friend from D'Abadie/O'Meara talking about how much hundred million dollars missing from his Sports Company of Trinidad and Tobago. Well, if money is found to be missing from a ministry, one would expect that there are certain actions to follow. So far, all we are hearing is what they see; what they do not like, because what is happening, anything that they do not agree with, they interpret it as corruption. Anything that they do not understand, they interpret it as a scam. Anything that they feel can score political points, out it comes. If you are in a ministry and you have an investigation going on, at least wait for a proper conclusion and then you are able to come to the country and say, “We have investigated this matter. We have found this and the next step is that.” We 544 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] are not getting that at all. I would have thought that by now, given all the things that I was hearing from the Ministry of Works and Transport, that we would have had people on charges. All this corruption being identified, all these hundreds of millions of dollars missing, all this misconduct—I am not saying that there is no wrongdoing in the public sector; do not get me wrong. I have a good idea that there is substantial wrongdoing in the public sector, but what I am saying, when a Minister is treating with it, it is not about “bussing mark” to score points, because all that does is to tell the country that these people are just talking and, in fact, it sends a signal to the ne’er-do-wells that it might very well be that we are shortchanging ourselves, because if I listen to the Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs and I was disposed to having an easy life, I would think I have no moral compass by which to guide me away from taking what does not belong to me. Where is the beef? If all these hundreds of millions of dollars are missing and stolen, as you are making it out to be, how come there is no follow-up to it? Is it that you are doing us a favour in the PNM and saying, “Well, listen fellas, we know you tief but we go leave you alone?”

It is my view that this Bill has not been properly thought out. Somebody saw it as something to do. One of the bases for bringing it here was that it was around since 2001, but, obviously, somebody with sense realized that “Listen, while this thing might have been thought to have been an idea to be pursued, when it came for analysis it was deemed not to be worthwhile and worthy to go forward and it was left alone, and because a new government comes into office, somebody feels, “Ah ha, we found incompetence and idleness; it was on a shelf; bring it to the Parliament”, so you bring it to the Parliament.

1.30 a.m. You are being shown where it has serious irrelevance and shortcomings, and rather than acknowledge that, you are saying, “Well, since we are here with it, we are going to enact it”. If that is what you want to do, go ahead and do it without the PNM. We cannot stop you. You have a special majority. All we can do is point out the futility of your effort and the ways that will occur when you make a parallel integrity commission institution. That is all we can do. We do not need to go into any parliamentary committee. I was talking about the former judge, our colleague from St. Joseph, who quite erroneously and surprisingly talked about the Integrity Commission having to depend on the Fraud Squad. But even more worrisome, the Attorney General who 545 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 brought this here, apparently labouring under the misconception of our colleague from St. Joseph, that the Integrity Commission cannot initiate its own investigation— Mr. Imbert: Imagine that. Dr. K. Rowley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we amended the law to change that situation. It was like that, but the Integrity Commission can investigate on its own. Again, I can attest to that. I was in Government and an Opposition Member got up and made allegations against me in the Parliament, and within a matter of days there was an investigator in front of my door saying to me, “I am from the Integrity Commission and we have heard it said in the Parliament, so, so, so, so, the Commission has hired an investigator to investigate you”. That happened as far back as 2004. Where was the Attorney General then? Since 2004 that was a fact of life. Today, you have an overzealous Attorney General coming here with legislation that is serious to nonsensical and to justify its coming into being, saying that one of the reasons for bringing it, having it and wanting to have it is because the existing Integrity Commission does not have the power to investigate on its own and, therefore, you need some institution that can do that, which the Integrity Commission cannot do. Nothing is further from the truth. Therefore, if we accept all these truths as self-evident, then we could see that this piece of legislation—the reason for bringing it forward is flawed. The potential for it to work is almost impossible. Its duplication of the Integrity Commission is confirmed, so what are we doing? Because it is somehow to fight corruption, when we hear the word “corruption”—whatever they bring. My friend from Fyzabad and some other friends on the other side said, “Once it is corruption, we must support it”. That is what they are saying. It does not matter if it is fish, fowl, alligator or snake, we must support it. It is like somebody saying to you that there is a medicine cabinet. You have a serious ailment; you go in front of the medicine cabinet and just keep taking because it is called medication. Who in their right sense would object to medication for an ailment? Who in their right sense would object to taking pills for an ailment? Who in their right sense would not use the liniment for an ailment? What about the nature of the pill and its suitability to the ailment that he is suffering from? Medication has to be prescribed in certain dosages. There is something called overdose. That could be a worse case than the first case. You are telling us that because this is meant to treat with corruption, we must defer to it, accept it, do not question it, because to do so, is to stand accused and be found guilty of being corrupt 546 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] ourselves. Absolute nonsense! We will reject that out of our hand. We will only support legislation that is good legislation, good law that will work in the interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] No other condition. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pattern that is developing in this Government. If something is recommended from outside even if it is not suited to us, because others have found it useful and because we have in our midst people who misunderstand its usefulness to our circumstances, we must accept it. Let me draw an example without belabouring the point. We jumped to go and get involved in this Extractive Industry Transparency institute because there are people in the world for whom that is supposed to be a good thing, and the justification for that institution which we are now going to fund people to operate and to get involved in, is that moneys earned from oil and gas cannot be accounted for. Yes, in some countries that is so. The richest man in Russia has been sent to jail for how many years because he is supposed to have stolen billions of dollars in oil from the Russian oil emperor. In some Africian—[Interruption] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like your protection from the Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara. I am not speaking to him. I am speaking to the people of Trinidad and Tobago through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would like to speak unmolested. There are African countries where their system of governance does not take care of these kinds of businesses, and extracted materials are marketed and there is no system within the country to ensure that the payments go where they are supposed to go. In Trinidad and Tobago, where we have been marketing our oil and have a public service, a comptroller of accounts, a consolidated fund, an oil audit—have you ever heard in this country any oil company saying that we paid the Government $1 million, but they reported $50 million? Not in Trinidad and Tobago. So why are we going to bring ourselves down to the evolutionary level of those who do not have our structures, our history, our systems in place to go and say, “Well okay, we have now arrived at some point of transparency where we have to go and get membership in transparency institute for extracting industries and that is because we want to compare what is paid by companies with what the Government declares? Who in this country can stand up here and seriously say that the Government does not declare our earnings in hydrocarbons?

Every year there is a budget and the Minister of Finance knows that. He was the Central Bank Governor and he knows that too. You can find in any budget documents every year all government payments in all kinds of revenues, royalties 547 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 and taxes. We have a modern functioning public service, notwithstanding the assault of the Government on permanent secretaries and so on, but our structure is pretty good. So we have nothing to gain from any Extractive Industries Transparency Institute. It is a fad, it is a fashion, it is going to give somebody a long holiday and a few first class trips, but it will contribute nothing to improving our circumstances because we have gone past that. But of course, somebody else has it, somebody wants it, so we take it on board even if it does not make sense. I know you are a new Government, but there must be something useful you can find to do, not just pick up anything anybody throws at you or pick up anything you find on a shelf that does not make sense. We are yet to see the first piece of legislation coming from this Government, from concept to drafting of their own volition on one of their policies that says “This is a UNC policy being enacted into law, a new idea”—[Interruption] Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Would you kindly give way? Dr. K. Rowley: Sure. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Thank you very much. May I remind you of the Children’s Life Fund and the legislation for that which was our policy drafted and enacted into law by this Parliament. [Desk thumping] Dr. K. Rowley: In our scheme of things, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that did slip my attention. So I would give way to that. But that in no way justifies picking up rejected legislation and bringing it to Parliament with deadlines like today, Wednesday. We come to Parliament on a Wednesday. We are here on a Wednesday on short notice, seeing the Bill the first time a few hours before because it is so important and it can be shown to be irrelevant, so useless, and potentially destructive. So the Children’s Life Fund does not eliminate that description. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Member’s speaking time be extended by 30 minutes. [Mr. C. Imbert] Question put and agreed to. Dr. K. Rowley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank my colleagues for the extension. I am sure my colleague, the Member for Oropouche East, would like me to minimize my participation at this point. 548 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suspect that one of the motivations behind this legislation is the Government’s expectation and hope that in seeking to deal with the matter of crime in general, that this can be seen to be some kind of assault on crime. Corruption is crime and, therefore, if we are passing what the Attorney General calls biting legislation with teeth on crime, it would somehow ameliorate the effect of their inability to deal with the real crime that is washing this country’s street with blood. The Government is being accused of not being able to make, with its best will and so far its best effect, a dent in the crime of homicide, murders, serious crime. We are in a period in our history at the moment where the criminal element has a tremendous amount of success in Trinidad and Tobago. A lot of it is senseless crime, a lot of it is crime committed by unknown elements, crime driven by profit and the Government that promised so much, starting with a plan that has not yet appeared, being seen to be unable to grapple and turn around this crime wave. If the Government thinks it can be seen to be dealing with crime by passing legislation and appearing to look busy, Members of the Government feel that will surfeit it for the moment. I think that is the motivation behind this legislation. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are some people who believe that volumes of laws would somehow treat with the problems that we have. We are a nation of 1.3 million people. It is not the volume of laws that will give us a quality of life, it is enacting good law and enforcing them. We have good laws on the books right now that are not being enforced. Some of them are not being enforced because the support structures are not in place. I would advise the Government to pay some more attention to the support structures for the existing legislative package and in that way we may get more effect against the criminal element than just throwing out legislation, coming to Parliament and passing more and more laws while the existing ones that are doing about the same thing are in themselves not being fully utilized. The number of laws is not what is going to turn the crime rate around. I am sure by now my colleagues on the other side would have learnt that the murderers have no regard for who is in office. They are only concerned about their project and their own benefit. Because now that you are in office we have seen no change in the heinous behaviour, and I would be surprised to think that there is any murderer anywhere in this country who would believe that the murder that he or she is contemplating, they will forgo that action because the Prime Minister is the hon. Member for Siparia. It does not go so. They live in a different world, different objectives, different agenda, and the last thing on their mind when they 549 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 set about to distress whoever they distress is the question of who is in office. It is whether they think they can get away with it, what penalty they think they will face, and so on, and so on, and so on. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the effort should be placed elsewhere, rather than creating new law, creating new parallel situations that are guaranteed to add nothing in the fight against the kind of crime that we need to address right now. 1.45 a.m. It is not, to say that we want to encourage white-collar crime, but I am saying that the crime that is causing the people of this country to want action and action now in the urgent way that we have come here today, are the crimes to life and limb. It is my personal and humble view that, as a small island nation of 1. 3 million people, our law books are replete with anti-corruption legislation, and I do not know that an argument can be made that those aspects of our legislative packages are exhausted, found to be inefficient and, therefore, we need to expand the ambit to be able to treat with the kinds of corruption that were outlined here today. People are awarding contracts without proper documentation. There are laws to cover that. People helping themselves to public money without authorization, there are laws to cover that. They are there. People misconducting themselves in the state enterprises, you could not want a better examination than the UDeCott situation. The recommendations are there for further criminal investigations. I am not aware if that is happening. I am not aware of that. If it is happening tell us, the country wants to know. The country wants to know that we are not going to repeat that situation by having administrative arrangements that foster and nurture it. But, instead of that, we are getting a whole volume of self-praise. Even when things do not go well, there is self-praise. My colleague from Tabaquite, who should be hanging his head in shame, managed to convert one of the most solemn moments of this country into an area of laughter, and then he comes here today knowing what has happened. My colleague from Tabaquite comes here today and says he wants to thank the Parliament for its contribution. He wants to get the Parliament involved in the near fiasco at NAPA last week. He wants to get the Parliament involved and then he says everything went well. Well, my dear colleague from Tabaquite, everything did not go well, and if you do not understand sarcasm, let somebody explain to you the tenor and behaviour of the Archbishop of Trinidad and Tobago. 550 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] You are the only Minister, my friend from Tabaquite, who happened to convert an Archbishop into a public humiliated person. If you are going to have the Archbishop as the chief celebrant in a State funeral—you go before the press and make an announcement to the press—the least you can do, with a modicum of decency is to ask him to do it and if he agrees, then he is advised and you put him on the programme. I went to the State funeral and nobody bothered to check what is published there. “Dey put on ah tape” and that ends by asking me to enjoy the performance. [Interruption] Dr. Rambachan: Would you give way, please? Dr. K. Rowley: No. It was asking me to enjoy the performance; a State funeral. There is nothing to clarify. It happened since last week. “And yuh see dis ting about it wrong and you want to make it right, it is blue and you want to make it yellow, eh”, the level of incompetence knows no bounds, funeral and all. The Member then comes here and reports that everything went well. Everything went well with the Archbishop having to stand in as an impromptu MC for the event. Maybe you do not—it is your turn to speak after. You can correct it if you wish. You want to correct it? You have—[Interruption] Dr. Rambachan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. Dr. K. Rowley: Point of order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Dr. Rambachan: Mr. Deputy Speaker— Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order? Dr. Rambachan: Standing Order 36(1) Mr. Deputy Speaker: 36(1)? Dr. Rambachan: Sorry, 36(5). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Relevance? What point of order? Dr. Rambachan: What the Member— Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, no, the point of order. Dr. Rambachan: Standing Order 36(5). He is misleading. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Imputing improper motives. Standing Order 36(5) indicates that: “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.” 551 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

What you can do is—the Member for Diego Martin West is indicating what he saw in the funeral; it is not imputing improper motives; it is just what he saw— utilize another Standing Order if you are being misquoted. Member for Diego Martin West, you are sailing very close to imputing improper motives to the Member. Kindly refrain from that area. Dr. K. Rowley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am in charge of my compass and I know exactly where I am on this trip and I have no intention of imputing any improper motives. I am simply saying, as a person who attended the event, expressing my view allowed under the Standing Orders, that everything did not go well. If he wants to say everything went well, as he is trying to say, that is his problem. I am imputing no motives to him. Maybe he is trying to tell us there is a motive to it. Maybe he is trying to tell us that there was some motive to the water not being available and the bit of earth and the candle. If he promises that he is going to tell us that, I will sit down, so he can tell us. And if he can tell us why the Archbishop was put in that embarrassing situation, I will give way. Other than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to be harassed. There is nothing to clarify. If he wants to tell us about—[Interruption] [Mr. Sharma shows newspaper to Dr. Rowley] That is what he is going to tell us about? What is that? Mr. Sharma: Withdraw what you said. Dr. K. Rowley: Why do you not go back to sleep? Reference was made to some UTT employment, professorships and so on. I do not know the details, but the inference that was drawn from the evidence provided by my colleague from Chaguanas West, causes me to say if you disagree that certain programmes should be taught, that is one. Nobody can argue with that. If you disagree on the student- to-staff ratio, I cannot argue with that. These are debates that take place all the time. If you think that there is no requirement for the course to be taught, that is another argument. If you think that they are being paid too well, again that is an argument that one cannot argue or take too much issue with. But, when you extract from that, that it is corruption, I think we are overreaching there. Corruption means improper enrichment and if a person is hired by UTT, and is paid a salary by UTT, and the student ratio is small or no student at all, I think somebody has to really convince me that the intent—[Interruption] Mr. Warner: Thank you, Member for Diego Martin West. I did say that one of the teachers got in an accident, lived in England, drew his salary and is still drawing it and has not taught his class since then. I said so. Dr. K. Rowley: That might be so, but it may not be corruption. That is no proof of corruption. If the person—let me be a little expansive—has a contract of 552 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [DR. ROWLEY] some sort, I do not know where the contract came from, but it is quite possible that if you have a contract and you get injured, you are still entitled to your payments, because you are on some consideration for illness. What is strange about that? That does not, by, itself, describe corruption. All I am saying is that we use the word “corruption” so loosely, that in the end, as parliamentarians, it appears as though we are all climbing over one another to prove that it is all about corruption. It is not so. There are instances of corruption in this country. This country has too many instances of corruption. Corruption is tolerated in this country too much, but everything that you do not like and has not gone well is not corruption. Parliamentarians should be the ones to guide on this matter, but instead of that, what you are having is parliamentarians taking the position that everything that they think they can score political points on, they call it corruption and wave it in front the country and the population is misled by these hyperboles. I know my colleagues want to go to sleep, because they have to get up in the morning to go to Cabinet. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: We are wide awake. Dr. K. Rowley: You could be wide awake. “You done sleep already”, right. While a few of my colleagues have caught their early naps, some of them are still trying to catch up on it. This Bill is not really warranted. It is overkill. We have enough in place, under the Integrity in Public Life Act, the Anti-Corruption Act and other statutes that deal with wrongdoing and, therefore, the Opposition will not support the creation of this institution, and if the Government wants to pass it, the Government has the majority. You can pass it without our support. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Caroni, Standing Order 33(4)? Dr. Rambachan: Standing Order 33(4). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 33(4) indicates, which we have been using for the evening, if the Member he is misquoted, he has a minute to respond to it. Member you have one minute. Dr. Rambachan: I do not want to bring the matter of the wishes of the family of the late Sir Ellis Clark into this House, but at the beginning of my contribution, 553 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

I was very specific in thanking the Speaker of this Parliament for the arrangements and the courtesies offered to us at the rotunda, where the body lay in State, and specifically thanked the Marshal and the staff of the Parliament for the contribution they had made to the funeral. No reference was made anywhere else to anything, except that. Very quickly, when I made the statement that the Archbishop was the chief celebrant and would deliver the homily, it was done after my office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had communicated with the Archbishop, through the family. Hon. Members: What! No! The Minister of Education (Hon. Dr. Tim Gopeesingh): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is now 1.58 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, January 12. After having listened to the contributions of eight of the Members from the other side, it seems as though there was relevance from only two speakers, the Member for Diego Martin North/East and the Member for Diego Martin West, who really spoke on the Motion. The others did not speak on the Motion. If I may start with the Member for Diego Martin North/East, he gave the analogy of this Motion, and so did the Member for Diego Martin West, as being parallel to the Integrity in Public Life Act. Both of you indicated that this Motion seems to be redundant and that we have enough Bills on hand to satisfy the issue of corruption. The first thing I want to ask both of you with respect to the Integrity in Public Life Act, who does it bring under its compass? Does it bring the entire nation of Trinidad and Tobago under its compass, or it brings only the people in public life and their relatives and those connected in public life? 2.00 a.m. That really entails about 4,000 or 5,000 persons. So the white-collar crime that can be committed by public officials, their relatives, friends or families is minimal in comparison to what this Motion is attempting to do, and to seek a bipartisan approach towards a solution that is endemic in Trinidad and which you know has been in Trinidad since the 1950s to now, both in the public sector and in the private sector. Dr. Rowley: I thank my colleague for giving way. Who does the Prevention of Corruption Act cover? Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh: It covers both the private sector and the public sector and all citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, whereas the Integrity in Public Life Act covers, generally, mainly public officials, relatives and friends. 554 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he is completely satisfied, under the present context that the Integrity in Public Life Act is serving the desired purpose. I am going to give you some issues which you may need to consider. It was your government in 2001 when the office was taken over from the then United National Congress, that took almost two years to bring out a registration form for the Integrity Commission and, at that time, members who served in public offices escaped the filing of declarations to the Integrity Commission, and it was only in 2003 that people began filing under the Integrity in Public Life Act. That is a fact. At that time, your government came into office and declarations were filed in 2003. Your government kept procrastinating, and the question had to be asked then, why was this done? Were you all trying to escape from the net of what the Integrity in Public Life Act was supposed to do, to bring public officials under the net of the Integrity in Public Life Act? It was your Prime Minister who complained subsequently that the Integrity in Public Life Act was too strong, too wide and too encompassing and that people did not want to serve on any board or with any board and, therefore, he sought to change the Integrity in Public Life Act or to do away with it altogether. That thought emanated from the bowels of the PNM. [Interruption] Well, if you did not think about it, your Prime Minister was voicing that all the time. He said he could not get people to serve, because the Act was too wide and too deep, and people were not willing to serve, because they did not want to be scrutinized in a manner for public propriety, accountability and transparency. It was not your Prime Minister alone, but the Attorney General also spoke about it and it is well documented. I do not have the newspaper clippings where it was mentioned at that time. I believe it was the then Attorney General, Glenda Morean, who had spoken about it. When you speak about the Integrity in Public Life Act as the legislative measure that would take care of corruption and no other Act should be brought in to take care of white-collar crime, I think you are standing on the wrong foot. At that time, your government was saying that the Integrity in Public Life Act was not correct, something was wrong with it and it was not working. Then you came and amended the Integrity in Public Life Act. I remember, Member for Diego Martin North/East, you were on this side and we were on that side, and you said that the whistle-blowing issue was too easy for someone to make a complaint against somebody in public life and, therefore, at that time, you 555 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 sought to make it extremely difficult for people to go and file cases before the Integrity Commission against someone else, that is, you had to face the accuser, and the accuser must give their name, date of birth and other information. We told you at that time that when this happens, the person against whom they made the accusation could get somebody to deal with them, and we told you that you were trying to protect some of your people, and why were you going with that piece of legislation to make it difficult, and a cumbersome issue to bring something before the Integrity Commission for whistle-blowing. Now, in this legislation, we are not making it difficult for people, but we would work with you in a bipartisan approach and hear your suggestions. You on one side were on one extreme and you wanted to make it extremely difficult for people to give information, and we on this side want to facilitate people to give the information, because we want to have transparency and accountability in both public and private life. Mr. Imbert: I thank the Minister for giving way, and it is in fact to answer some of the questions that he posed earlier. There is obviously a misunderstanding among hon. Members opposite. There is a specified section in the Integrity in Public Life Act which empowers and authorizes the Integrity Commission to enquire into and investigate any suspected commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. That is already there. So in the Integrity in Public Life Act, the commission is not only empowered to deal with breaches of that particular legislation, but it is also empowered by law to enquire into and investigate breaches of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That is one point. With respect to delay with the forms, the forms are made by the commission, not by the Government. You have to realize that the law was passed in 2000, and the whole of 2001 passed and the forms were not made by the commission. It was only in 2002 or 2003 that the forms were made by the commission and brought to the Parliament. Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh: The point I am making is that they escaped the dragnet for two years, and they did whatever they had to do for two years. [Interruption] You were in the government then. I remember you did not facilitate the implementation of these declaration forms with any haste whatsoever. You allowed it to drag on for a period of time and, therefore, people escaped the net. 556 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] Now, you are saying that under the Integrity in Public Life Act people have the ability and the power to pursue any investigation they want to pursue. But if something is not brought to their attention as readily and easily, do you think four or five persons sitting on an Integrity Commission could find out what is happening in Couva, Point Fortin and Port of Spain and everywhere? It is very difficult for them to do that. They have the investigative power, but how are they going to dream about it? Somebody has to be doing the whistle-blowing. I want to ask the Member for Diego Martin West how he feels about the Integrity in Public Life Act when in December 2006—I want to just quote the time you said this. It was reported on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 where you indicated that in December 2006 the Integrity Commission gave the Attorney General the file on you and the Attorney General said that he never saw any report. Mr. Jeremie said then that he had seen the file and it was an innocuous file and they had nothing on you. So, in December 2006 Mr. Jeremie said he was given an Integrity Commission report on you by Mr. Deane. How do you feel now, having gone through this when the Integrity Commission is supposed to be a confidential commission? We had instances when the former chairman was not confidential, and he gave information to the media about an individual and charges were laid subsequently. You said the Integrity Commission gave the AG the file on you in December 2006. This is the same Integrity Commission that did not give you the chance and the opportunity to be heard, and you filed a case against them and you won, because you said the Integrity Commission did not give you the opportunity to be heard, and you know the Integrity Commission went against the confidentiality and you said that Gordon Deane gave the Attorney General your file. Mr. Jeremie said he had seen the file and it was an innocuous file and they had nothing on you. How could the Attorney General—with all the confidentiality of the Integrity Commission—receive a file on you? You come today to sanctimoniously say that we have the Integrity in Public Life Act, and we should not even think and consider introducing a Motion on an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Bill.

Dr. Rowley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. I want to begin by asking a question. I may have misunderstood it from representations on the Government side. Is it the Government’s intention to do away with the Integrity in Public Life Act? In my own case that you referred to, what you were referring to is individual misconduct 557 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 not a challenge to the institutional representation. What the court ruled was that officers of the Integrity Commission acted improperly against me, malfeasance in public office. That in no way rules out the legislation which, if followed, would not have led to what you have described. That does not make a case against the existence of an Integrity Commission. I have made no case against the Integrity Commission as an institution. I made a case against individuals who misconducted themselves.

Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh: We are not saying that we want to do away with the Integrity Commission, but this Motion here is to complement the work of the Integrity Commission. If you cannot see the wisdom of this—I am sorry that you all are not seeing what is supposed to be done. Let me just speak to you all on this. What happened in the country in May 2010? What pushed the Prime Minister at that time to call an election? The pressure was upon your government—the dictatorship, widespread corruption and lack of transparency, accountability and probity in the conduct of governance. At that time that the country was reeling under the pressure and a horrendous cloud of darkness was hovering over Trinidad and Tobago, and Trinidad and Tobago was brought to the brink and precipice of economic disaster where we were almost a failed State. We put the pressure upon your government and we challenged the Prime Minister with a no confidence Motion, because of his inability to deal with the matters at hand. He had to go under the pressure and relinquish his post as Prime Minister to contest the election. 2.15 a.m. And the people spoke loudly; 450,000 plus spoke loudly on this matter. They told you all that they were fed up with your lack of governance, with the whole widespread corruption that was going on, the dictatorship, and they, therefore, voted you out wholeheartedly. There was a calling by the people of this country that they needed something new, and it is in pursuit of the people’s desire now to see transparency and accountability and probity in the conduct of the affairs of a Government that this People’s Partnership Government, led by a distinguished and hon. Prime Minister with tremendous integrity, who promised this population that we will deal with corruption, and this is one of the issues that we decided to bring forward to deal with the corruption in Trinidad and Tobago. 558 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] Under one of the seven pillars in which we came into Government was the issue of transparency and accountability in government, and we promised as well that within the first 30 days we will table in Parliament the procurement Bill. And within 120 days we debated the procurement legislation, and it is before a joint select committee. That is an additional piece of legislation, which deals with the whole issue of procurement and corruption and white collar crime. So do not just discard this amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Bill and say that it already exists in the form of the Integrity in Public Life, and why are we are duplicating that. That is not so. We do not agree with you, and we believe that you are wrong on this issue. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what happened then with the Member for Diego Martin West and the issue, the entire Integrity Commission had to resign at that time. So here is an institution which is supposed to be independent, which is supposed to have some degree of confidentiality, tremendous integrity and everything that goes with it, and was forced to resign. The institution was shaken. The confidence in the institution was shaken, and, therefore, the capacity for governance in terms of Integrity in Public Life Act is still shaken and the confidence has been lost to some extent. And if there is something else which we have now introduced as a Motion that can supplement and bring back the confidence to the people of Trinidad and Tobago that there are institutions and laws and legislation that will see accountability and transparency and probity in public life and in private life, this piece of legislation will undoubtedly help. They must also remember—they speak about UNC, and people were charged under UNC and so on, from the Integrity Commission and other areas. At one time they had six members of their government before the Integrity Commission; six members of their government including their Prime Minister; including a Minister of Health, and a subsequent Minister of Health; including their Finance Minister; including their Minister of Energy and a subsequent Minister of Energy—six of them were before the Integrity Commission at one time. They have no moral authority to talk about anything about—I will come to what the Member for Diego Martin West said just a while ago, all emotions on the issue of corruption. We are bringing a Motion to ameliorate corruption, and giving the impression that the Bill is to deal with Members of the Opposition. This Bill is not to deal with Members of the Opposition, but we have to state the facts. You cannot escape the facts, PNM Members. The facts are there. My colleagues tell you almost every day, it is a DNA, something within your organic make-up that has been there since in 1956, but tonight I will not go into that. I can give you a history of PNM corruption bringing back to this Bill. 559 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the meeting is suspended for 20 minutes. 2.26 a.m.: Sitting suspended. 2.42 a.m.: Sitting resumed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Caroni East. Hon. Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My emotion is that I really feel constrained not to keep the House any longer, but there are certain points that have to be made. If we do not make these points I do not think we would have fulfilled the obligations of a debate on this issue. Before we broke, I was responding to some of the statements made by the Member for Diego Martin West, where he indicated that this Bill does not pose— we feel that this Bill poses a threat to the PNM and he says this Bill does not pose a threat to the PNM, and we only want to threaten and “buss mark”, and the PNM will not be encouraged to pass dirty statutes on the book, and that the legislation was brought from a treaty. Let me just inform the Member that, first of all, we are not trying to pose a threat to the PNM by introduction of this Motion and bringing this Motion. We are seeking a bipartisan approach to fill in the requirements of the needs of the society in ensuring that there is accountability and probity in public life and in private life. With respect to the dirty statutes on the book, it is only when legislation is passed and then it is investigated, then you may consider that something may have been erroneous or something that is wrong. But we are in the stage of bringing this to be subjected to a bipartisan approach, with the joint select committee, when there is the ability then to tweak anything that might be irrelevant and make a sensible piece of legislation that is very workable and that will not be contested in the courts in terms of its implementation. He also indicated that, if they refused to cooperate what can we do about it. We cannot do anything about it, but I want to let him know that the people of this country will believe that the Opposition, which is the PNM Opposition, are not interested in passing legislation to take care of corruption in this country, and the people will be looking at you and judging you. Here it is, a Government that has been given the authority by 450,000 people to do the things which we promised them on the manifesto; this is one of the issues. If you do not want to support it, the people will judge you according to what you decide to do yourselves. So if you do not want to support it, the people will judge that you are really not interested in supporting any moves against corruption. 560 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] Now, this motion—the Amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Bill, creates an Anti-corruption Commission. An Anti-corruption Commission is a permanent commission. You do not have to call a Commission of Enquiry month to month or six months every year. We have been subjected to the Jules Bernard Commission of Enquiry, the Anestine Sealey Commission of Enquiry, the Gladys Gafoor Commission of Enquiry, the Uff Commission of Enquiry, and one or two other commissions of enquiry over the last five/six years. This Motion, the Prevention of Corruption (Amdt.) Bill, seeks to create a permanent anti-corruption commission, which can deal with things on a continuous basis, and they will obviate the necessity for having commissions of enquiry with the frequency we have had to call commissions of enquiry. So it serves another purpose, and that was important for me to state. The Member for Diego Martin West said we have to be careful when we are building structures and creating another agency to parallel another agency; and I made the point that we are not paralleling the Integrity in Public Life Act, but we are complementing the Integrity in Public Life Act with this Motion and it is not a matter of intertwining and competing for funds. Every one of these pieces of legislation can stand on its own and have its own respect. And our whole argument is not to just pass this Motion. Our whole argument on this issue is to indicate to our colleagues on the other side the necessity for us the approach this in a bipartisan manner with a solution towards eventually making an important piece of legislation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is just one other point I want to make, and that is the question of the Financial Intelligence Unit, and the Members on the other side spoke about how we brought this Bill two days before this Motion, we gave them no notice, and we are here at 2.47 in the morning. But I can remember distinctly, in May 2009, the government at that time, now in Opposition, brought the Financial Intelligence Unit Bill in a mad rush and had us here in the wee hours of the morning to pass that Financial Intelligence Unit Bill. If they did not do it by that day, and did not send it through to the Senate subsequent to that, they would have been guilty of that which they are trying to accuse us: allowing Trinidad and Tobago not to be recognized by the international community as taking care of corruption. I remember very distinctly, my colleague from Oropouche West will tell you, and my colleague from Chaguanas West as well, and, of course, the Member for Siparia and our distinguished Prime Minister, that we argued vociferously that the PNM government at this time did not take into 561 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 consideration all the important recommendations of FATF in the deliberations on that Bill, the Financial Action Task Force. CFATF, the Caribbean Financial Task Force, had made some significant recommendations as well. And under the Egmont—the Member for Tunapuna spoke about it—which is the responsible agency, and they have the directive for the Financial Action Task Force, out of the 42 recommendations for ensuring there is integrity in the process, and the whole question of legislation against terrorist and money laundering, and so on, 15 of those were left out of their submission in that Bill, and we told them that it was insufficient, and they were not meeting the requirements for the piece of legislation that would put Trinidad and Tobago in good light. That was in May 2009. So when we told them that and they did not do it, that went as missing pieces of recommendations that they did not take into consideration, and this is one of the reasons that we, now in office for only seven months, have to find the difficulty of dealing with their mess, which they did not take care of. And they had one year, between May 2009 and May 2010, to implement some of these recommendations which were left out of the original Financial Intelligence Unit Bill, and they did not do it for the one year, but they are now trying to accuse us in the short seven months that we have, that we had not been able to do it and we are amiss, we have been incompetent in dealing with that. They did not put in the recommendations. They did not deal with it in the first place after nine years, and when they did it, it was weak, and we told them it was week, and subsequent to that, they had one more year to correct it, and they did not correct it, and they now want to accuse us about firing this person and that person, and the hon. Attorney General to do it. And, you know, it is only because—I want to read this as a closing part of this. It is only because of this that they decided to bring this piece of legislation in May 2009. I want to say it: The US Department of State in 2009, INCSR, major money laundering countries, has named Trinidad and Tobago as one of the major money laundering countries. The INCSR Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs said that Trinidad and Tobago jurisdiction is of concern. The reasons Trinidad and Tobago has been put into that category are because of five areas: (1) Failure to criminalize money laundering. From 2001 to 2009 they did not nothing; 562 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [HON. DR. T. GOPEESINGH] (2) Lack of effective monitoring of cross-border currency movement; (3) No reporting requirements for large transactions; (4) No requirement to maintain financial records over a specific period of time. This government has no records of any of those issues, and; (5) Well established non-bank financial systems, especially where regulation, supervision and monitoring are concerned are absent. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they were in Government from 2001. They did nothing about money laundering; absolutely nothing. It is only when the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs told them that Trinidad and Tobago is of major concern in that respect, and gave them the five reasons why they were put in that jurisdiction, then they sought frantically to deal with the issue, and they came like a thief in the night, with two more days to go for us to pass this legislation, and they are now accusing us—and they want to complain now. In closing, I want to state that we will have time to deal with the Member for Diego Martin West’s statement in saying that not every mismanagement is corruption but it may be waste. And probably under the Finance Bill coming up on Friday we may consider showing them that it is not waste alone, but it is corruption of almost $30 billion in their expenditure of $300 billion during their nine-year period. This morning I will not deal with that, and we will deal with that subsequently. We had spoken about it previously as well. The young generation of this country needs to be told of the intransigencies of the former PNM regimes of the 1960s, which my colleague, the hon. Member for Pointe-a-Pierre has done. But I could remember with tremendous knowledge from the 1950s to 2000, in this new 21st Century, all the aspects of where PNM has been found wanting as far as probity and transparency and accountability with the public purse, and their hands were in the treasury, and they were emptying the Treasury quite routinely, and people had to flee this country, and people had to live in other countries and die in other countries. And we talk about Ou Wai and Francis Prevatt and so on, and John O’Halloran. But there is much more of that for us to say. In closing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, white-collar crime is called victimless crime. And, you know what the conspiracy is called? The code of silence. The only way political rulers carry on as they do, wasting the country’s money for the benefit of their friends and family, is because they are sure of each other’s silence—the code 563 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 of silence. The code of silence existed with the PNM from long time ago, except when one guy said, “All ah we t’ief”. But it continued from the late ’60s to 2007, 2010. I just want to quote from President Obama. He said: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.” I repeat: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit through the silencing of dissent…” By the code silence. “know that you are on the wrong side of history.” The government at that time was ungrateful to the trust that the people had bestowed upon them, and they were unmindful of the sacrifices that the people and generations had made, and with their wild, reckless and unchecked and unaccounted for and non-transparent and non-accountable governance, lacking probity threw them on that side. The people have voted for us based on our manifesto, based on our promises, and we intend to keep our promise to the people. If we ask for support in ensuring that there is transparency and accountability and probity in the conduct of governance of our People’s Partnership, and ensuring that both white collar crime and crime are kept down, and crime in the public sector and private sector almost erased, and they do not want to support that, the people will judge them. Thank you very much. [Desk thumping] The Attorney General (Sen. The Hon. Anand Ramlogan): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are some fundamental misconceptions about this Bill that require clarification. I plan to go through each clause in this Bill one at a time, very briefly. Having regard to the hour, I will try to curtail as much as possible and make my presentation succinct and concise. The first point I wish to deal with is the idea that this Bill, somehow, is a superimposition on the Integrity Commission. That is not correct. My learned friend from Caroni East pointed out that this Bill is meant to complement and supplement the Integrity Commission. And that is, in fact, the correct way to look at it, because the Integrity Commission, as critical an institution it is, does not, in fact, possess certain powers, and the scope and ambit of its jurisdiction is one that is somewhat limited. So when, for example, you take the definition of a person in public life, a person in public life, under the anti-corruption Bill, is defined as any 564 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] employee or official of the State or any public body or public institution including those who were appointed, elected or selected to perform activities or functions in the name of the State or in the service of the State. The very definition of “person in public life” in this Act is wider and more expansive, and the net is cast far and wide as compared to the Integrity in Public Life Act where you have a schedule, and that schedule lists certain officeholders who are subject to the provisions of the Integrity in the Public Life Act. That by itself justifies this approach that we are taking. But there is a more fundamental difference, and it is this. The Integrity Commission, which is meant to adjudicate on complaints, has to conduct the investigations. So they investigate as well as adjudicate. And that by itself has issues and problems. When the Integrity Commission conducts an investigation, they hire external consultants, forensic firms, at great expense to taxpayers, and at the end of the day, after the Integrity Commission conducts its investigation, which may last years, when they are finished with that and they present something to the DPP, because of the way the law is drafted, and because the role and function of the Integrity Commission is so circumscribed in the Constitution, what happens then is that the police service, the DPP has to take that probably give it to the police service and they then have to start. You may recall, for example, the present criminal matters before the court. It is members of the police service who had to conduct investigations. After the Integrity Commission had completed its own investigation the police had to do the same thing. That is because of the way the law is drafted and because of the role and function and the design of the Integrity Commission. The anti-corruption commission will not have that problem. When the anti-corruption commission investigates and they pass it to the DPP, the DPP will not have to reinvent the wheel by going and handing it back to the police service. You may recall, for example, that the issue of the Maha Sabha radio licence, which went all the way to the Privy Council and was adjudicated upon by all three courts in our legal system, and it was found that the former administration was guilty of discrimination against the Maha Sabha. You may recall that matter was referred to the Integrity Commission. Years passed, and eventually the Commission decided—I read in a newspaper on a front page, without any refutation—that they recommended charges be laid and sent the matter to the DPP. To date, months have passed, nothing has happened. But part of the reason for that could be because the DPP now has to take it and give it to the police. 565 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

When my learned friend from Diego Martin North/East speaks about a duplication, that is where the duplication lies. The duplication is in the layer upon layer upon layer of bureaucracy in the investigation before you can lead to arrest, charge and prosecution. And that is why this Act is so important to cut out that middleman. That is why they are opposed to this. Because if this becomes law, what will happen is when the matter is investigated and the DPP has the file, he simply has to decide whether to charge or not. But at the moment, after the Commission investigates a matter and passes it to the DPP, he may very well have to pass it to the police service to reinvestigate it. And that is the position. Dr. Rowley: Will the hon. Attorney General give way? Thank you very much for permitting the clarification. Having made that explanation of the strictures on the Integrity Commission, if one assumes it, is it then the Government’s intention to do anything about the Integrity Commission or do away with the Commission? Why then would you want to have both this effective anti-corruption commission and an Integrity Commission? What is the justification for having both? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: If my learned friend, the Leader of the Opposition, is suggesting that we should do away with the Integrity Commission—[Interruption] Dr. Rowley: No, I am asking—[Interruption] Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan:—that is not something that the Government is prepared to consider and contemplate at this point in time. That is why I made the point that the anti-corruption commission, if its role and function are properly understood, it is meant to complement and work in harmony and in tandem with the Integrity Commission, because this body will be able to investigate the complaints of corruption. That is why you have all these matters pending before the Integrity Commission, and you are going to find that it limps along like a three-foot dog going nowhere; no finish-line in sight, and then suddenly, in frustration, they say, “Well, everybody exonerated.” The Karen Nunez-Tesheira insider trading matter, still with the Integrity Commission; Andre Monteil, still with the Integrity Commission; the church in Guanapo, still with the Integrity Commission. Why? Because the legislative arrangement we have in place is not properly equipped to conduct those investigations, and it requires an independent body to conduct those investigations so that you will not have the same body that has to adjudicate, conducting the investigations. That is why in the criminal justice system the police service investigates, but judicial officers adjudicate. 566 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] I understand the anguish of my friends on the opposite side to this. They say that this will cause a flood of complaints—my learned friend from Diego Martin North/East. He said a flood of complaints, because every advantage you get in the commercial and economic world, financial activities could be perceived as corrupt behaviour. So every time a businessman gets an exemption or a favour—nothing could be further from the truth. And it demonstrates the kind of ignorance, in the purist form of course, referred to by the Diego Martin North/East representative; it demonstrates that kind of ignorance that typifies that kind of empty and shallow contribution. What the law says in sections 5(d) and (e), this Bill says, the offences in sections 5(d) and (e) are designed to deal with situations where and employee, for example, is bribed by his employer’s competitor to use his position to give the employer’s competitor an unfair competitive advantage. For example, to give out details of a tender so that you are submitting your tender second and I share the details of the first; or for example to allow you to submit a tender after the deadline, or to take a bribe to somehow evaluate your tender so that it will come out on top, that is the situation the law is talking about, not lawful grant of waivers by exercise of administrative executive discretion given to us in law; not things like that. But, you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they wish to frighten the business community into thinking that this is all bad. Those who are not corrupt and those who are not participating in illicit activities have nothing to fear by this law. My learned friend from Diego Martin North/East raised the issue of the penalties. Again—[Interruption] Mr. Imbert: All the same. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: He said all the same. [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: They are. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: He says they are. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this again demonstrates the utter ignorance that comes from the other side. It is the ignorance in the purist form, of course, as referred to and defined by my learned friend from Diego Martin North/East. He seems to know about it, and he seems to even personify that ignorance which he speaks about is a lack of knowledge. That lack of knowledge is what leads to the kinds of utterances that we have had today from him. There are summary offences and there are indictable offences. Clause 10, there are new subsections (1)(a) and (b). All summary 567 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 corruption offences under Parts III, IV and V carry a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for 10 years. All indictable corruption offences carry a fine of $1.5 million and a term of imprisonment of 20 years. Mr. Imbert: Would you give way? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: No, I would not. I am clarifying. 3.10 a.m. Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the corruption offences are based on the concept of theft, bribery and a rape of the Treasury. My learned friend seems to want us to develop a qualitative violation of a moral code of ethics that will justify some kind of lower threshold and penalty. “Tief big, tief small, you are still a tief; no matter how you tief, it is still the same vice.” They are but different radiations emanating from the same lethal vice that has led to the plundering of the Treasury over the years. [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: You will not give way? “But you terrible, boy.” Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: My learned friend from Diego Martin North/East said that we were again going with a joint select committee. I am amazed that a Government seeking to involve and include the Opposition in a meaningful way in the law-making procedure, by involving them in the process of a joint select committee, could be more concerned about any other business than actually attending joint select committee meetings so they can participate. My learned friend from Diego Martin North/East is very famous in this country. When he was a minister, he found time to look at every single newspaper and would pen letters to the editor to respond to anybody. Anybody who told him anything he did not like, even if they said he was short or tall, he would write a letter to the editor. [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: That passed over my head. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I understand that most of the things I say may pass a little over his head. [Interruption] Not because you are short, not at all; I would never make such an accusation. My learned friend said that I should not say it passed over his head; all right. It could pass beneath his feet and he still would not pick it up. Well, you so low, you could plant cassava with a ladder. [Laughter] Mr. Imbert: You could close now. 568 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: This Motion is to refer this Bill to a joint select committee so that we would get the benefit, involvement and participation of my learned friends from the other side. To the extent that we are willing to listen and then lead, they should be congratulating us on that approach. My learned friend from Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West said that we were constantly complaining about the PNM in the hope that that would somehow make us look good. If you forget your past, then you will not ever be in the right direction for your present and future. We cannot forget our past in this country. The PNM would love to have this country forget. They want to press the delete button of the political history in this country, but that button cannot be pressed. You are right; they held this country hostage. I want to tell my learned friend, no matter what we say, no matter what you say, the PNM could never ever look good. They could never look good. The litany of woes and corruption tales from the O'Halloran scandal, the Caroni Racing Complex or if you come up the road to Calder Hart, et cetera— when the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that some of these things may have been waste or some mismanagement, but not corruption, he may be right. But the laws as presently drafted do not allow for you to deal with that kind of mismanagement and wastage that borders on corruption. There is a higher philosophical principle. There is a higher concept upon which the rule of law is premised and we cannot afford to say that people who are so reckless with State funds can be allowed to simply say, “Well, is mismanagement, but is not corruption, so leave we alone.” That is, in effect, what they are saying, “It is mismanagement, it is wastage, but it is not corruption, so leave we alone.” So if I did not put it in my pocket or you cannot find out where I put the money, the fact that I gave it to my friend, family or supporters, no big deal. I am amazed when they speak, and they are the ones who want to attack us on what we are doing about crime. Mr. Imbert: What are you doing? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: For eight years they were there and crime consistently rose. We are not happy about the crime situation we inherited, but I want to tell you this: we are working on the crime problem. Although it is not a cause for great “rejoicement” and celebration—[Interruption] rejoicing and celebration—the statistics presented to us by the police service have shown that serious crime, for the last six months in 2010, fell by almost 20 per cent. Serious crime fell by 20 per cent according to the police statistics. 569 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mr. Imbert: “You believe dat?” Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I do not know if you believe it, but you would not believe it because you all are accustomed to serious crime rising under the PNM. You could never contemplate crime dropping because for eight years it consistently rose. We have the Anti-Gang Bill and the Bail (Amdt.) Bill with my learned friends at a joint select committee. We are dealing with the regulation of procurement; we are dealing with the Criminal Procedure (Amdt.) Bill. We are reviewing through the Minister of Justice, my colleague, the hon. Herbert Volney, the criminal procedures, no juries, perhaps, only a judge alone; abolishing preliminary enquiries; jury reform; bail reform; the DNA Act, and we are coming to Parliament. They criticize us. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition. My learned friend said that we passed too many laws and that we had laws there; that is not correct. We cannot fight crime unless we pass proper laws, because the laws are the equipment and tools that the police service uses to fight crime. For example, if you cannot compel someone to submit themselves to give you a DNA sample, of what use is the DNA Act? You need to pass a new law to deal with that. You need to amend the law. If in the present system a preliminary enquiry drags on forever, and for eight years they did nothing about it, must we allow that situation to persist or must we pass a new law to abolish preliminary enquiries? If prisoners are being granted bail, they come out to commit crimes, they are on the second and third offence, and we feel that this recidivism is promoting the crime and a handful of people is holding the nation to ransom, should we not pass new laws to give stricter bail conditions or to say, “Two strikes and you are out; no bail for you for the third crime”? We have to pass new laws for that too. The leader of the Opposition said, “Enough laws.” Dr. Rowley: I did not say that! Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: He said that. We are not just tackling crime of that nature. This Anti-Corruption Bill is also about tackling crime, because white- collar crime is also crime. That is why we on this side intend to address the issue of corruption and confront it squarely and frontally. I heard my learned friend, the Member for Diego Martin North/East, triumphantly declare that the country is blacklisted because of failure to comply with FATF requirement; he said it was a fact. Let me tell him what the facts are, 570 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] because I think it is time we put him out of his misery and take him out of the miserable state of pure ignorance, as defined by him, that he finds himself in. Mr. Imbert: What are the facts? Let me hear. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: The unenviable position in which my learned friend finds himself is this, in February 2010, when they were in power, it was felt that Trinidad and Tobago had strategic deficiencies in its compliance mechanisms and, as such, they decided to monitor our progress along with other countries. That was in February 2010 when the PNM was in power. That status has not changed and the country has not been blacklisted. Let me tell you why. Mr. Imbert: We are on a list now. There was no list before. [Interruption] Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: “We on de same list.” You bring your blacklist. “You doh worry; I will put you on a list just now.” Mr. Imbert: I will bring my list. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I will shortlist you. “That is no trouble; I short too, doh worry with dem.” To get the record straight so that the nation will understand, since February 2010 we have been on that list, which is not a blacklist, it is a list to monitor compliance and monitor our progress. Whilst I am on that— [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: Will you give way? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: The FIU Act was passed under their watch in October 2009, so if the country has strategic deficiencies, it is because from October 2009 until the general election they did not do what they should have done. [Interruption] Mr. Imbert: Would the Attorney General give way, please? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: On what point? Mr. Imbert: On the blacklist. You do not want to give way? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: No, because you had your say on that. You should bring the blacklist. When my learned friend makes statements to this honourable House to the effect that the Attorney General fired David West and gives the impression that caused this and put us in this position, let me give the facts. David West was an 571 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 attorney in private practice running a private criminal law practice. My predecessor retained him on a monthly retainer as head of the Central Authority in the Office of the Attorney General; a monthly retainer for a lawyer in private practice, to be head of the Central Authority. They realized that since this law was passed in October 2009 and proclaimed in February 2010, “We eh really looking too good, we eh do nutten,” so they poached David West and borrowed him from the Ministry of the Attorney General and said that they appointed him to act as Director of the FIU; such is their commitment. So a lawyer who is running a private criminal law practice, retained by the State to act as the head of the Central Authority, to advise on extradition, is now appointed to act also as the head of FIU. That is scandalous. Mr. Imbert: You fired him from both. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I am advised that both positions, because they existed on the establishment, there were concerns about potential conflict of interest, because you have a lawyer in private practice representing criminals, defending them, because that was his professional duty, and he was holding down two positions which were meant to be held by independent persons. Tell me something: If someone walks into his office of a criminal defence lawyer and said that he wanted to be defended or advised on a money laundering issue that lawyer is the head of the FIU, what happens to this country? “Den we go get blacklisted.” That was the concern. Mr. Imbert: That is why you fired him? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: That is why we have, in fact, taken the steps to say that we should have the position permanently filled. I want to ask the Member for Diego Martin North/East is this: what steps did you take to fill the position permanently and why did you not want to fill the position permanently? You passed the law, you were on the strategic list for noncompliance and deficiencies, what were you doing about it? Mr. Imbert: You want me to talk? 3.25 a.m. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: You were going to allow the situation to continue forever. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I want to say is that the only blacklist here is that the Members on the other side, in particular the Member for Diego Martin North/East, want to blacken the image and the reputation of Trinidad and Tobago. 572 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] That is a most irresponsible statement to make, that we have been blacklisted— [Interruption] Most irresponsible—when they know very well that they are the ones who put us in that position. But the position is not a bad one, because we are moving now, as we are with dispatch, to try to clean up yet another mess they created. When they speak about foreign investors who would not want to come here if we pass this law, this is a matter—United Nations Convention has it to do business in the United States of America, you have the RECO Treaty, you have a host of anti-corruption and anti-trust laws; does that stop people from going to invest in America? I do not think so. I think, au contraire, investors will develop a sense of confidence and respect for Trinidad and Tobago and see that we are prepared to do business in a transparent and open manner and that is why it will help us. I challenge my learned friends, with all of the “ol’ talk”, I challenge them to tell us which countries were reversing whistle-blower protection, because this seeks to do that. Not a single man jack, not a single Member on the other side called the name of a single functioning democratic country that actually is seeking to reverse and do away with the whistle-blower protection. Not a country called. [Crosstalk] Yes, he needs to stop blogging and start working. [Interruption] He is a professional blogger. [Interruption] I listened to the learned Leader of the Opposition; I listened to the Leader of the Opposition criticize us for the hamper distribution project and I was amazed, because Dr. Rowley, the learned Member for Diego Martin North/East— Dr. Gopeesingh: Diego Martin West. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: No, no, I mean I mix you all up sometimes because you “did want the man’s place.” Mr. Imbert: “What the jail is this!” Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, he said he did not have a problem—having instructed, “doh collect no hamper” and realizing that was a terrible faux pas, he started to back-pedal, so he said, well, he did not tell them not to take the hamper, his concern was about the use of state resources to buy these hampers. This little hamper with a “lil” two-pound of flour, a “lil” bottle of oil, a “lil” pack of rice and a “lil” pack of chocolate biscuit for “lil” children to give poor families, they are concerned about that. He said he is concerned about principle, 573 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 the use of state funds for party purposes. When I heard today, hon. Minister Warner, Member for Chaguanas East, reveal the sordid details of PTSC, whereby the PNM was taking buses, leaving commuters stranded, prepared to leave the travelling public, women who have to get home to their children, women who have to go home to cook a meal when their children come home from school hungry, they left them stranded so they could take CEPEP and URP workers, put them in buses and get them to PNM functions and rallies, that is the hypocrisy of the other side. I did not hear them condemn the use of state funds for party purposes there. That is not hamper giving out. It “eh” putting a meal in a poor man child’s belly, but they are prepared to condemn us for seeking to do that at Christmas time. They said absolutely nothing about the wanton abuse and misuse of the PTSC buses at the expense and to the detriment of the travelling public. Everybody now claims that they do not know, and the Member for San Fernando East, as usual, has left, so nobody “eh” know. The Member for Diego Martin North/East, immediately say, “I doh know nothing bout that”. PTSC was under him and he does not know that the PNM, his own party—was he not a member of the general council? [Interruption] I find it curious to say the least, that the Member for Diego Martin North/East, who is an experienced parliamentarian of 20 years standing—21, I do not want to shorten it, no pun intended, but over two decades of parliamentary experience, a former Minister and a Member of the General Council of the PNM, I find it utterly incredible that this man would say to this Parliament that PTSC that was under him with all that wealth of experience, he did not know that the PNM was using bus to bus people, busload by busload and not paying for it, even new and old, leaving commuters stranded and he did not know about it. Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 33(4). Mr. Deputy Speaker: When he is finished. Mr. Imbert: When he is finished. Okay, that is enough time. Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the kind of corruption, and the convenient criticism of the Government for those hampers, I think it is a crying shame and disgrace, because while they are giving away pianos, we are giving away rice and flour and they want to criticize us. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they wanted to hamper our hamper-distribution programme. They attempted to hamper it, but the population had a little joy, something to celebrate when we gave out those hampers. I want to thank those 574 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] Members from the PNM who saw the good sense [Interruption] in putting people before party and came to the backdoor and collected these hampers for distribution. I also want to congratulate those who were upright and forthright enough to say that they might even keep two for themselves, but I want to tell them that those hampers were for the people and we are happy that you took them. They were meant for the people, all of the people! Mr. Deputy Speaker, when they criticize that little hamper—they want to criticize the Prime Minister for that little hamper. I asked today, not a word about the two-storey security booth where they cannot locate a sewerage line to put a toilet. [Interruption] For how much money? Eight hundred thousand dollars to build a “lil cro-cho-tee” security guard booth. Better we had put those security guards in the Hyatt, [Interruption] better we had put them in the Hyatt, it would have cost us cheaper; but $800,000 and not even a toilet facility? [Interruption] I do not know whether—I do not know, maybe they put one of the pianos in one of the two-storey buildings; maybe when a security guard is on duty and he has an urgent and persistent call of a biological nature that is pounding on his backdoor, he will go and sit and play the piano because he cannot find a toilet. Maybe that was the intention. I cannot for the life of me understand how the PNM will build a two-storey guard booth for $800,000 and it “eh” have a toilet, and the former Minister says he does not know anything about it. It is a disgrace, it is scandalous and it is a shame, and it is a vulgar abuse of public funds, and to claim ignorance in its purest or its worst form is no excuse. It is a disgrace and a scandal. It is a crying shame and the blame for it, and the buck stops ultimately with the line Minister. Mr. Imbert: You believe that? Sen. The Hon. A. Ramlogan: I not only believe it, I know it to be correct, because at the end of the day the board is accountable to you, Sir. Do not tell me that you, Member for Diego Martin North/East, never, never once—I know you are a man who on record was criticizing the UNC for building schools where you say children are “douens and lagahoo”. But I want to ask you, even then, you never in the eight years that you were in government and the PTSC was under your ministerial jurisdiction, you never drove past the lighthouse to see they were putting up a two-storey guard booth? You never saw that? You never got complaints? You never were in touch with the workers at PTSC to find out that these workers, the security, did not have access to a functioning toilet in a two- storey building that cost $800,000? 575 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

You never looked at the audited accounts of PTSC that came to you as line Minister? Did you not for one day look at the minutes of the board meeting, that in accordance with the guidelines that exist from the Ministry of Finance, must come to the line Minister? What were you so busy doing that you did not read the board minutes, you did not look at the external audit report and you did not keep a hands-on approach to keep your finger on the pulse of the board to allow them not to do as they wanted with the public funds voted for PTSC? Did you never visit City Gate to see the squalor and the conditions that we put our people in after they have to scramble like dog and cat, to fight to get on the bus to reach home to their families? There are women who work in the Judiciary and they come from Barrackpore, Penal, Point Fortin, even Cedros and they wake up at 3.00 a.m., and that bus has to take them down, and when you go to City Gate and you see them climbing, it is like they are climbing on top of one another to get into that bus because they want to reach home to see their child from school, to cook a meal for them; and you know nothing about that? Well, let me tell you something, I believe you, because had you all known anything about that, you all would have done something to feel the pain, the suffering and the hurt of the people and you all would have done something to prevent that kind of scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money. You would have taken that money and you would have probably built a turnstile or bought a new bus, but you would have done something. It is clear, the disconnect with the people on the ground and the gap was so wide that it was impossible to reconcile. [Interruption] That is why they are there! That is why they are there! So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why all they can do is latch on to things like the hamper distribution programme at Christmas and to criticize us for that. That is why that is all they can do. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am one of those eternal optimists and I prefer, instead of looking at the glass as being half empty, I prefer to look at it as being half full and I am hopeful that my learned friends would realize that the issue of corruption is a most serious one. I am prepared to give them an opportunity to reconsider and review their position and to see whether or not we can find some common ground on this important matter, and it is for that reason instead of piloting this Bill, I brought a Motion to have it referred to a Joint Select Committee at which it will be represented. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the approach of this Government to achieve some consensus on these important issues. 576 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. A. RAMLOGAN] I hope that my learned friends would review their position, because the population which judged them harshly—and the population is looking on at what they do and what they say. The fact is, their party has not been known for passing corruption legislation or supporting it, it has been known really for trying to undermine and dilute it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope with a new generation there may be the possibility of new hope, notwithstanding the persistence of that pernicious flower on the tie that seems, somehow, to grow but not remove itself. I hope someday they would be able to remove that and put a national flag on that tie to show that they are patriots and citizens of a proud Republic of Trinidad and Tobago as opposed to being mere political lackeys, and supporters of a party. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I end by urging my learned friends on the other side to please join with us in this Joint Select Committee, to consider and tackle this vexing issue of corruption in a more meaningful, genuine and sincere way, so that we could find common ground to what is indeed a common problem that affects us all. I thank you and I beg to move. [Mr. Imbert stands] Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is closed! The debate is closed!—“I beg to move.” Mr. Imbert: You said that you would give me— Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, you could only use that—No, I did not say so. I said you could only use it after the person stops speaking. Mr. Imbert: [Inaudible] Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, but he said “I beg to move.” You could bring a substantive Motion. [Interruption] Question put. The House divided: Ayes 26 Noes 10 AYES Moonilal, Hon. Dr. R. Persad-Bissessar. Hon. K. Warner, Hon. J. Dookeran, Hon. W. McLeod, Hon. E. 577 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Alleyne-Toppin. Hon. V. Gopeesingh, Hon. Dr. T. Peters, Hon. W. Rambachan. Hon. Dr. S. Volney, Hon. H. Roberts, Hon. A. Cadiz, Hon. S. Baksh, Hon. N. Ramadharsingh, Hon. Dr. G. Ramadhar, Hon. P. De Coteau, Hon. C. Indarsingh, Hon. R. Baker, Hon. Dr. D. Partap, Hon. C. Samuel, Hon. R. Douglas, Hon. Dr. L. Ramdial, Miss R. Roopnarine, Miss S. Seemungal, J. Khan, Miss N. Sharma, Hon. C. NOES Mc Donald, Miss M. Rowley, Dr. K. Cox, Miss D. McIntosh, Mrs. P. Imbert. C. Jeffrey, F. 578 JSC Prevention of Corruption Act Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Browne, Dr. A. Thomas, Miss J. Hospedales, Miss A. Gopee-Scoon, Mrs. P. Agreed to. Resolved: That a Joint Select Committee be established to consider the legislative proposal for the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chap. 11:11 and report to Parliament within three months from the date of appointment; And be it further resolved that the Joint Select Committee be authorized to: (a) consult with stakeholders and interested persons; (b) send for persons, papers, records and other documents; and (c) recommend amendments to the proposal. ADJOURNMENT The Minister of Housing and the Environment (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn to Friday, January 14, 2011 at 1.30 p.m., and to indicate to the Opposition that on that day we intend to debate the Finance Bill, 2011. Question put and agreed to. House adjourned accordingly. Adjourned at 3.43 a.m.