237 Leave of Absence Tuesday, August 10, 2010

SENATE Tuesday, August 10, 2010 The Senate met at 1.30 p.m. PRAYERS

[MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair] LEAVE OF ABSENCE Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, I have granted leave of absence to Senators Therese Baptiste-Cornelis and David Abdulah who are out of the country. SENATORS’ APPOINTMENT Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, I have received the following correspondence from His Excellency the President, Professor George Maxwell Richards, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D.: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By His Excellency Professor GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. /s/ G. Richards President. TO: MR. SHANE MOHAMMED WHEREAS Senator Therese Baptiste-Cornelis is incapable of performing her duties as a Senator by reason of her absence from Trinidad and Tobago: NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as aforesaid, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you, SHANE MOHAMMED, to be temporarily a member of the Senate, with effect from 10th August, 2010 and continuing during the absence from Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator Therese Baptiste-Cornelis. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago at the 238 Senators’ Appointment Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT] Office of the President, St. Ann‟s, this 6th day of August, 2010.” “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By His Excellency Professor GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. /s/ G. Richards President. TO: MS. LYNETTE ABRAHAM WHEREAS Senator David Abdulah is incapable of performing his duties as a Senator by reason of his absence from Trinidad and Tobago: NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as aforesaid, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you, LYNETTE ABRAHAM, to be temporarily a member of the Senate, with effect from 10th August, 2010 and continuing during the absence from Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator David Abdulah. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago at the Office of the President, St. Ann‟s, this 6th day of August, 2010.” OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Senators Shane Mohammed and Lynette Abraham took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. PAPERS LAID 1. Annual audited financial statements of Telecommunications Service of Trinidad and Tobago Limited for the financial year ended March 31, 2010. [The Minister in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday)] 2. Third report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on the financial statements of the Public Transport Service Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2000. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] 239 Papers Laid Tuesday, August 10, 2010

3. Administrative report of the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards (and its Subsidiary, Premier Quality Services Limited) for the fiscal year 2008―2009. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] 4. Administrative report of the Office of the Prime Minister for the period October 01, 2008 to September 30, 2009. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] 5. Annual administrative report of the Diego Martin Regional Corporation for the period October 2007 to September 2008. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] 6. Annual report of the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] 7. Annual report of the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] 8. Special Roads (Traffic) (Amendment) Regulations, 2010. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday] Special Roads (Traffic) (Amdt.) Regulations, 2010 The Minister in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Madam Vice-President, may I advise that the Statutory Instruments Committee considered the Regulations and found that there was nothing to which the attention of the Senate should be specially drawn. The minutes of the Committee were circulated to hon. Members. Thank you. SENIOR CITIZENS' GRANT (AMDT.) BILL Order for second reading read. The Minister of the People and Social Development (Hon. Dr. Glenn Ramadharsingh): Madam Vice-President, I beg to move, That a Bill to amend the Senior Citizens' Grant Act, Chap. 32:02 and to validate certain actions of the Board, be now read a second time. Madam Vice-President, I take both pleasure and pride to stand before this honourable Senate, and people of Trinidad and Tobago, to amend the Senior Citizens' Act, Chap. 32:02. This Bill is a crucial and timely intervention by the new People's Partnership administration in keeping faith with, and securing the interest of our senior 240 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [HON. DR. G. RAMADARSINGH] citizens. It is also a measure that fulfils an important manifesto pledge of a Government that has been given, not one, but two votes of confidence by the people of Trinidad and Tobago. In addition, this measure fits snugly into the Government's policies and programmes of upholding and protecting our treasured senior citizens. In my presentation, I will analyze the value and importance of the Bill, and set it against the backdrop of the realities of the senior citizens in the global environment and in particular, Trinidad and Tobago and what the Kamla Persad- Bissessar administration can do to lift their lives. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the short title, and may be cited as the Senior Citizens' Grant (Amdt.) Act, 2010. Clause 2 amends the name of the Act and includes a definition for pension. It also repeals subsections (1) to (5) of section 3, by creating a new subsection (1) which established a scale to determine the amount of monthly pension. I refer to clause 2(d)(i) which states that: "With effect from September 1, 2010 a person who satisfies the conditions specified in section 4 and receives a monthly income in the sum specified in the first column"—of the Schedule—"is entitled to a monthly Senior Citizens' Pension in the sum specified in the second column"—of the Schedule—"as follows:" Clause 3 provides for an increase in the senior citizens pension. The Bill will make official, the Government's commitment to the senior citizens of this country to re-instate a pension―it will no longer be a grant―to the senior citizens and also, to increase the monthly old age pension entitlement to $3,000. [Desk thumping] Madam Vice-President, if I were to put it mildly, it is an unprecedented initiative for a two-month old administration, this vital measure being introduced in fewer than 30 days after the convening of the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. In so doing, the Government of the People's Partnership is keeping an important social and economic promise, and this Bill represents an act of fellowship and goodwill towards the elders in our society. 1.45 p.m. Madam Vice-President, although we have only been in office for a couple of weeks, we have already begun—I want to stress this, because this is very important, there were good programmes and policies existing—to reassess, reorganize and re-energize our social intervention strategy in Trinidad and Tobago. So this being one step in a journey of measures, it comes 241 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 against the backdrop of a synergizing of efforts and energies to accompany this measure that would make the lives of elders in society more dignified and humane. It reflects a symbolic and philosophical departure from previous administrations. As you would recall, the previous government spent about $300 billion in less than a decade, the comparisons in the short space of time are woeful. A grant is commonly known as a gift or a handout and there is always the appearance or the feeling or the perception that it could be withdrawn for any whimsical reason that the person who controls it might wish. In contrast, the Oxford Dictionary terms pension as a regular payment made by the State to people above the official retirement age and to some widows and disabled people. A pension is not an arbitrary handout, but a right of our senior citizens who qualify for the senior citizens pension. Madam Vice-President, you may recall the confusion, anguish and pain caused in many sections of the national society generally, but specifically among the senior citizens who were told that the pension was withdrawn without explanation. Instead they were given a grant and they thought it was given in a manner as if it was a grand imperial favour. The electoral manifesto of the People's Partnership suitably entitled, "Prosperity For All", emphatically promised that the Government would adhere to the principles of social justice by ultimately ensuring the eradication of poverty through the provision of safety net measures for most of the vulnerable in society. My own Ministry is charged with the responsibility to decrease poverty by 2 per cent every year, a challenge that we are well on our way to fulfilling. This promise is the cornerstone of our manifesto and is the first step in a series of measures to go in the direction that we wish to go. We also affirmed in the manifesto that every single human being was important, but we also identified particular groups in the society that were especially vulnerable. We indicated that we would ensure they would be given priority with regard to care and protection. We spoke very strongly about the old, sick and weak and the differently abled. We also spoke about bringing them in as equal partners in the society. It is a promise like this measure that we intend to fulfil with haste. Permit me to focus on our senior citizens, Madam Vice-President. Let me state that the Ministry of the People and Social Development is happy to assume the role of torch bearer here today, by closing the yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots. 242 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [HON. DR. G. RAMADARSINGH] Our hon. Prime Minister had signalled her intention since 2007, and that might have been in the Lower House. I remember joining my voice to that chorus in this august House in a few contributions. It is now history and for the record, this was not idle electioneering, but the reflection of a deep and meaningful contribution and commitment to our citizens. This Bill today gives flesh to that very promise. An additional $500 may not mean much to persons who may have benefited from great contracts and large expenditures. It may not have much meaning for overnight millionaires, but to a grandmother supporting her three grandchildren, this represents the payment of an extra bill or a bill that they could not have afforded before; a little more food on the table and a little more convenience of transport for the two or three grandchildren that she may be supporting while their mother and father are abroad. I want to provide some relevant background to the debate, while piloting this Bill. The United Nations Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002, estimated that globally the proportion of persons aged 60 years and older was expected to double between 2000 and 2050, from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the world's population. In developing countries like ours, Trinidad and Tobago, the older population is expected to increase fourfold; yes, fourfold. Therefore, the whole issue of ageing is one that we cannot retreat from addressing, considering and planning for. Madam Vice-President, to place these projections in the national context, the Central Statistical Office indicates that by the year 2020 there would be approximately double the number of persons in the 60 year and older group, with that sector of the population increasing from 9.4 per cent to 16 per cent. In actual numbers, the persons aged 60 and older will exceed 230,000. This guarantee must have an even wider reach and purpose. It must be extended to women who work at home caring for the children of our nation, who have painstakingly woven together the fabric of our society. It must reach out to those unable to provide for themselves, due to being differently abled, but continue to require care and protection under the People's Partnership Government. This Government holds steadfast to ensuring economic security for that growing cohort of older persons, while preserving their independence, dignity and honour. The Division of Ageing within the Ministry of the People and Social Development has been given an even stronger mandate to work with the elderly throughout the length and breadth of Trinidad and Tobago. I have placed 243 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 increased emphasis on the development and extension of senior citizens' activity centres throughout the length and breadth of Trinidad and Tobago. I make an appeal to the faith based organizations to accept the challenge of partnering with the Ministry and taking these senior citizens‟ activity centres to the mosques, churches that have the facilities to build this programme, so that our elderly would feel more and more a part of the society, engaged in active lifestyles, exposed to computer literacy, the Internet and other new technologies that would enhance their lives. Let us examine this measure in the context of the current state of the national economy. My ministerial colleagues, hon. Winston Dookeran and Sen. Mary King, recently revealed that provisional estimates for the economy showed a decline of 3.2 per cent and that the economy is expected to remain flat for 2010. Just to keep note, in June 2010 headline inflation rose to 13.7 per cent. In reality, what the past administration has left for us is an economy of increasing inflation, unemployment and declining GDP. If this persists, it could provide a recipe for economic catastrophe, but the People's Partnership Government and the Minister of Finance are taking corrective measures every day to ensure that the economy would once more be on the rise. As we may be aware, in times of crisis and problems—and we see floods that are ravaging our lands, people being put out of their homes and some people having to literally swim home, walk in the water knee high, and vehicles being towed away—in times of emergency and natural disasters, it is the vulnerable and the older persons who suffer first and suffer the longest. In many instances, our senior citizens continue to function as head of the household and their incomes represent the only steady flow of resources for large and extended families. I have described an older person living on a stagnant pension with the cost of living increasing and increasing, as a nomad with a leaking tent; things could only get worse. The People's Partnership Government promised a fair deal for the elderly. I wish to outline the success that we have today. We promised to remove the grant and reinstitute the pension, that was done. We have increased the figure so that no one would earn less than $3,000 after they have reached the age of 65. Hon. Senators: Earn? Sen. Dr. G. Ramadharsingh: Receive. This latter measure is part of an advanced payment structure that has benefits for all, ensuring that no one person in this country would receive an income less than $3,000 per month. In effect, the income of persons who qualify for the senior citizens‟ pension, the quantum of that pension would not be less than $3,000 at the lowest end and up to $4,000 at the upper limit. 244 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [HON. DR. G. RAMADARSINGH] In pursuit of this objective, we are constantly reviewing the landscape of our social programming to ensure that no one is marginalized or left behind. It is in our bid to ensure that no citizen in our country is made to subsist on a lower monthly income than $3,000, we again examine the new payment structure proposed by the recently approved amendments on the Senior Citizens‟ Grant Act and recognize that there were older persons whose income was in excess of the ceiling criteria of $2,800 per month, but below the maximum pension quantum of $3,000. In effect, these persons would be living on an income below the maximum value that we are trying to establish across the board. 2.00 p.m. In order to address the disadvantage at which these categories of persons were placed, the Cabinet approved the expansion of the payment structure of the senior citizens‟ pension so that the monthly threshold for meeting the qualifying income criterion is now $3,000 and no longer $2,800. This measure will allow for persons whose income exceeds the ceiling of $2,800 but is less than or equal to $3,000, to be paid a monthly pension of $1,000. You would note the significance of this measure. What we have effectively done is expanded the social safety net thus allowing the senior citizens to gain entry onto the major social protection strategies offered by the Government. I am certain that this honourable House will recall that one of the promises that we intended to deliver was this measure and that we had put it in the manifesto in our 120-day plan. There were signal promises in the manifesto. We promised the Ministry of the People; we have delivered. We promised the Ministry of Justice; we have delivered. We promised to axe the tax; we have delivered and we promised this measure and we have delivered. We will certainly not stop here in our quest to ensure the full inclusion of all persons into the major social safety net programmes of the Government. The Government's consensus is that the ability to overcome the challenges of the senior years in a degree of personal comfort without worry and with dignity is the least that the senior citizens can expect in a modern and caring society. Let me at this point indicate that the Ministry of the People and Social Development has already embarked on a comprehensive review of the policy regarding the senior citizens‟ pension so as to be more responsive and meet the growing needs and realities of our older persons. We have looked at the residential qualification for the Senior Citizens‟ Grant. This will be revised to be more responsive to all the senior citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Many senior 245 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 citizens have been in the past penalized for visiting their families abroad, taking a vacation or serving the country on the international scene. This caring administration intends to put an end to this. We intend to revisit the way in which income is calculated. Many of our senior citizens are forced to live off their savings before they can access the senior citizens pension. The use of savings and lump sum payments in determining income will be revisited to ensure that older persons are afforded the opportunity to save and live a decent standard of living. Some senior citizens are forced to endure long hours to satisfy the official system that they are still alive and resident in Trinidad and Tobago. We have looked at this. This has caused a lot of pain and suffering for elderly persons who are very old and have to travel or get in a vehicle, driven by their families; go out for the entire day. They have to travel long distances in the heat and sun and wait just to ensure that they are alive and really are entitled to this pension. We will look at creative solutions to assist our citizens in this regard. We will examine the possibility of applying technology and having field persons visit these older persons, either by the use of retinal scans or having someone senior or of authority in the village to ascertain that these persons are alive, to avoid this yearly trip of pain and suffering to many of them. This is just a sample of changes expected to be laid in this House. We intend to serve this country with distinction over the next five years and beyond. Today this Bill represents just a snapshot of that will and commitment to serve and to improve the quality of life of everyone, especially our vulnerable in the society. In order to do this, the Government's commitment will go further and beyond the remit of the Ministry of the People and Social Development. In order to ensure a decent life for these citizens, you will see sweeping reforms across the ministries and you will see greater assistance and greater policy making to afford them a better life: in the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Public Utilities; the Ministry of Housing and the Environment; the Ministry of Works and Transport and the Ministry of the People and Social Development. It will be a concerted effort by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to achieve the realities. On a related matter, I would like to inform this august House that Trinidad and Tobago is well poised in the regional and global context to provide a non-contributory pension that will ensure that our citizens are provided with an income that is acceptable in their golden years. It has been well documented that formal retirement schemes address the needs of fewer than 15 per cent of the world's households and less than 10 per cent of the world's working population. 246 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [HON. DR. G. RAMADARSINGH] Indeed, most of those who are not covered by formal retirement provisions do, in fact, live in developing countries such as Trinidad and Tobago. Non-contributory pensions are seen to be successful in tackling the problem of old age poverty and are particularly helpful to women and persons who previously worked in the informal sector. Within the region we have been able to make comparisons with territories such as Barbados and Guyana and as we look at where they are and we look at where we are going, we will be leaders in the Caribbean on the issue of pensions and assistance to our elders in the society. As I indicated before, the Ministry of the People and Social Development does have good grants and I spoke about reassessing and remodelling some of these. Many of our citizens we have been able to assist, including our senior citizens and their families: the Public Assistance, a grant that is given to persons unable to earn a livelihood due to illness or with no means of support; the Disability Assistance which is given to a person who is unable to earn a livelihood due to disability; the Housing Items Grant, which is given now with the damage and the havoc wreaked by the floods where many persons have lost their appliances. At present, this grant amount is up to $4,500; the Housing Assistance Grant, which is also very relevant as persons' homes are destroyed, has a ceiling limit of $10,000. We have surveyed the recent developments in the country with the natural disasters and I want to assure you that we will begin looking at these grants to ensure that they are better suited to assist those who have been affected by natural disasters and emergencies, to ensure that they are treated in a way that brings them back into the society more quickly and more comfortably. There are many other grants and assistance packages that we would be looking to reassess and remodel. The Ministry of the People and Social Development is not content to have good grants and keep them in cupboards in the Ministry or in filing cabinets. We intend that these be given to the most needy in the society, those who are out there in the streets and villages, who are shut in and who need the person to knock on the door to assist. This is why the Ministry of the People and Social Development has embarked on a nationwide outreach programme called “Direct Impact”. This initiative was aimed at making the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago more cognizant of the programmes that are available to the public. While the Ministry's immediate target was to ensure that we took the social services to the at-risk communities, it was also used as an opportunity to interface with communities in different parts of Trinidad and Tobago. More importantly, it 247 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 was used as a mechanism to indicate how many persons were aware of the programmes and how they could access the various social services. You would be interested to note that within one week, because of us exposing these programmes, grants and facilities that are available in the Ministry at present, in 14 venues throughout Trinidad and Tobago, close to 6,000 persons were in attendance because of the awareness campaign. Just over 4,000 persons have applications inside for grants and you can tell how dismal the situation was when I tell you that only 3,000 applications were received from the Ministry's offices from January to August. It must be a case where there were misplaced priorities that so many thousands of our citizens came to learn of these programmes that can assist them with ensuring that they have the right daily nutritional requirements. It is widely accepted that the marketing campaign cannot graphically reach all the nooks and crannies of Trinidad and Tobago by going to venues such as community centres. There is a real possibility that we need to even go further and reach out to the neediest that are isolated and uninformed of social protection initiatives established by the State. This demand-driven approach requires vulnerable beneficiaries, the old, the infirm and the disabled to give of themselves, travelling long distances, expending money that they simply cannot afford, to apply for these programmes. They have to wait months, in some cases years for these services that they so desperately need. Their ability to deal with chronic cases is weak at best. As a Government it is our duty to act always in the best interest of the country. This is a duty of which we are clear and service to people has been indelibly etched into our minds by our leader of the People‟s Partnership. Therefore, I take the opportunity to tell you that while we have direct service reaching out to the people, we intend to embark shortly on another campaign that will impact on the elderly and this is why I make this point. Some of the elderly in the society, though given this facility by the Government here today with this legislation, it comes with accompanying measures and we intend to go back out, venue to venue, from Toco to Manzanilla, to La Brea, to Carenage, to Williamsville, to Barrackpore, to San Juan with “Direct Impact”, seeking out the people. 2.15 p.m. The difference is when we use a particular community centre or school, and the persons nearby go to these facilities, we are not content with that. We will then enlist the support of the army, NGOs and international aid agencies to go out 248 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [HON. DR. G. RAMADARSINGH] into those houses that are on the sides of the cliff, the back of the roads and the tracks where there are real indigent people who do not have food to eat. That will be another exercise of this Government; direct impact seeking out the people who need help in Trinidad and Tobago. We owe it to our senior citizens to give them a respectable standard of living. What is the use boasting that we are the largest exporter of ammonia and methanol in the world, while our elderly live in squalor? What is the use of our revenue from LNG, if it cannot be used to help a person who is suffering in a home in Galeota? No one is saying anything is wrong with boasting about how strong we are as an oil and gas economy, the challenge is that we truly use the proceeds to effect social change and upliftment of our people. Clearly, that has not happened before. It is an ironic tragedy that we have the extractive industries and we take our resources from oil in Trinidad and Tobago, whether it be Galeota, Guayaguayare, or La Brea, and we have some of the worst poverty in the country. It is a cruel irony of administration and management in this country. We believe that we must reach out to our citizens, assist them and encourage them by not giving them a fish, but by teaching them to fish. We must do it because we cannot tend and maintain poverty in Trinidad and Tobago. We must seek to eradicate it and eliminate it from our landscape. It was Gandhi who said that poverty is the worst form of violence. We have found that education in this regard will be a powerful weapon that will help us to change the lives of our people, so we will partner with the providers and facilitators of this empowerment tool to get our citizens out of poverty and into a better life. We in the People‟s Partnership have gone on record by saying that we believe that life begins at 60 and it is our intention to treat, engage and involve our elders and so give them a new lease on life. By removing this grant and guaranteeing a pension, we will give comfort to our senior citizens. The word “grant” will be removed from the vocabulary of the pensioners and the word “pension” will be reinstated with full force. Madam Vice-President, it is also interesting to note that many officers in the public service who had their pension below this figure, will now automatically be lifted to $3,000. In other words, the total number of persons who will get more money in their pensions is 19,781. The number who receive pension is 70,837. You would recall, when we said we will do this, we said that we would make the senior citizens more comfortable, give them that guarantee and take away the 249 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 torture and pain by having that grant and raising it to $3,000 so that no person over the age of 65 would receive less than $3,000. There were others in the society who said that was madness. They said it was impossible to do and that we would not do it. The reality is that with the determination, resolve and the love of duty to serve the people, we have done it and I thank you. I beg to move. Question proposed. Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds: Thank you very much, Madam Vice-President. To put it flatly, I am outraged and in disbelief at the boldfacedness and the infantry of the hon. Minister who has joined us in this august Chamber here today. All of the things that the hon. Minister said about the elderly, at least most of the things, are matters over which we need no persuasion. I think everybody in this society, every sensible person in the society and certainly my colleagues on this side, would want to see betterment and improvement in the quality of life and the circumstances of our elderly. There are some matters over which we have control and others not. In terms of the financial benefits they can gain from the State, that has, of course, to do with the state of the economy at any one point in time, the ability of the State to satisfy those ambitions, those matters require no argument. The more critical point and the reason I am in a state of disbelief is that this hon. Minister presented the Bill in the other place and he was spoken to at length by 12 of my colleagues in that other place. You would notice that he hardly got an applause from his colleagues as he presented here today, up until, of course, he was finished. He had in fact a second bite at the cherry. Having gone to the other place and having been told the facts about his presentation, what the Bill that he presented to us achieves and the distance that it observed between what he had promised and what the Bill achieves, he comes to this place today with a second bite of the cherry and repeated the same thing. The only thing that is different today is that he did not say “Damocaoles”; sword of “Damocales”. That is the only thing difference, otherwise no remorse, no surrender. He continues to perpetuate the untruths that they have. An old lawyer told me this morning in court, that in his many years, 35 years of practice, he has defended many a fraudster and he found in only one case in his 35 years that the person he defended as a fraudster ceased his fraudulent conduct. For the most part, he observed they all repeated it over and over again. He opined that something is clearly wrong with their minds. It is a disease. 250 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] This Minister demonstrated that he has the tendency to be a recidivist, but that does not exactly surprise me. I have had an opportunity to see them a long, long time. I used to say in my younger political days that the UNC was born in sin and shaped in iniquity. I used to say that. Let us put this thing in clear context. This is why all of the wonderful things he said about senior citizens virtually paled into insignificance, because the core issue here is and he was told that in the other place, you made a clear promise to the electorate during the campaign; a clear promise. You put it in your manifesto. You put it in advertisements and now you come to say you did not say that. Not only are you saying you did not say that, but you are also presenting a Bill claiming to achieve that, when in fact this Bill does not achieve that; recidivism, bad behaviour. It does not surprise us. If you believe for a moment that was only the views of those of us on this side in this place, let me quote for you from an article dated June 17, 2010 written by the editor of the Business Guardian Anthony Wilson, under the headline: “Pension promises deferred” This is, I take, a non-political analysis of these facts. The article says: “Speaking at the Office of the Prime Minister on Tuesday, Mrs. Persad- Bissessar stressed that the Government would increase the old age pension/senior citizens‟ grant from $2,500 to $3,000 ONLY for those who receive it at this point. Mr. Wilson is saying: “I interpret that to mean that this Government will use the existing income qualification to determine those who receive the pension or grant. Just to reiterate, the promises as made by the parties that now form the administration comprised the following:” He goes on to list them: “1) Reinstatement of Old Age Pension Act. Pensions must be an entitlement and not a grant… 3) Remove all restrictions and qualifications for people to receive an Old Age Pension and thus every citizen will automatically receive a State- funded Old Age Pension upon the attainment of pensionable age… 4) Increase the value of the monthly old age pension entitlement to $3,000… 5) Lower the pensionable age from 65 to 60 (Promise in newspaper advertisements)”. 251 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

He goes on— “(2) Pension laws must be amended to provide the national and regional portability of pension benefits and for improved…benefits. (Manifesto promise)” “It‟s interesting”—he goes on to say—“that the Prime Minister is reported to have denied ever making the promise to lower the qualifying age to receive a pension from 65 years to 60, as it is there in newspaper advertisements carried in the Guardian and the Newsday.” That is Anthony Wilson analyzing all that has happened. I know anyone who disagrees with them, they are quick to say PNM. An Independent Senator here did not even disagree, but made a very wholesome sensible recommendation that they pause and go to a retreat and get their wild act together and the next thing she was savaged in the media by two Ministers, one with a big mouth and one with a bigger mouth. They would probably go on to say that Anthony Wilson is a PNM. That is his understanding as a journalist, as to what was put out there in their advertisement. Therefore, I want to accuse this Government of contempt of this Parliament. I will tell you why shortly. The Minister told us that he wanted to ensure that the trauma and the anxiety on the part of the old in the society was removed by ensuring that the pension was now a right and not a grant. The word “grant” caused all kinds of problems. The Minister and his colleagues over there are just shameless to put it flatly, in my humble opinion; in very parliamentary language. Because he said in the other place and here that there is a perception, it is a grant and that the grant is temporary; a perception. Well, a perception is not legal reality. 2.30 p.m. They have an Attorney General there who knows when to act and when not to act; when to be anxious to do things and when to hold back. They have other lawyers on that side and they have the Government‟s legal advisors to help them. Even if there was that perception, I felt it was their duty to tell the people that it is only a perception; it is not real. The thing is an entitlement, because it is in the Act. And let me support that by quoting from the law that we are amending today, Chap. 32:02, the Senior Citizens‟ Grant, subsection (3)(i) which reads: “With effect from October 01, 2006, a person who satisfies the conditions specified in section 4 and receives a total annual income not exceeding $12,000 is entitled to a monthly Senior Citizens‟ Grant in accordance with section 2.” [Desk thumping] 252 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] So that the parent Act—the Act that we are amending today—uses the clear words, “is entitled to”; and they would have known that. But they perpetuate the trauma on the part of those who would not have had an opportunity to read the law and encourage them in their anxiety and pain. Probably raised their blood pressure; and then come here today to talk about they love old people. If it were a perception, you have a duty as public officers; as representatives, and aspirant representatives of the people, to tell them the truth. But, you know, the truth is beyond you, apparently. [Crosstalk] Section 3(5)—let me continue, Madam Vice-President. Section 3(5) says— and I am quoting from the law: “A grant under this Act is subject to review and may be increased, decreased or discontinued.” Nothing strange. We have seen old age pension, or you could call it “grant”. Two things we know. It has only increased since it came into existence. It has never been reduced. Grant, pension, whatever you want to call it; perception or not. Never. Secondly, that provision has always been there, and it is that provision that permits you to increase it or decrease it. It is that very provision. But what does that Minister and his colleagues on the other side do, or tell us? It was a grant. And, therefore, they come today with legislation to remove it from being “grant” to something permanent by changing the name to “pension”, and nothing else. Nothing else. Section 4 of the very Act outlines all of the conditions that I mentioned when I read section 3(1) that must be satisfied. The question of age being 65; the question of being ordinary resident in Trinidad and Tobago, at least for a period of 20 years immediately preceding the grant, and that kind of thing. So the conditions are there, Madam Vice-President. What they did was to promise the senior citizens whose vote they wanted, and I venture to say, needed, that they will move from 65 years as the age for qualifying, to age 60. That is what they promised. And that all the other conditions will be thrown out, so that the only qualification would be age, and the age would move from 65 to 60. That was their promise. [Desk thumping] Whether this achieves it is a matter for those who listen to us, but I am already clear that it does not, and they are already clear that it does not as well. But the treachery and the deceit are so inherent in their political DNA, they cannot help it. They cannot help it. And, by the way, I found that the Minister reminded me a 253 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 little bit of the hon. Basdeo Panday when he was here. Some of his little tricky and snide ways. The hon. Minister demonstrated them perfectly. [Laughter] But he was a charming man. This Minister is not charming at all. Madam Vice-President, let me demonstrate why I hold this Government, and I call upon this Parliament to consider holding this Minister and this Government in absolute contempt of this Parliament. Contempt. You would know, Madam Vice- President, from where you sit, that a contempt of Parliament has to do generally with anything that is done to bring the House into odium, opprobrium, dishonour, ridicule— Sen. Panday: Disrepute. Sen. F. Hinds: Disrepute, to use the word of my learned friend. Okay? And I suggest that the conduct of this Government and that Minister, as a parliamentarian; and the Government presenting itself in this Parliament will be doing precisely that. Madam Vice-President, on the 15th of September, 2004, an incident took place in these precincts in the tea room. It came to be known as the teacup affair, in which a current Minister of Government accused a former Minister of Government of striking him in his face a couple of times and shoving and pushing him, and pelting a teacup and electronic equipment, remote controls, at him. That went on for one year. That took place on the 15th of September, 2004, and the Privileges Committee of the Parliament was called into action and it delivered a report on March 16th 2005. I am reading now from page 23 of that report in respect of the second allegation, where Dr. Rowley was accused of behaving in those ways. The second allegation was that he alleged that Members of Parliament misrepresented the facts of the altercation in such a manner— Sen. Panday: Madam Vice-President, on a point of order, Standing Order 35(1). Madam Vice-President: Senators are reminded that you bear relevance to the issue at hand and the motion in front of you. Sen. F. Hinds: Grateful, Madam Vice-President. I told you, even if my friend did not hear, I was determined to demonstrate how this Government is in contempt of this Parliament, and this is the support. Very relevant. [Crosstalk] Madam Vice-President: Senator, might I remind Senators that parliamentary dignity is gained not only by language, but by behaviour. Thank you. 254 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. F. Hinds: Again, I am most grateful. I hope my friends on the other side take note. I, so far, have demonstrated impeccable parliamentary behaviour. Sen. Ramlogan: Shameless. Utterly shameless. Sen. F. Hinds: As I was saying, Madam Vice-President—and I hope I get some injury time for these attempts to stumble me: “Members of Parliament so misrepresented the facts of the altercation in such a manner so as to bring Dr. Rowley into disrepute as a Member of Parliament, and have, by their public utterances, brought all Honourable Members, as well as the entire House into odium and ridicule.” That was the allegation. The Committee looked at some footage on the television, and they looked, in particular, at some of the comments made by the Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, the Prime Minister of the Republic. She was then the Member of Parliament for Siparia. And they looked at her statements made outside the Port of Spain General Hospital, in particular, in relation to a matter in which she was not a witness. She was not present in the room at the time. But listen to the finding, and this is the important part. The finding, on page 24, having looked at her statements on the television—she and the now acting CEO of WASA, one Mr. Ganga Singh. Hear the finding of the Privileges Committee of this proud Parliament, having analyzed their conduct— Sen. Panday: Madam Vice-President, I am constrained to raise the said point of order, 35(1). Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senator, you have been asked to stay your discussion or contribution to a point of relevance, and I am going to ask that you temper. Please get back to the Bill at hand. Sen. F. Hinds: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. I just wanted to read the finding and—[Interruption] Sen. Ramlogan: Pension. Sen. F. Hinds: Yes, pension is contempt. The finding: “There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Members of Parliament, by their behaviour in presenting an ill-founded version of the events of September...” Madam Vice-President: Senator, Senator, please refrain from your path of discussion and get back to the Bill at hand. 255 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. Ramlogan: Pension, pension. Sen. F. Hinds: I will be guided by Madam Vice-President, but I shall take note that my intention to express myself and to demonstrate that the Government and the Minister are in contempt by bringing this entire Parliament into odium and ridicule has been curtailed by Madam Vice-President. Sen. Bharath: This is “wajang” behaviour. Sen. F. Hinds: At any rate, Madam Vice-President, that report was delivered, as I said, on March 6th. Now, section 55(3) of our Constitution talks about privilege of the Parliament and that is linked to contempt. Is the behaviour of the Government constructive contempt? They promised faithfully to the electorate in the way that I have already described, that they will reduce the pensionable age from 65 to 60; and the hon. Prime Minister and her ministers are now—not all of them; some of them—including the Minister who presented this Bill here today. Madam Vice-President, this raises a very interesting question. This UNC-led coalition consists of the COP, the MSJ, the NJAC, and, of course, the TOP in Tobago; and I want to know—and I would not be as unkind as my friend, the Hon. Attorney General, to say that the leader of the COP has no oomph; I would not say that. What I would say is that I wonder whether they, the other parties that form that coalition, support that kind of odium and ridicule that has been put upon this Parliament and the people of this country. That is what I want to know. I hope that when representatives of the COP and the other elements, my friend, Mr. Embau Moheni, of the NJAC, speak in this or any other debate, they will declare once and for all whether they support the kind of behaviour that cannot be construed in any way as new politics. [Desk thumping] It is dishonesty in the extreme, and I call upon the COP to tell us whether they support that or not. Sen. Panday: Who? Say who is dishonest. Sen. F. Hinds: We have heard, Madam Vice-President, that there are 134,000 persons or thereabout between the ages of 60 and 64, who would quite properly have anticipated an increase; a benefit from this State. Not an increase. A benefit. And the Minister spoke here about some smaller group, but the 134,000 people who they lured by making that promise to vote for them, they are sorely disappointed, and we are here to debate this thing today. Madam Vice-President, as I told you earlier, their advertisement said clearly upon reaching pensionable age; and when that was put to them, one Minister in the other place, and I saw it myself on the television, said the pensionable age is 256 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] 65, but that is so dishonest. They had promised that they would reduce it from 65 to 60; so to come to say now that the pensionable age is, in fact, 65, and whenever we said pensionable age is 65, clearly, Madam Vice-President, that kind of behaviour, though becoming of them, is not becoming of this honourable House. The Minister told us that no one would be marginalized. Well, in the course of the debate, I shot across the floor to tell him that all those persons between 60 and 64 are, indeed, marginalized. Imagine, the Prime Minister, as Anthony Wilson pointed out, in a post-Cabinet conference at the Cabinet office, telling this country that the UNC-led coalition never promised those adjustments. Imagine that. And then I am hearing the word “shameless” coming from the other side. Madam Vice-President, the Minister mentioned the question of inflation. While they were planning this measure, inflation continued to move, largely driven by food prices; largely as a result of some of the flooding, and so on, we would have seen. I wondered, since he is so responsive, whether he would have taken that into account and considered that the 500—because the Governor of the Central Bank told us a couple days ago that it is expected that food prices might rise by about 31 per cent—whether he, in his very responsive posture, would have made some adjustment between then and now to account for this. But, certainly not. They keep saying that the Treasury is empty. As everyone in this country knows, oil prices are now in the region of about US $78 to $79, and in the last budget, we budgeted at $50; $32 more, if it is $82, the last price that I saw. Therefore, this suggestion that the Treasury is empty—[Interruption] You keep talking about the past. This Government is on shutdown, you know. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to waste time, you know—as far as I am concerned, this Government is shut down. This Government is doing nothing; just running around every day watching dirty water and walking with tall boots around the place; but nothing else. And one cannot go forward looking back, so you continue looking back at us. [Interruption] You continue. Madam Vice-President, as I said, I insist I do not want to be. Some of the benefactors—well let me put it this way. Some of the old persons who were expecting this increase to $3,000, you will see, Madam Vice-President, where all will not be getting this automatic increase to $3,000. There is a scale, as the Minister reminded us, and it depends on what your income is. In other words, the current Bill that he brought here today maintains the means test, which has always been in place in relation to this pension; this entitlement; this grant, as we call it. The means test. 257 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

It was not just $3,000 regardless of what else one was earning. There was always a means test, and there continues to be a means test after this is passed; if it is. And all will not be getting $3,000. If your income is $500 or less, you will get the $3,000, and there is a scale which the Minister pointed out. So, again, the means test continues, and all the other conditions remain; and the most rough of all is that the age is not removed from 65, as they promised, to 60. I will tell you this, Madam Vice-President. I will tell you this. Some of these elderly people depend, because of their circumstances, on grandchildren and children—the Minister pointed out that—to get along. Sometimes, as they say, “Month is longer than money”. And some grandchildren and some family members take great joy and pleasure in assisting the elders in the family, and I think that is quite laudable; including, of course, those members of the Soca Warriors team who are entitled to certain moneys. They have grandparents who are pensioners. And they, I am sure, look forward to money that they earned by representing us so proudly at the World Cup; and when they earned money, they would have assisted these pensioners who are in receipt of some of the moneys that the Minister was talking about. But there is a certain advisor in the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association who happens, at the same time, to be a Minister of Government; and who happens to be the Vice-President of the International Organization we all know as FIFA. They are refusing to make good moneys owed to these footballers, who would want to use some of it to assist the pensioners in their family, in their respective plans. [Desk thumping] But they have no problem with that. They sit quietly and they watch this thing happening; and arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom said, pay the men their money. No, no. The matter was brought before a local court and a court found that the behaviour of the TTFA was ridiculous and ordered that money be paid. That is still not happening. And then they all sit there and I am entitled to speak about that, because I am speaking about a Government Minister, one of their colleagues in the Cabinet. But the footballers were offered $5,000 each, and then it increased to $180,000; but it is $188 million we are talking about. And then they say no one would be left behind. That is not pension or grant. That is money earned. Sen. Al-Rawi: Ordered. Sen. F. Hinds: So that Marvin Andrews, Brent Sancho, Kenwyn Jones, Stern John, et al are all desperate. You know, in the life of sportspersons, their professional lives are very, very short, so they need their money so they would not 258 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] have to rely on this Minister. In other words, if they had kept their promise, they would have been expecting it a little earlier at 60, but now Kenwyn Jones and the rest of the Soca Warriors have to wait another five years. The Minister told us, Madam Vice-President, that life—he proudly declared here today that life begins at 60, but the pension he is offering continues as it has, since independence, to age 65. So, what happens in-between? Since life begins at 60 and your pension continues at age 65, what happens in-between? No life at all? He coughs. [Laughter] Madam Vice-President, in the other place—I read Hansard in order to prepare for this debate to which I am entitled—I noticed he changed up some of the elements of his speech. He did not say Sword of “Democales” anymore. Sen. Ramlogan: You said that already. Sen. F. Hinds: I know I said that already. I am saying it again. I say it intently. He also quoted Oscar Wilde. Sen. Ramlogan: “Breakfastes”. Sen. F. Hinds: You see you, Mr. AG? I will treat with you at a later stage. You wait your turn. He also quoted Oscar Wilde, and I want to paraphrase. He said Oscar Wilde said, “When I was young, I thought that money was all important, or the most important thing. Now I am old, I know for sure.” He endorses that very heartless, horrible sentiment; the hon. Minister. He quoted it in the other place. He put money in a supreme place. He said effectively that money was the most important thing in the world. Well, I do not believe that. Hon. Dr. Ramadharsingh: Satire. Sen. F. Hinds: Satire? Sen. Panday: Is it land? The neighbour‟s land was more important than that? Sen. F. Hinds: You study the neighbour‟s land. [Laughter] You must study my own too, that I worked hard and paid for. Yes. You do not worry about that. My spiritual underpinning tells me, Madam Vice-President, that money cannot be the most important thing. I suspect that they know that money is not the most important thing in the world. I mean, my friend, the hon. Attorney General, abandoned Mr. Dookeran‟s new politics and ran behind the Prime Minister and Mr. Jack Warner because, I suspect, he has plenty money. Money is the most important thing in the world. I do not think so. I know that it is manners that maketh man; not money that maketh man. We understand 259 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 that. And right after that most un-Christianly statement, he went on to tell us that in quoting the Bible again, we must honour our mother and father. Well, I want to say to the Minister, you must honour your promise. You must honour your word. [Desk thumping] You must honour your promise to those between 60 and 64 who expected that they would receive a pension which you are not now giving to them, and still pretending that you are doing such good. That is what you should honour as well, Madam Vice-President. Madam Vice-President, the UNC-led coalition, I can safely say, is on a path to disaster in this country. Sen. Panday: Wishful thinking. Sen. F. Hinds: The Minister gave no real detailed explanation of the measures here, so I am obliged to do it. In the amendment that he has put forward, Madam Vice-President, at clause 2(d), it says, in section 3; so this is an amendment to Section 3, as I read earlier: “…by repealing subsections (1) to (5) and substituting the following subsection,” And hear what he is putting in. Hear what he is amending. He is now saying in this Bill: “With effect from September 1, 2010, a person who satisfies the conditions specified in section 4 and receives a monthly income in the sum specified in the first column is entitled to a monthly Senior Citizens‟ Pension in the sum specified in the second column...”— of the schedule. So, Madam Vice-President, this is simple stuff to you, but for those who are not so inclined, let me explain. With effect from the 1st of September, a person who satisfies the condition—so by definition alone, we know that there are still conditions to be satisfied. Although they promised that they will remove all conditions, there are still the conditions of section 4 to be satisfied before you can hope to qualify for this thing. Then he uses the same words that were found in the parent Act, “is entitled to”. So he says that he is amending it to remove it from grant status, which, according to his poor logic, and which they encourage people to wrongly belief, as a grant; something that is temporary and could be taken away; he takes out the words, “is entitled to”, and he replaces that with the same words, “is entitled to”. No wonder why a former UNC Senator, one “Mr. Rafman”—am I pronouncing his name correctly? Mr. Rahman. I wanted to get it right. A former UNC Senator, he said in an article, and I want to quote him; the date now escapes me: 260 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] “The UNC‟s position on the old age pension in this amendment, this Bill, is a virtual clone of what it purports to replace. All it now appears to undertake is to increase the existing grant from the PNM‟s $2500 by $500.” And he concludes the UNC-led coalition either made rash, or—No. That is my conclusion. [Laughter] My conclusion. He does not talk like that. I say that the UNC, on the campaign trail, either made rash or reckless promises, or otherwise deliberately spoke untruths. That is my conclusion. And Mr. Rahman told us, as you heard me quote, Madam Vice-President, that it is really at the end of the day, these measures are a virtual clone of what existed a long time ago. [Desk thumping] You must satisfy the conditions in section 4 if you have to qualify. You are not getting it at age 60, as they promised; and as for the schedule, which is an outline of how much money will be paid depending on your means testing income, as for that, you will receive moneys in accordance with that schedule. You know what, Madam Vice-President? When they said in order to support their false premise that this thing was a grant and could be taken away, they said that it had to come to the Parliament for a resolution to be removed. They amended that. And it now says, in their clause 2(d)(2), that: “The Minister may by Order, subject to negative resolution of the Parliament, amend the Schedule of this Act.” And the schedule, of course, is the list which shows the amount you will get depending on how much you already earn. 3.00 p.m. So, when it took a resolution of the Parliament to change or to remove it, it now falls to the Minister in order to do it, and that is what we come up with. As I said, if you are earning $500 or less, you will get the $3,000. If your earning exceeds $1,450 but is less than $1,650 you will get $2,350 and that, of course, includes your NIS benefit. So, many people who believed that they were going to get $3,000 in addition to their NIS payment, or in addition to all other sources of income, they were misled by the UNC and now we tell them plainly, “You were misled. You will get moneys in accordance with the Schedule, depending on what you already earn, including NIS”, and that is the early behaviour of the UNC-led coalition—early sign of what they are all about. That reminds me, you know, Madam Vice-President and my friend the Leader of Government Business in the Senate, he will remember the infamous Certificate 261 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 of Comfort that the UNC made available to thousands of people in this country, people who were squatting. Sen. Panday: Like those you sent in Cashew Gardens recently. Sen. F. Hinds: You see the kind of recklessness—“…those you send”? You see? It is a good thing you are sitting next to a decent man, the honourable Minister of National Security. [Desk thumping] I hope you would be guided by that. Sometimes I wonder. Like that Certificate of Comfort—they gave certificates to people who were squatting and the certificate was not a deed—many people thought they had— they used to call it a deed of comfort. It was a UNC trick. It was no deed of comfort; a Certificate of Comfort merely saying that, “We will not throw you off the land”, which nobody ever did. That is just like the Shouter Baptist Liberation Day holiday. I was quite pleased that they got the holiday, but I knew that the Act that outlawed Spiritual Baptists singing and drumming and all the things that we do, that was repealed since 1951, but when they were given the holiday in 1995 the UNC went around the place pretending that they were now given the right to worship, a right that they had all along; and there was no record of any government ever interfering with any Baptist celebration anywhere before that, but that is how they do it. So that they come with this same behaviour with this Bill, tell the people one thing, get their votes, go into government and still telling us untruths that that is what they are giving. That is how they do it. That is how they do it. Madam Vice-President, before I move to a conclusion, international trade is very important, you will agree with me, for the survival of this and all economies in this globalized world and we have trading partners in the region, we have trading partners in Europe and we have trading partners in the United States and these relationships are very, very important. Sometime ago we went around creating bilateral investment treaties with other countries to create markets in which Trinidad and Tobago manufacturers could sell their produce. If they see Trinidad and Tobago as the market, it would not cut it. The region and the world is the market for our manufacturing—our producers. Recently, one Arturo Valenzuela, the Assistant Secretary to Madam Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State in the United States, visited Trinidad and Tobago wanting to hold discussions with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on matters of trade and security and many other issues. He met with the Minister of National Security, Sen. the Hon. Brigadier John Sandy. He met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. Dr. Surujrattan Rambachan. 262 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] He was supposed to have met with the hon. Prime Minister, the head of this Government, to deal with these matters, and for some strange yet inexplicable reason he was unable to meet with her, interfering with our international relations, no doubt, affecting our potential to discuss trade so that we could earn more money, perhaps negotiate better returns on our oil and gas with investors from the United States so that we could have had more money so that we could have paid more old people the pension at age 60; but she could not be found. He met with the Leader of the Opposition, the political leader of the PNM, the hon. Dr. Keith Rowley and on that morning, Madam Vice-President, I am told—I am very saddened by this because I think Trinidad and Tobago missed a great opportunity—and on that morning, Madam Vice-President— Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, the speaking time of the hon. Senator has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Senator‟s speaking time be extended by 15 minutes. [Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson] Question put and agreed to. Sen. F. Hinds: Most obliged, thank you very much, my colleagues, for extending my time. Surely I would not be using all of it; but I was making a very interesting point as I was concerned about the well-being of my nation, Trinidad and Tobago, and its implications for earning more money, reducing the deficit with which we now must contend and therefore making more transfers and subsidies available for the benefit of people including, of course, the pension as my friend, the Minister, wants to call it, rather than the grant. The Guardian editorial of Saturday, July 31st, 2010 under the headline, “Missed opportunity by the PM”, says, on this point—and this has to do with pensions, you know: “Government spokesman Garvin Nicholas said the reason the Prime Minister was unable to meet with Dr. Valenzuela was because she was not feeling well on Thursday after three gruelling elections this year, a week-long international engagement and a hectic official schedule.” The Guardian went on to opine: “It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister, who attended several engagements on both Wednesday and Friday, felt unwell on Thursday.” You hear what they say? She attended several engagements on Wednesday and on Friday but inside of there she was unwell on Thursday. The 263 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Undersecretary could see the Minister of National Security, he could see the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but she was nowhere to be seen. The Guardian editorial went on: “Had she been well enough to meet with Dr. Valenzuela, Mrs. Persad- Bissessar would have been able to gain a deeper understanding of several issues.” They went on to outline these issues, visa issues and other things, trade and so on. “While he was unable to schedule a meeting with Prime Minister Persad- Bissessar…” He met with—and they outlined who he met with and so on. All we know—up to now, up to now we have had no serious explanation. All we know is that there was a very lavish party at the residence the night before. That is all we know. Madam Vice-President, this is a very serious thing. As I wind to a conclusion—“I ain‟ draw no conclusion on that but I am wanting to hear more about it”, and we will pursue it. As I wind to a conclusion in this, the position of the PNM, as it was in the other place, is very, very simple— very simple. We support the increase from two thousand five, that ceiling, to $3,000. There is no question about that. We support that. We have a track record of increasing these grants, old age pension, old age grant, all through the years—never reduced it, never took it away, and as the economy got better we continued to increase it, so we support that. We support anything that can be properly and legally done to improve the lot of senior citizens. There is no doubt about that. [Desk thumping] We need no persuasion but, like my colleagues have told you and will continue to tell you, we also hold you to your word, your promise, that you should have paid them, without further conditions, from the age of 60. We understand and accept that there would always have to be a means test. The Minister went on to outline other grants and I said to him from across the floor here—he is talking about the housing assistance grant and this grant and that grant, well why does he not change all of those to entitlements too? See? It does not make sense. It has to do with the circumstance. It has to do with an assessment of the facts around that. It has to do with the ability of the State to pay and the old age pension is no different. 264 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. HINDS] In Guyana, it is a hundred and seventy-five Trinidad and—or I think about seven—is now—it was 75 Trinidad and Tobago dollars a month for all, once they got to age 60 or 65 I think it is, in Guyana. But you see the size of it? They cannot do that in Trinidad and Tobago, and that is why, to go out there without an understanding of the facts, was quite reckless and I thought that since—well, I was about to say that the Minister of Planning would have been advising them before but there is no evidence of that, although one strongly suspects that she might have. They ought to have known that it was going to cost this country as much as $6 billion had they been able to do what they said they would do, so they were quite reckless. Mr. Winston Dookeran, the leader of the COP, Madam Vice-President, is an economist, a former Governor of the Central Bank so it is either—and this is our position, and we want to know—it is either you were just downright reckless in which case, instead of coming here and pretending, say that to the nation. Say that to the people. [Desk thumping] “We made a mistake. We were wild. We were reckless. We really just badly wanted your vote. We understand that money is everything.” They paid, Madam Vice-President—that Government—paid money. They opened Government offices in Laventille and Diego Martin on the Sunday before the election to pay URP workers. They established about 60 gangs in Diego Martin, about 80 gangs in the Laventille area, to encourage and induce people with State money to vote [Laughter] and then had to open Government offices on the Saturday and the Sunday in order to pay them. Unprecedented, Madam Vice- President, so we understand how they operate. [Laughter] We understand. So all they had to do—[Interruption] I know you have oomph, you know, but I was talking about your leader who you said had no oomph, [Interruption] who you—[Interruption]—who you abandoned. [Interruption] Poor gentleman. He is having difficulty right now. He cannot stomach some of the things that are going on, but when he looks back—[Interruption]—when he looks back for those of you who he brought into Government, he has no friends. You all have abandoned him—the niceness of office now. He will be on his own so he has to stay there quietly and take it. He has to stay quietly and take it [Desk thumping] although he talks about new politics. [Interruption] I know, I know, I know. I understand. We will come to you. We will come to you. So we understand that and we urge this Government, even if you did not get it right on this occasion, henceforth—you are relatively new, at least as the Government, although you have the same old bad ways from a long time. I 265 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 demonstrated some of it and I was hoping to be able to demonstrate even more, but my learned friend on the other hand there, he inveigled this Senate to prevent me, but—[Interruption] Yes, I am being reminded by my friend, thank you very kindly, my learned friend, the minimum wage. They went all over this country saying, “We will increase it to $20”—you remember that—and excited workers, excited Errol Mc Leod, “He dust the cobweb off of him” and came out of retirement, campaigned in Pointe-a-Pierre, “Minimum wage $20”. “Now I see NATUC in a discussion with the Minister of Finance—new politics, you know he always speak about”—so he has everybody coming to him to discuss issues concerning the budget. He met with NATUC, Madam Vice- President, and they are urging him now, could he please raise the minimum wage from $9 to $13.50 and he could not give a commitment, but you were all out there telling people “Minimum wage $20”. [Desk thumping] Reckless! [Desk thumping] Reckless! What pains me, when I look across there I see one or two individuals like Daniel in the lion‟s den, but you shall be relieved. It pains me. The sociologists say, as I conclude, Madam Vice-President, when two cultures meet the larger, the stronger, engulfs and absorbs the weaker. I call on Mr. Dookeran and I call on Mr. Makandal Daaga to be careful and do not be engulfed in the UNC‟s— [Interruption]—in the UNC‟s behaviour. Do not be engulfed. [Interruption] If you promised new politics, stand by it. Stand by it. [Desk thumping] So, Madam Vice-President, as I conclude, [Interruption] as I conclude I would say— Hon. Dr. Ramadharsingh: What [Inaudible] say about Makandal Daaga? Sen. F. Hinds: I would say, Madam Vice-President—as I conclude I would say that I am not an economist, I am not a pensioner but I was not fooled by your blandishments during the campaign. I understood immediately—from the time I heard it and my colleagues and I analyzed it, we knew it would cost about $6 billion and we knew with a planned deficit for the last two fiscals of $7 billion, it could not work, so we knew you would have had to come crawling back to the Parliament— Sen. Al-Rawi: They knew too. Sen. F. Hinds:—yes—to rearrange your posture, but we thought you would have done it with humility and with respect and with a modicum of honesty, but even that you are unable to muster. Madam Vice-President, with those few words, I thank you very kindly. [Desk thumping] 266 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. Basharat Ali: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. I propose to be not as long as previous speakers, and let me say from the start, Madam Vice- President, that I support in principle three things; the name change to Senior Citizens‟ Pension Act, I support that; the retention of qualifying age for a pension as 65 years; and the proposed Schedule which is attached to the Bill here which provides for a minimum payment of $3,000 per month and a limit of $4,000 under certain circumstances. I am quite satisfied that that is where we are. I wanted, Madam Vice-President, to go back to how we got to this subject of a grant. I was here in 2007, some of us may have been here, I certainly was, and I have here the original Act, Act No. 17 of 2007 when this item was brought to the House as a senior citizens‟ grant item. So I know from then already that is when we introduced the term, “Senior Citizens‟ Grant”. The words, “Old Age Pension” were replaced by the “Senior Citizens‟ Grant”. So that bill, Act No. 17 assented to on 10th July, ‟07 so that, until now, is what we have been calling the Senior Citizens‟ Grant. In that Act the provisions were made for amendments to Chap. 32:02, which was the original Old Age Pension Act, and then became Senior Citizens‟ Grant Act. The repeal of section 3 of the Act and the substitution of a couple of new subsections is one which is contentious, which is the word I will use, and that is where we have this question of whether it is an entitlement or whether it is a grant. Section 3 subsection (5) there says quite plainly: “A grant under this Act is subject to review and may be increased, decreased or discontinued.” Now, I do not view that as being compatible with an entitlement, that you can lose it all, it can be decreased and it can be increased. Nobody quarrels with increases, but decrease or discontinuance I think suggests that it is a grant. Madam Vice-President, that plus the other—subsection (6) was another contentious one in this Senate here from the Opposition bench and that subsection (6) said: “Parliament may by resolution approve the variation of the income ceiling and the amount of monthly grant referred to in subsection (1).” So there we have it. Then it does not say what resolution it is but I am assuming that that would have been an affirmative resolution of Parliament. So that was what was proposed then in 2007. So I say, Madam Vice-President, these two subsections caused a lot of contention in the bench in front of me and that bench then was led by Sen. Wade 267 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Mark who is now, of course, the Speaker of the House. But I know for a fact that one of these items, the question of the ability to change it, was always something to which Sen. Wade Mark would object and I maintained that that first subsection (5): “A grant under this Act is subject to review and may be increased, decreased or discontinued.” is what I learned many years ago, probably 40 years ago, in management seminars. That was described as a paternalistic managerial style. Paternalistic because it is domineering, it was threatening and it was heavy on discipline, and that was the bottom of a grid. This seminar was called a managerial grid. It was a Shell-sponsored seminar, I was working at Shell at the time and I said it was 40 years ago, so, it was at the bottom of this grid. The grid coordinates—1/1 is real bottom there and that is what the paternalistic was and right at the other end on the right-hand side, the top end, 9/9 was the person most desirable in his managerial style. So this has remained with me all these years that whenever I see this kind of attitude shown in or which reaches the law, I wonder how it got into this Act in fact. There was no need to put it into this Act at that time except to say, “Well look, this is a grant and this is not a pension.” That is the only conclusion I could come to. So, Madam Vice-President, both those subsections still subsist and I expect it will be changed today, because, as we are all aware that this—what we have before us is a money Bill and I expect that it will pass and those two clauses will disappear. So that is the point of view I want to raise on this particular item. So that is what happened in 2007. In 2007 we had another one of these, I call them omnibus bills, which provided for another adjustment of pensions and that was towards the end of 2007. In fact, that was on the eve of the dissolution of the Eighth Parliament, in fact, to go to the Ninth Parliament. So there again we had that amendment to the same section to give effect to an increase in the grant. Finally in 2009, we began 2009 with a similar exercise to be put into effect by the then Government and that was Act No. 1 of 2009. So those three Acts represent what happened with the change from old age pension into Senior Citizens‟ Grant to the ability to provide increases for those years when everything was looking very well. I must say that the then Government never employed what is in that section there, subsection (6): “Parliament may by resolution approve the variation of the income ceiling…” 268 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ALI] et cetera, et cetera. So, on these three occasions they amended the Act itself in order to give effect to the increases. That is something I need to say because it shows that the then Government was not intent on just doing it that way. So, as I said, I need to say it and I say it now. Speaking on the question of the qualifying age, because I said I agree with 65, I do not wish to get into that argument as to what was promised, whether it is 60 or 65. I think it is an unproductive argument at this stage of the game. So the question as to whether every citizen who reaches either 60 or 65 will qualify irrespective of his or her earnings, I ask the question, was it campaign rhetoric or a firm proposal? I am prepared to leave it there. The new Government has won the mandate to govern and has said, “Well look, this is what we are going to have”, and I think that is what we should be taking up now. I think once again it is pointless to argue at this stage. There is a reality in our situation and I say here that if we even thought of that lower pensionable age and providing pension for all, we will probably go bankrupt. I say it quite openly. Sixty years and everybody receiving the $3,000 grant or pension, whatever you call it, will probably put us in a stage of bankruptcy. I have said here, instead of providing pension for all I would prefer to see water for all, as an objective for all. In terms of funds in our present state of the economy, I think the hon. Minister still has to complete her motion. I think it is still outstanding. I do not know when that is going to be, but I note from yesterday‟s statements by the Contractors Association that they were appealing for a payment for an outstanding debt of—well they said $5.5 billion to $7 billion and they were proposing that the Government pay it from the HSF, the Heritage and Stabilisation Fund—totally against it. I say thank you hon. Minister of Finance for telling them that that is not on. That is not what the HSF was set up to do and we should find other mechanisms of paying debt, not incurred by that Government over there but incurred by a previous Government and I think the hon. Minister of Finance has come out and said that in very plain words, that it is not the HSF which will be touched. I think that TT $20 billion is a little bit. People look at it and say, “Well, why is it there?” I always like to say it is US $3 billion. It sounds a smaller number and it is US dollars that it is in, you know, and leave it there. It is partly heritage, partly stabilisation. One day we will need it more than we know and we will have it there, not to dip into whenever anybody sees it. So I do not agree with the Contractors Association proposal. 269 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Strange enough, last night looking at the CNC3 news items they had it as a question. “Do you agree that the HSF should be used to pay the contractors?” Three per cent of the people at the end of the programme said yes, 97 per cent said no. So the population seems to be thinking in a particular way too when it comes to this. I am sure the contractors in the long run will get their pay and I hope they do because if you look at the news now, every day you see that there is stagnation. There is no work for them because nothing is happening and the Government is usually the catalyst for this kind of work and for this kind of economy, and so, we have to do something. However, what I hope we will stop doing is getting at each other and saying who did what and what was promised. The campaign is finished, completely finished, whether it is national election or local elections. It is time for us to sit together and get down to the business of looking after our economy and the people on that side are the people who have the mandate to do so and we have to support them in doing so. 3.30 p.m. In terms of the Schedule, Madam Vice-President, I said I agree with the Schedule that a minimum payment of $3,000 up to the ceiling of $4,000, based on how much income the person makes. So really up to now, they must be wondering what else I am going to say, because I did say at the beginning that I am supporting in principle. There is one item in this Bill that is before us which gives me a little problem, which was hotly debated in the other place and that is the proposed section 3(2): "The Minister may by Order, subject to negative resolution of Parliament, amend the Schedule to this Act." I always have reservations about negative resolution, especially where it affects a lot of people, where it is a weighty item. I understand that the hon. Minister was talking about 70,000-odd pensioners. So when I see this negative resolution, I say, "Well look, we really have to look at it closely." I was thinking and I have in my notes here—well, first of all, what is the procedure in fact for subjecting to negative resolution? I think many may not know what it is. First of all, once you have that statement "subject to negative resolution", whatever you are proposing as an Order, can go into force immediately. It does not have to wait. Secondly, if you want to challenge it, you have to do it and have it debated within 40 days of being laid in your particular House. I want you to look at that very closely, because as I have said, I am not happy most times when 270 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ALI] I see negative resolution. I have in my notes here and something I have written out off my head—I said "an Order subject to negative resolution can come like the proverbial thief in the night". You can be robbed without even being aware of it. I said so because I know of a couple of situations where we have not even known what the import of the Order was and it was subject to negative resolution. I was looking really for a live example for that and went back to 2007. Again, I am casting no aspersions on my good friend in front of me, a former Minister of Public Utilities and the Environment, who had submitted an Order under the EMA Act. The EMA provides for Orders like that to be done and this is a matter of interest to all of us here because this is something I think we really need to address. Section 35 of the EMA Act says: "(1) For the purpose of determining the environmental impact which might arise out of any new or significantly modified construction, process, works or other activity, the Minister may by order subject to negative resolution of Parliament, designate a list of activities requiring a certificate of environmental clearance (hereinafter called Certificate). (2) No person shall proceed with any activity which the Minister has designated as requiring a Certificate unless such person applies for and receives a Certificate from the Authority." So that puts into place what happens within the EMA. I am saying I am not casting any aspersions on my friend, a former Minister of Public Utilities and the Environment, but in 2007, there was an Order laid in both Houses and it is called Certificate of Environmental Clearance (Designated Activities (Amdt.) Order, 2007. I will read this because I think it is quite important. In the Schedule to the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (Designated Activities) Order, 2001, it is amended in the Designated Activity 23: "By inserting after the words 'gravel or other non-metallic minerals' the words 'of areas of 150 acres or more'." Now when you see that, you do not know what it is all about, but then go and read what the Designated Activity 23 is: "Definition: The establishment, modification, expansion, decommissioning or abandonment (inclusive of associated works) of a facility for the mining, processing or storage of clay, andesite, porcellanite, limestone, oil sand, sand(s), gravel or other non-metallic minerals." 271 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Then at the end of all of that, you add the words "of areas of 150 acres or more". So what that implies straight away, is that any quarry operator did not need to have a CEC or to do an environmental impact assessment once he was under 150 acres. That is a big area. Just to put into context, we have some very large quarry operators in Trinidad and if you look at that, one of them can go to four locations and establish a quarry 150 acres, and he will not have to submit to any CEC or otherwise to the EMA. Now four of those lots of 150 acres are 600 acres, which is actually one square mile of this small country. So it can be used and manipulated, and that is why I felt it should have never been a negative resolution. Nevertheless, that is what it is, and the time line was being put into place and this is why I said sometimes it comes like a thief in the night. That particular EMA Order—I read the Order already—of 2007, amending Activity 23 was made by the Minister on July 09, 2007. It was laid in the House of Representatives on July 13, 2007, and in this honourable Senate on August 23, 2007. So the timing for any debate on that would have been in the Senate 40 days from August 24, which would take us to October 02, 2007. Do you what happened before that? Parliament was dissolved on September 28, 2007. So really, this particular Order went through—I must confess that I never knew that it was laid on August 23 in the Senate. That was just about the time you were looking at preparation for the budget. If I look at the dates of that month, the activities within Parliament: House of Representatives budget, August 20. That was the day the budget was read. The budget debates were August 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30. In the Senate, the budget debates were September 03, 04, 05 and 06. So that was the period when you were supposed to see this Order. I do not know if anybody saw it. In fact, I have been trying to find out. As Members would probably know, if you have any Order which is in fact a Statutory Instrument subject to negative resolution, it should go or it has to go to the Statutory Instruments Committee before being laid. I could not find that particular instrument or the report. I only got the Hansard extract which says and I will read: "The Minister of Public Administration and Information and the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries, the hon. Dr. Lenny Saith said: May I also advise that the Statutory Instruments Committee considered the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (Designated Activities (Amdt.) Order and found that there was nothing to which the attention of the Senate should be specially drawn." 272 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ALI] So, I have not seen the actual report and they cannot find it. But that is where it stood. I do not think that matter ever came before us. If it was laid, we did not see it. I certainly did not see it. The only time I knew that this was laid was through Prof. Julian Kenny. He wrote an article about it in the Daily Express and that is when I read about it. Here it is a very important activity has been removed from the ambit of the EMA and subject to negative resolution. So from August onwards, they could be free to quarry. So that is what had bothered me. In fact, Madam Vice-President, a year after that, another CEC Order was laid and that was in 2008. I would not go through it because that one was laid on December 21, 2008. It was laid in the House of Representatives on December 01, 2008, and laid in the Senate on December 02, 2008. Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senator, I just want to ask you to redirect your contribution to the Bill at hand. Sen. B. Ali: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. I know this sounds long, but the idea was that would have established in their minds the importance of having a legal instrument subject to negative resolution, which is what I am objecting to in the Bill before us. I went into it because there are so many repercussions; more if you miss it. In the case of these matters here—quarrying—I am disturbed because quarrying is an activity which is so widespread in the country. One does not know how much of what we are suffering from now is as a result of unrestricted quarrying. Just for the information of this Senate, quarrying used to be under an Act. In 2000, quarrying came under the Minerals Act. The original Quarrying Act was repealed, but they did not write any regulations. So you now have to apply for a licence through the Minerals Act, but they saved the old regulations, I think it was in 1943. I believe the Minister has the ability to change it. So maybe some of that has taken place, but this is what happens when something like that takes place. I am really disturbed where the environment is concerned and this is why I say a similar situation may or could arise with this Bill before us, where subsection (2) says: "The Minister may by Order, subject to negative resolution of Parliament, amend the Schedule to this Act." Madam Vice-President, what disturbed me in the debate in the other House, they spent 10 hours and they raised the matter of negative resolution, and they went on for what I considered, like filibustering in that House because 10 hours to speak on this Bill is not there. I really do not know because they have a reduced number of speakers in the Lower House. 273 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

3.45 p.m. Madam Vice-President, they spoke at length. They chastised the Government for saying, "Look, we have this clause about removing all the pension, et cetera," and they never thought of, or they never did, I do not know if they thought about it, but they never did come up and raise an amendment. That was the right place to do it, because they could have raised an amendment to it and say, "Well, look, change the words of „negative resolution‟ to „affirmative resolution‟," and the whole problem would have been solved. Then it would be similar to what they had in the Bill before, because they said that it could be changed by affirmative resolution of Parliament. It could have been done. I do not know whether they lost their way in that long debate; maybe they lost their way; they lost the opportunity and we cannot change it here. I would not even suggest that we do, because it is a money bill. It says clearly in the documents that it is a money bill and, therefore, all the hon. Minister would need to do is get up and move that the Bill not be committed to a committee, and it would get passed. Once a money bill gets through like that, I know you can say that it would pretty well be passed. I was really disappointed that the Opposition did not bring that, because they had an opportunity to do it. It was not going to affect the time line if they had done it and the Government then had agreed that it would have been by affirmative resolution. Then it would have come here and it would not have affected the schedule for the completion of the debate. That is why I say that politics sometimes is a kind of game. I do not engage in it, in that respect, but this is how I feel about this matter and how I feel about negative resolutions on the whole. I have seen it at other times working against us; I did not go into the environment thing, and whatnot, but it is a matter which should be really looked at. In fact, from the point of view of the environment, I would like to suggest that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs have a second look at what is happening in quarrying. It comes under them, so I am saying this now to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary, "Have a look at it; examine it carefully." You can go as far as saying, "Should they relook at that Activity 23, to see whether they should get back to the main basis of having a CEC for any operation like that?" I think where we are interested in the environment of this country, that becomes an important matter. I recommend to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary that they examine the whole issue. I believe that there is a lot of illegal quarrying, et cetera; examine that issue, plus this issue of the exemption of CECs for relatively large acreage of our country. 274 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ALI] Madam Vice-President, I support the Motion. I know that we cannot get anything else, so I support the Motion before us. [Desk thumping] Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson: Madam Vice-President, as this is my first intervention in this honourable House, may I first of all thank you and congratulate you for where you are sitting today and for your appointment as Vice-President of this House. I also congratulate the hon. Sen. Timothy Hamel- Smith in his absence, for his elevation to presidency of this House, all my colleagues on the other side, the Independent Senators and Members of the Opposition and my colleagues on this side. Madam Vice-President, before I proceed, I was asked by the hon. Minister to point out that there was an amendment to the Schedule. In fact, there should be following the words, "exceeding $2,600", et cetera, another line indicating "exceeding $2,800, but not exceeding $3,000", that in the second column the pension would be $1,500; he would like that we take note of that; not that I think it would have changed the contribution of Sen. Hinds or any Member of the other side. The most important thing I heard Sen. Hinds say was just as Sen. Ali said, that they were supportive of this Bill. I cannot imagine what there is in this Bill not to support, precisely for the same reasons that Sen. Hinds mentioned; of course, he had other things to talk about: the campaign promise and things like that. I myself feel that this is at the very best a first step and I hope it continues. The fact that it is one of the first things the Government is dealing with is an indication, to me at least—and I want to encourage them in this direction—that we are looking at a serious matter, the matter of the income of senior citizens, which is largely a fixed income. I want to address that issue, not at length, but I hope to be within my time. I hope you do not have to stop me as we go along, so that we would all be in time for tea and we could all go home early this evening. That is what I am aiming at. Most of our senior citizens, including those affected by the current Bill, live on fixed incomes, in the sense that when the income is declared today, unless it is changed by resolution, negative or otherwise of this Parliament, they continue to receive the same income, notwithstanding what would have happened to inflation over time. We are, at this point in time, even as we agree to the Bill—I have no doubt that we would all agree to it, because I do agree with Sen. Hinds that we cannot stand in the way of our senior citizens, after such noble contributions over time, not getting an increase in income. It is not in my view a joking matter. This is a very, very serious issue; if it is one thing that is positive, to me anyway, that is coming out of the introduction of this Bill, at this point in time, is the seriousness with which the Government takes 275 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 the lot of senior citizens. I want us to continue going along in this direction. I do not believe that anyone in this honourable House could say no to what I consider to be a minimal programme; that is what it is, a minimal effort, call it a pension, an entitlement or grant or whatever you want to call it. I have often learnt that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I do not see why we should fuss so much about the name. I am not saying that the hon. Senator on this side or the Minister bringing the idea about the name should not have, but it is not a bad idea, in my view to change the name, if only to clear up that it is an entitlement and we do not have to read in the body of the text to see that it is, indeed, an entitlement. Many of our senior citizens, many of our pensioners, become pensioners at the age of 60 and that is because it is the rule of the public service. I do not know what is so magical about that age. When it was declared about 100 years ago, and I am probably exaggerating, a 60-year-old did not look like me. I suspect that they did not have my boyish looks, for instance. [Laughter] I am quite close to 60, so I speak on this matter with some keen interest, because just now you would be talking about me when you talk about my incomes, when we are talking about these things. When they retired at age 60, whenever that was, long before I was born, we did not expect them to live very much longer either. I know many people who are 80 years, looking strong, some of them stronger than I look, some of them are healthier. Notwithstanding the fact that they may be suffering from some of these debilitating modern diseases—diabetes is not modern, but it is becoming more and more prevalent among us—hypertension and these things, the miracle of modern medicine is that we are able to keep them alive for much longer. It is in the psyche of human beings to keep each other alive. We do not like to see each other disappear off the face of the earth. It is part of our mores and that is whatever tradition we may come from. So we are in the business of keeping people alive over a fairly lengthy period. Living on a fixed income over a period is not an easy matter. It is important that we—and this is the spirit in which I would like to make my contribution to this debate—start in earnest to consider dealing in a very, very serious way with the matter of pensions. I say this for another reason. So called developing countries, we are told, people are generally younger than they are older; that is no longer true of Trinidad and Tobago. I collected a bit of demographic information that I would like to bring to this House; it is taken from the Central Statistical Office (CSO). We have been growing as a population. Over the years from 1970 to now, we went from about 276 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] one million persons; we are close to 1.5 million; that is just for approximation. In 1980, the percentage of the population under 60 years old was 8.1 per cent. It grew to 8.7 by 1990, 10 per cent by 2000 and it is approximated to be about 12.6 per cent in 2010. Even though it is not as high as that, the fact is it is growing and getting larger. For the 65-plus, it was 5.6 per cent in 1980; 6.2 per cent in 1990, 7.1 per cent in 2000, then 8.5 per cent. The hon. Minister mentioned some forecast for 2020 which makes these figures even larger. It means that in the coming years, we are going to have more and more people on pension. I want you to bear in mind that 60-year thing I talked about, because I want to make some suggestions about it later on. If we continue to retire people at 60, which may continue for some time to come, because I know it is a debate going on in other countries. Sometimes with great difficulty they are getting it to move, because trade unions, for instance, are opposing it. We are facing the phenomenon that we are becoming an older population, and we are not the only ones for that to happen, being supported by a smaller and smaller younger population. That is something that cannot continue, unless we give very, very serious thought to it. I am not agreeing necessarily with Sen. Hinds that the current Government erred while in Opposition to make that promise, I want to look at the spirit of that promise, that we want to take the old age pension, the rights of the senior citizens as a serious matter. Do not worry about it, we are all getting there and we are going to live much longer than we probably would like to and we do not want to be burdens on our children and grandchildren. I heard that very noble comment, as Sen. Hinds pointed out, but none of us want it. I certainly do not want it and would like to be relatively self-sufficient. We must remember that as you get older the money goes largely to medicine, and the Pfizers of this world are not known for their philanthropy to make medicine cheaper to you. It is a problem. Notwithstanding the commendable CDAP and things like that, we do end up spending much more of a larger proportion of our incomes on medicine. Of course, when inflation continues to rise, especially because of inflation in food prices, the rest of it goes into that. That is the lot that our current senior citizens now face; it is what we are going to face somewhere down the road that is not far off. Time goes by very, very fast. I have a child who celebrated 37 years the other day, and I remember vividly being 37 years old. I wanted to ask him, "How are you 37 and I am only 40?" [Laughter] That is the reality; the thing goes so fast. So we have to think about this in a much more serious way. I like the fact that 277 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 there is collaboration, at least, in supporting any move that makes the lot of senior citizens better. I suspect it is because we are all saying, "There, but by the grace of God, go I," because we are seeing ourselves in the future, and it is important. There is no interest like self-interest; we need to think about our own selves. 4.00 p.m. The population is not only getting older, they are getting older at an older age. Many of them are going at 85, 90 and so on. It is not unusual to see these things happening. So we have to be mindful of people living on fixed incomes, in the sense that notwithstanding what may appear to be a reasonably good increase in the spirit of the Minister today, in the next five years this will be nothing at all; this will come as nothing. It may appear—and if the figure is not changed and if we continue to change it only by the quantum that we legislate on, we are going to have serious difficulties in the future. If we cannot provide for our senior citizens, we are not a civilized nation. I am a firm believer in that dictum. I hope my children are listening and, I mean, your children as well, because I want them to treat me with the same respect I am demanding now that we treat our own senior citizens. You have someone—I mean, a teacher retiring in 1990, I happen to know that the salaries at that time were not very high. A secondary school teacher is now getting about $10,000 a month. Such a teacher would have been getting about $4,000 a month and it is a proportion of their final income that they gather for pension. They are still living on a salary, then, that is less than $4,000 and they would have escaped our net, in the sense that their salaries are over $3,000. But that is not a good life. I am telling you that is not a good life. I ask everybody inside here to try and live on $3,000. Yes, it might be better than nothing but it is not a good life. The important thing, though, as well, they probably have about 10 or 15 years to live still. I am not saying that in a bad way; I want them to live as long as possible, because we always benefit from their wisdom, but we want them to live well as, I think it was Sammy Davis who sang in a song; he wants to live, not merely survive. Some of these people are surviving and we do not want to do that. I hear stories about the ill-treatment of the old persons; that we are unable to take care of them; we are busy seeing about each other and so on. So we are faced with this really serious problem of an ageing population/fixed incomes. Those two things when combined do not say anything good about the well-being of our old population and we have to start seeing to them in a much better way and it is our responsibility to begin ensuring that they have a basic income with which they can live. They do not have to worry about the ravages of inflation. 278 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] I go to the market in my family and in this very, very short period of time I have seen vegetables like tomatoes—I know it may be only seasonal and it may return, but what I used to pay about $6 a pound a few days ago for, I am being asked for $16 and I am sure those who go will know that that is—I have not gone since the most recent floods. I probably have to not eat tomatoes for the next few weeks or so although it is one of my favourite vegetables. So the changing age structure, we are seeing it all around us and some of the things are good and I want to encourage my colleagues in the Government to think about the thing as a coherent and overall package. What we are seeing developing around us, taking into account this ageing population, taking into account that the younger/older people like ourselves, do not have the skills; do not have the temperament to deal with an 80-year old parent, especially when they develop other diseases that we cannot see to; we are noticing among us, in response to this—you know, the economy, there always was a vacuum in that regard—we may not be politically correct to call it old age homes; some people call it sunshine residences or they find some fancy name to cover up words like geriatric and so on, but in the end what they are doing is that they are catering for the aged, largely because people are growing to an age that we are not conditioned to dealing with; we are not accustomed. The incomes that they have are not allowing them to maintain their own homes. Some of them are therefore giving up their own homes; renting it in order to get that extra income and moving into these homes. It seems to be viable economic propositions, but I think the time has come and it is related to the whole thing of pensions, because it is the well-being of the senior citizen that we are talking about. The pension is only a part of that. It is time, just as the Government provides and is providing for the infants in the kindergartens, in the primary schools, we have to think about providing in that way for our senior citizens; that we need to have professional people surrounding. Some of the stories I hear—not only from Trinidad and Tobago—about people coming home and finding a mother dead for two days and it could be a relatively healthy person; she just had an unfortunate accident. They have a tendency to break the hip very, very easily. So a simple fall could give them a really—they cannot move when that happens and they die in a house; nobody is coming to see them; everybody thinks that mummy is okay, but mummy is probably suffering, if not dead. It is not a bad thing, in my view, that they should live with one another and play cards with one another. They could still play All Fours and Mahjong and all 279 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 these kinds of things. It does not mean that they become so inactive and it is good to have them among each other and it is, in my view, that the Government is going to have to start looking, in addition to talking about grants and entitlements and other things—we are simply touching the tip of the iceberg when we talk about these things—we have to start thinking more generally now about providing places of abode, of comfort, for our senior citizens. Moneys have to be looked for, for that as well. So if you think the $3,000 is hard to find, think about that as well; that, we are going to have to think about. If you wish, it is a mark by which will judge how civilized we are, more than anything else. It is something that has to be done, because whereas I encourage the private citizens who build these homes, they need to come under proper scrutiny and proper regulations. I am saying this without knowing what is the requirement for the establishment of these homes and it could very well be that the legislation, the regulatory procedures and so on, are in place to make sure that they run in a particular way, that there is the required medical personnel around and so on, but I am seeing them springing up all over the place and I am a little concerned to see it happening without some amount of Government supervision. I am not saying that the Government should intervene, but I am also saying that that should be part of our understanding of the well-being of the senior citizen as well. We should cater, not only for their basic economic eating and medicine through the grant, we have to cater for them being in an environment that is conducive to their well-being; that is conducive to our peace of mind, in the sense that they are our parents and we have to make sure that they are properly cared for. I tell you again, I want my own children to have peace of mind when I reach that age and I probably have to be put in such a home as well, which I hope we could begin the process of having at a level that I would not fight them to go into, as I see happening in some instances. Some people rebel; they want to stay at home. “That is where my husband put me”, or, “That is where I lived with my wife for all these years. Why? Because she has gone”, or “He has gone, you want to put me?”— But if they make it and if we do it in such a way; we begin the process of doing it in such a way, we may even look forward to it because you are going to make new friends; you are going to play the regular game and take a little rum or two from time to time. That does not stop. At that age nobody stops you from having a drink or two. In fact, my own opinion is you are entitled at that age to drink what you want. That is how it should be. 280 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PROF. WATSON] So it is correct that we should, in however tiny a way, however insignificant a way—and I agree with my friend, Sen. Hinds, that it is not enough. I hear that. I hear him quarrelling about the broken promise; I hear that as well and I do believe in the dictum—I am not saying that this side did it or not—that you should not make promises that you are not prepared to keep. [Desk thumping] I am saying, though, that I am promising that while I sit on this side, that that promise will be kept, no matter how long it takes to be fulfilled—[Desk thumping]—in the sense that it may not happen today, because as the old Indian people used to say, paisa na ba. It is as simple as that. We do not have the money. It is as simple as that. But we must be on a track; we must have the determination, and it does not matter whatever side, because we are all heading that road; we are all going to need that pension as we go along, so we have to make sure that the things are put in place to get it. Now, one of the things that I would say is that we must begin now to start getting ourselves organized for this thing and the only way we can do it is if we have the money to do it. The money is not going to fall from the sky. We have to understand that when an economy is growing, the young benefit and because the young benefit, the old benefit. It is as simple as that. What interests me most as an economist is solving the problems at all levels by fundamentally economic measures. My colleague seems to have contempt for money and he seems to think—I do not know if he is suggesting that it is nothing; I do not believe that. I do not believe it is everything. I do not believe that I could live on manners either. But it is very important that we make sure that there is sturdy, sustainable growth in this economy with measures to afford for an equitable distribution of the income that we are going to get, and one of the only ways we can do it is if we begin the process now of the diversification of the economy. I am not saying that in a very general way. I want to give the assurance— certainly, I am involved in exercises now aimed at moving away from that chronic and unhealthy dependence we have on the fortunes of oil and gas. We cannot, in particular, have our senior citizens being at the whims and fancies of the price of oil, and the hon. Senator mentioned the price of oil. He did say it had gone up. But there are other things to see to and we certainly are not getting enough. I hasten to remind the hon. Senator that our economy is more a gas economy at this point in time. It is what happens to the price of gas that is telling us what to do. And whereas we base our budget and we continue to do it for convenience sake and for whatever reason, on the price of oil—and we do get revenue from oil—we are seeing the situation where the price of oil went up that way, and for the first time, as far as I could remember, the gas is more or less flattening out, and that is because gas has been discovered all over the world. We have people selling gas in 281 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 all different places. We have gas but it is so cleverly hidden by Mother Nature that it is going to cost us a lot of money to get it. So we are in a situation where we cannot—we absolutely cannot—continue that dependence. The diversification is something that is going to come. This is not a debate on diversification, so I am not going into the details as to how I think it should be done, but it is clear that we have to start thinking in a way that encourages us along those lines, because without the money, without the paisa, we are going nowhere; it is not going to happen. We could want to do whatever we wish for the older people, we are going to have to take the measures. I want to throw a spanner in the works a little bit and talk about this 60-year- old thing, because my own observation, as I look around, I do not know how many people here are close to 60; I cannot look at a face anymore and say that. I defy you to look at me and tell me I am 58 years old, which I am. Do not say that you knew that, eh, and let me down, but that is what is happening. At 60 people are still relatively strong. The population is getting older. Why are we herding off people at age 60 into retirement? It is something that I want to bring to the attention of the powers that be. I am not sure that people want to go into retirement at age 60, if only because they cannot afford it. That is the main thing, because you did not go on to a fixed income and so on. 4.15 p.m. Let us start thinking as other countries have been doing, in particular the public service; thinking beyond that magical age of 60. Some people are—I hope he does not mind me calling his name. I think he is in his 90s, Justice Cross. I understand he is in his 90s. One thing I want to tell him, stop the smoking, it will kill him. He is looking well. We may not all be as lucky as Justice Cross to be as sturdy as he is. I cannot believe he was a fighter pilot in World War II. World War II was so long ago. But many of us are living to that age and many of us are going to be relatively strong at that age. Why do you shepherd us off into retirement when we are not ready to go? We still have something to contribute. More than that, the young people do not have the capability, in the sense of the numbers, to produce what is required to maintain themselves and maintain us. Do not forget that. When the young people are working, they are maintaining us and themselves, because that is what the Senior Citizens‟ Grant is about. I want you to bear this in mind. As I told you before, I grew up in an environment at home and my current profession always tells me that brevity is the soul of it. Thank you very much, Madam Vice-President. 282 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, in the Sixth Sitting of this Tenth Parliament, please allow me, on your behalf, to congratulate Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson for his maiden contribution. Congratulations, Sir. Sen. Shamfa Cudjoe: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. I am honoured to join this debate in this honourable Senate, as I stand in defence of the senior citizens of our nation on this issue of amending the Senior Citizens‟ Grant and the Government reneging on its promises of a $3,000 pension at the age of 60 years with absolutely no restrictions or qualifications. Senior citizens are a very important part of our society. They are esteemed members of our citizenry. They are the true flag bearers and true nation builders. It is said that the best classroom is at the feet of an elderly person. I join today with my colleagues, in wanting the best for senior citizens. Madam Vice-President, senior citizens being very vulnerable and fragile in our society, become susceptible to other individuals being advantageous, institutions being advantageous and even governments taking advantage of them. I feel that it is in this vein that the UNC-led coalition, in the weeks leading up to the election, flashed all these goodies before the eyes and ears of our senior citizens in order to get their votes. We are here today with this Bill, when sweeping change was promised, a new kind of politics was promised. Here we are with this Bill in front of us, one that only brings two things: a change in the name and an increase of $500. You heard the debate today and we went through a whole lot of different topics on the disgruntlement of different Members of our team regarding the promise. I do not intend to go through that again. I am going to focus on Tobago this afternoon. What really puzzles me with this whole pension hoax is: whose idea was it in the first place? Whose idea was it to deny the promises; that the promises were ever made to the electorate? Was this a UNC policy that was forced on the new members of the coalition? What is the position of the COP? What is the position of the NJAC? For me as a Tobagonian, and on behalf of other Tobagonians, what is the position of the Tobago Organization of the People? On behalf of the Tobagonians, I am yet to hear a word from the TOP on this deferred pension promise; this act of deliberate duplicity. It is the TOP that lured Tobagonians into this UNC-led political abyss and I am yet to hear a word from the TOP Members of this Parliament on this controversial issue. The OJT programme halted, not at word from the TOP; contracted workers sent home left and right, not a word from the TOP; rise in food prices, nada from the TOP; and the pension hoax, not a word from the TOP. You could hear a pin drop. How do you 283 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 explain to an old pensioner, expecting a $3,000 pension cheque, that her daughter had been sent home from a contracted position and her granddaughter had been fired from the OJT programme? Would you believe that this pension promise was the main selling point in Tobago? A woman, mother of the nation, taking care of old people—PNM supporters jumped the fence and crossed the floor to derive these benefits. They said they are voting for their pockets this time. What does the TOP have to say to these elderly supporters? Tobagonians need to hear from the TOP on these important issues. You cannot run your mouth when the seas are calm and go into hiding when the waves get rough. Where is the TOP to help Tobagonians weather the storm? Where is the TOP that helped the UNC to betray the Tobago population? I sat through the sittings patiently to hear a word from my UNC/NJAC/COP brother from Tobago; the hon. Sen. Moheni, who has not picked his teeth on any of these issues. We debated the state of the economy for four long weeks and not a word from my brother from Tobago; not a word to the Tobago public. I hope he can join this debate and explain to the Tobago electorate why his team has chosen to insult the intelligence of the people of Tobago. Does he even have a say in all of this? I hope so. I witnessed the Minister of Labour barking on CEPEP and URP workers when they asked for the $20 minimum wage that was promised to them. He told them: “Do not rush the UNC coalition.” Nothing from my TOP brothers and sisters? You could hear a pin drop again. You promised me the world, you get my hand in marriage and now I cannot even ask for what was promised. “Ole people in Tobago say: come see me and come live by me is two different things.” Would you believe that the same TOP that promulgated more autonomy and authority for the Tobago House of Assembly, prior to joining with the UNC, are now quiet on the issue? They have found some new friends in the UNC-led coalition and have decided to turn the other cheek, or should I say join in fighting to systemically undermine the authority and the integrity of the Tobago House of Assembly; the Tobago House of Assembly that Tobagonians have fought so long and hard for over the years. This is not about the PNM. This is about the Tobago House of Assembly that Tobagonians from different political backgrounds have toiled for. The UNC-led administration has made its mark by being extremely callous and disrespectful to the Tobago House of Assembly since the coalition took office in June. The same disrespect shown to the Assembly is the same disrespect being shown to our senior citizens. 284 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. CUDJOE] In my maiden contribution on July 06, I mentioned a letter that was sent to the hon. Prime Minister by the Chief Secretary, requesting a meeting to discuss Tobago‟s issues. This letter was sent since June 07. To date, the hon. Prime Minister has not yet responded. She has not met with the Chief Secretary. She has not even acknowledged receipt of the letter. And you claim you care for Tobago? You even have the nerve to plan your retreat in Tobago? You have it coming. The Tobago House of Assembly has been respected by every administration since its inception, even the Panday administration, so I am very surprised by the actions of total disrespect displayed by this new Prime Minister and her team, who promised new politics, cooperation, peace, unity and good governance in all its undertakings. I go further to enlighten this honourable Senate that the new Minister for Tobago Development has recently informed the public that the Prime Minister has handed over all her powers in matters related to Tobago to the Minister of Tobago Development. The Prime Minister has instructed the hon. Minister to handle all matters under the Sixth and Seventh Schedules of the Tobago House of Assembly Act. She also informed the public that all communication between the Tobago House of Assembly and the Ministries of this new Government must go through the Minister of Tobago Development. So, we now have our own Prime Minister in Tobago, bypassing the Chief Secretary. You talk about disrespect like never before? Let me remind this honourable Senate that this is not about Mr. Orville London or the PNM, this is about the Office of the Chief Secretary and the institution called the Tobago House of Assembly, which Tobagonians hold with such high regard. It is a PNM-led Tobago House of Assembly, along with the central government led by the PNM, that brought several social programmes to the senior citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Tobago went an extra step from CDAP in the provision of health care service to people who have lifestyle diseases. We have the Golden Apple Programme that caters to the senior citizens and an in-home care system where young people go to the homes of the senior citizens and take care of them. We even went the extra mile to provide free bus passes and free ferry passes to the senior citizens. An old woman living in Charlotteville could travel to San Fernando and back to Charlotteville without spending a red cent. Thanks to the PNM. You will hear several programmes mentioned by the hon. Minister who slaps his chest and say: “We have fulfilled our promises”, when it is just a mere $500 increase. You will hear him mention a whole list of programmes. He forgot to say that the UNC-led 285 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 administration inherited that from the PNM. They run up and down in the media acting like they started all of this, without giving a thank you or any credit to the PNM. “Ole people say even ah donkey have no gratitude.” Madam Vice-President, we the Members from Tobago are not going to be disrespected. We are not going down without a fight. As a matter of fact, going down is not even an option, so you have your option coming. This is not about political affiliation. This is about Tobagonians taking care of Tobago people‟s business. “Ole people say when little children hand clean dey eat wid big people.” Food for thought. We need to figure out who are the big people and who are the children in this situation. Check yourselves and govern yourselves accordingly. The same disrespect shown to the Tobago House of Assembly is the same disrespect shown to our senior citizens. Again, I call on the Tobago Members of Parliament to state their position, especially the TOP that forced the Tobago population into this UNC-led coalition without even consulting them. We deserve an explanation, a reason for such betrayal. Remaining silent is no longer an option. I close with this quote from the hon. Minister who knows very well what they promised and what they reneged on. I am going to quote in his own words: “It is easy to forgive when someone speaks untruth, because he does not know the truth, but when someone knows the truth and insists on speaking untruth, it is tantamount to misrepresentation.” Madam Vice-President, I thank you. Madam Vice-President: We are one minute short of 4.30 p.m., but we will take the tea break and resume at 5.00 p.m. The sitting is suspended until 5.00 p.m. 4.29 p.m.: Sitting suspended. 5.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed. Sen. Subhas Ramkhelawan: Thank you, Madam Vice-President, for giving me this opportunity to speak on this Bill, a Bill to amend the Senior Citizens‟ Grant Act. Madam Vice-President, it has been said that a promise is a promise and it must be kept; and previous speakers have spoken to what the quantum of the promise was in the context of the Bill that is before us. I do not propose to engage in that conversation as to whether the quantum of the promise has been delivered or not. I leave it to the other parties to deal with that. I want to express my great satisfaction that the minimum balance payable to 286 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. RAMKHELAWAN] senior citizens is now in the order of $3,000. It has lifted the bar in terms of the number of persons who may have been caught in that poverty trap, and in lifting the bar, it is a step forward. An excellent step forward, if I must say so. But this is a money bill, Madam Vice-President, and in a money bill, we have been told that some 70,000 people would qualify for the senior citizens‟ pension; and we have also been told that some 70,000-plus citizens have, in fact, received an increase in their benefits in terms of pension. So, the question is, there have been a number of figures bandied about based on various differing assumptions as to how the pension, this minimum pension, would be paid. Now, the question is, having established what the parameters are for the payment of a senior citizens‟ minimum pension, graded upwards, what is the cost to the Government? What is the cost to the people of this country? I think the citizens deserve to know, because it is from their pockets that a redistribution of benefits is going to take place. And so, it is very important that this figure, which I believe hon. Sen. Hinds spoke to in its original form, being something like $6 billion, what is this figure now? Beyond that, the question must be asked, how is it going to be financed? Because, we would have had a debate in this particular House on a motion speaking to the question of reduced revenues, as well as the question of increased expenditure. That suggests to me that there is going to be some sort of widening of the gap in terms of deficits which have come forward in the past two years in the order of $7 billion. I think while citizens would be happy for raising the bar in a money bill, it would be expected, it would be proper that some statement be made by the hon. Minister as to what the quantum of incremental expenditure is under this particular new regime. Maybe he might not be so qualified, but at some other point in time, one of the other Ministers might be able to say how it is going to be financed. These are issues that we must raise in regard to a money bill. Madam Vice-President, based on the recent statistics available from the Central Statistical Office, there are some 93,000 persons who are over the age of 65; and some 38,000 persons who additionally would be over the age of 60; making it about 131,000 to 132,000 persons who would qualify over time for this particular pension. And so, when we speak to the question of financing of a pension programme, which is more significant than it has been, we need to take into account the whole question of in shifting the bar, what happens is that we have other citizens in the society who might find themselves disadvantaged, or who might find that the initiative creates issues of equity or inequity among other citizens. 287 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

I would like to hear from the hon. Minister, as he winds up this particular debate, how he is going to deal with some of these issues; because it is always a balancing and rebalancing act for any Government when, by fiat, you start to make adjustments in one area, particularly in the area of social welfare, that you do not overbalance the cart and create issues of inequity in other areas. Because we are speaking now to the economics of the matter, and I want to put before the Minister that there may be need to address—as would have been stated in other places—and maybe even adjust the question of the minimum wage in order to create or recreate that question of a balance or the question of equity. By that, I mean, Madam Vice-President, that while the minimum wage may be now $9, when you lift the bar to $3,000 for our senior citizens, the equivalent in terms of an hourly minimum wage—now hear me correctly. I am not saying that that is where your minimum wage should go; but in terms of the arithmetic of it, the minimum wage to be equivalent to $3,000 for a senior citizen is about $17 per hour. When you take the $3,000 and divide it by 22 working days, which I have, and eight hours in a day, it is $17 per hour. Now, you might do other calculations, but the point is that it is a significant jump from where it is at this point in time. How does a young man, or a young lady; an old man or an old lady below the age of 60, or below the age of 65, working, contributing currently to the economy, receive a minimum wage that, on aggregate, for the month, would be less than what one of our senior citizens would make? I am happy for our senior citizens. I do not want to be stamped with any particular stamp. I am happy, let me say that, for our citizens; but I want to ensure that every government, as a government will need to ensure, has societal equity. How is the Government going to address this perceived inequity in terms of the difference that now exists between—or that will exist once this Bill is passed—our senior citizens, on the one hand, and the minimum wage worker, on the other hand? That is one aspect, and will comprise a very significant part of our citizenry; but there is another aspect which, in terms of equity or inequity, will need to be addressed. And that is, our hard working, long-serving, retired senior citizens who have worked, whether it is in the public service for 33⅓ years—and I am pointing to my honourable colleague because she has worked, in fact, in the public service for a number of years. Maybe not 33. Sen. Baptiste-McKnight: Thirty-eight. 288 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. S. Ramkhelawan: Thirty-eight. How do we reconcile a man or a woman who has worked for that period of time, and then is the beneficiary of, shall we say, a government pension that might be $2,900 or $3,000, or something like that? Let me put a live example before this honourable Senate, to speak at what is happening at the margin. A retired citizen, 65 years and over, who was receiving $34,000 falls outside of the pension—the senior citizens‟ pension system. Because in the Act, and in the schedule, if you are making $33,500, you are eligible for a senior citizens‟ pension, and the amount is reduced and scaled back as you go higher in the order. But whereas in the Act, as it stands today, that incremental pension, if you are $33,500, you are getting, I think it is $150 per month. So that what happens is the scale starts to flatten out at that point in time. Now, Madam Vice-President, with the adjustment and amendments that are envisaged, that same person who is getting $33,000, in receipt of an income of $33,500, apart from the old age pension, gets an additional amount of $1,200 per month. It is an important fact to consider, because many of our citizens have already raised with me and with other persons that if this Bill goes ahead in its current form, you are actually widening the equity gap, or the inequity gap, in terms of those persons at the margin. Let me demonstrate. The person who is getting $33,500 now gets an additional $14,400. In the old system, he would have been getting $1,800 more. So that this person, by dint of that threshold—the person who is working for $34,000, will get nothing. And by Government fiat, what will effectively be done is you are now jumping a citizen at this level, who was in receipt of $33,500, by another $14,000, which then takes him to what? About $47,900. But it leaves the person at $34,000, exactly where that person is. Surely, there must be some serious inequity with that. Very serious inequity with that. And the person who was working for $34,000 will be out of the pension arrangement here, and will continue to receive the $34,000, while someone else being bumped up will receive $36,000. We are creating a situation of inequity, which I suggest the Government look very sharply at resolving, because you are widening the gap of inequity. How does it feel for a man or a woman who has served this country, worked hard, and is receiving either a pension from a non-contributory scheme, by way of government, or is receiving a pension from a contributory scheme, by way of the various private pension funds, and so on? What you have done is essentially jumped people at the lower scale above those people who have worked and 289 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 sweated, and who are now, for no apparent reason—who worked and would have benefited from a higher pension before, what is really happening? I would like the hon. Minister to give a clear, concise, and perspicuous explanation of that. Because when the numbers start to fall into place, you are going to get a number of our citizens feeling dissatisfied, feeling demoralized, feeling demotivated; because by Government fiat, you have now told those citizens, look, you want to lift people from the poverty trap, but you who are at $34,000, you have had enough; and you now jump people by $14,000 above these persons? That cannot be an equitable situation. It needs to be addressed, and address it, I think you must. Because you might be doing all the good in one area, lifting the bar, but somewhere in the middle, you are actually disadvantaging people who might probably have been in the middle class; who might have been senior public servants; who might have been Permanent Secretaries in the 1990s, and so forth. No, that cannot be right and it must be corrected. As you look to make these changes, it must be corrected. Because we have been talking and talking about lifting the not so privileged, but we cannot, in doing that—and I think the hon. Minister spoke about closing the gap between the haves and the have-nots. What you are doing is you are actually leaving behind a group of people that would have worked very, very hard for this country, and that cannot be right. [Desk thumping] So, this thing about haves, and have-nots, and so forth; the point about haves and have-nots, as a government, it is right and it is the best thing to do to close that gap; but the process of redistribution of income must be carefully thought out and precisely executed, and it must be justifiable at every part of the equation. So, I leave it to the hon. Minister to address that matter, and address it frontally and fully; because I have a number of people asking me, “Well, how is this thing going to affect me?” And I have waited to give any feedback, because we were not sure how this matter was going to gel. If it is going to gel like this, something is wrong, and we need to correct it. So, this brings me beyond the question of equity, Madam Vice-President, to another very important question for any modern society. Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson has spoken partially to it. It is that we are going to have a society where people live longer. An ageing society; people living longer. Nothing is wrong with that. Everything is right with that. But when we start to talk about financing that change, that transition, the question is, when you speak of equity and distribution, who is going to finance that? And how is it going to be financed? 290 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. RAMKHELAWAN] Some time ago, in the last Parliament, the figure was given that in terms of present value, there is an unfunded pension bill by the Government for public sector workers, as at the end of December 31, 2008, and that figure was $30 billion. And the reason is, of course, that we fund our public servants‟ pensions from recurrent revenues. Now, other modern societies, or aspiring modern societies, have gone the route of a government fund, and this deficit is starting to run away from us. It is starting to run away, because our revenues are now becoming more and more truncated; and if we have that situation, it is necessary; it is obligatory on the part of the Government to institute some sort of provident fund; some sort of long- term savings fund, so that as our citizens get to retirement age, you are going to see a ballooning of the pension payments from Government‟s coffers. And the question is, where and how is that going to be funded? So if you already, as at the end of 2008, have a deficit of $30 billion, then there is a looming problem that requires critical thinking and strategic solutions. Madam Vice-President, $30 billion, when compared to our revenues of, I think the figure is about $37 billion, is indeed a vast sum. When compared to our GDP, which might be $130 billion this year, $30 billion is just under 25 per cent of our GDP. Now, I would encourage the Minister, whether of planning, or of the people, or of finance, to have a look and start benchmarking what is happening with nations of similar ilk; because what is happening is we are falling behind the eight ball, and we could end up falling over a precipice because of some level of ignorance or denial. In the last Parliament, and in other places, I would have heard about discussions about the introduction of a contributory pension plan within the public sector. I urge the Government, if they choose to follow that path, to accelerate it. But I would say to the Government that you have no choice. The choice is not whether to implement one or not; the choice is how quickly you implement that programme, otherwise failing which, you are going to run into serious, serious difficulties from an economic and financial standpoint. [Desk thumping] That, really, is at the heart of the matter with regard to a pension plan. And, we might have to extend this. We might have to extend this beyond the public sector, that we have a compulsory savings plan for all citizens. [Desk thumping] Because if we do not have a compulsory savings plan for all citizens, we are going to fall into the trap that we are in now, because it is a trap. It is a trap because our citizens are not saving. They are not saving for their future. 291 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

It is nice to speak about redistribution, but there is a limit of redistribution that you can pursue, because you can go down the welfare slope and slip away. There is need for us to push forward what I like to call reciprocal responsibility. Madam Vice-President, one hand cannot clap. It does not happen. One hand cannot clap. You need to encourage beyond moral suasion. You need to encourage our citizens to save for their future. They are going to live longer. They will have to save more. Failing which, you already see that our welfare budget is looming to a level that is not sustainable. If others did not awake in time, you, the Government, need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is most critical. These are some of the thoughts that I would like to share while I express my deep satisfaction for the increased benefits to our citizens. A government needs to be even-handed; needs to address the question of equity, not only for one section of our citizens, but for all across the board. That is a most reasonable requirement, and it must be addressed. Finally, I would like to endorse the comments by my hon. colleague, Sen. Ali; and I am sure it is going to be repeated, that in the Act that is to be amended, there is a move to take out resolution which, from the advice that I have—which is an affirmative resolution of the Parliament, to a negative resolution by order of the Minister, to make changes to the schedule that is before us, which really simply means, to adjust the pension benefit. It is my respectful view that increases in pensions, or in any area of expenditure, should properly be a part of the Appropriation Bill. It should properly be that. Nobody ought to give a Minister, reporting to his Cabinet, carte blanche approval―so it is $3,000 today; we decide that we are going to raise it to $4,000. That cannot be. Not in money. [Desk thumping] I have seen regulations—negative resolution could be the basis of other kinds of regulations; but money is a hard one to push through this Parliament. When you need to spend more money, there is a place that you come to seek approval for spending more money; and that is the Parliament of this country. [Desk thumping] So, I want to encourage you and appeal to him to make the change back to an affirmative resolution, because a negative resolution is inconsistent. It is inconsistent with good governance in flowing expenditure and revenue authorization through the Parliament of the country. So, Madam Vice-President— Sen. Panday: Hon. Senator, you spoke about the affirmative resolution, and your taking issue with a negative resolution, but do you not think the effect will 292 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. THE HON. S. PANDAY] be the same? That if any Member of the House wishes to query the action of the Minister, that person could file a motion to have the negative resolution debated? Sen. S. Ramkhelawan: First of all, I spoke to the practice of good governance, and good governance would require that something like that comes through the Parliament, not like a thief in the night. Not an order that might pass through like a thief in the night, but in the full glare, in proper disclosure and transparency, not only to this Parliament, because this Parliament really is an extension of our citizenry, and you are telling our citizenry, well, we want to raise this; but where does the money come from? The money comes from the pockets of other citizens. 5.30 p.m. If it does not come from them it means that they might be giving up an opportunity for benefits in other areas to support this. I have not seen such a negative resolution since I have been in the Parliament, so I would be guided but I think, even if that were the case, I say that good governance would require, would demand, that you move away from the negative resolution and stay with the affirmative resolution. [Desk thumping] I am certain that the Government of the day stands for good governance and therefore there should be very little problem as far as that is concerned. With these few thoughts, Madam Vice-President, I encourage Government to look at some of the suggestions and I thank you for the time given to me. [Desk thumping] Sen. Danny Maharaj: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. Madam Vice- President, as I stand here I do so with the greatest appreciation of the responsibility entrusted to me by the honourable Prime Minister, the Government and, by extension, the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, Madam Vice-President, to represent, contribute and add value at the highest levels in this honourable Senate of our great Republic. To such an end, I intend to speak from a people centric perspective and so, Madam Vice-President, never to lose my purpose in this sacred chamber. My intention here is not to break any speaking time records as other Senators might want to do but really to relate directly to some simple and core points that I think need to be expressed to this Parliament, and, by extension, the people of Trinidad and Tobago. This Bill is not just printed words on paper but very important business of this Senate. In fact, Madam Vice-President, I say true recognition would reveal a paradigm shift, a new social consciousness, a new administrative dispensation that 293 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 resonates to the very core ideals of love and care. In this Bill, Madam Vice- President, lies the passion to connect and ignite our collective national spirit in what may be defined as a human symphony. As International Day of the Older Persons approaches on October 1st, as established by the United Nations General Assembly, this Bill is most appropriate and it must be conceptualized within a wider social framework for senior citizens, Madam Vice-President. I think it is imperative for me and for this Government to continue to place on the record our gratitude to our senior citizens and to identify with their contributions to nation building, Madam Vice-President. The real purpose of this is, I know now through the media and the Parliament channel and through repeats of this sitting here today, so that many viewers and so many people in this country would hear our words and we have the responsibility, Madam Vice-President, to set a national tone for this country as it relates to our senior citizens. Madam Vice-President, in each country‟s development there is a period of great sacrifice. Our senior citizens today had a dream back then and a vision for future generations, and, as a young nation post 1962, they laboured and engaged in hard work in the cane fields, oil fields and cocoa estates, in fishing and in small industry to eke out an existence, to take care of their families and to educate their young ones. Madam Vice-President, I have personally heard and spoken to senior citizens today who told me of so many hard times. Sometimes they did not even have enough food to feed the entire family and would have to go hungry themselves to ensure other members eat, and we call this a contribution, Madam Vice-President. Madam Vice-President, there was a resilience and a determination and a country started to grow. These were our social bricklayers, our economic masons, our cultural carpenters and individuals who laid our financial foundations for us, Madam Vice-President. They helped jumpstart our economy and they added in human capital by facilitating an educational thrust. I call them our social heroes, Madam Vice-President, and we must understand as a nation, and as a new generation at times, that when we were weak and ill and needed protection, they provided it for us. They gave their lives to see us blossom but, Madam Vice-President, I say here today that this day should have come a long time ago, Madam Vice-President. Today should have come a long time ago, because a great social and national injustice has occurred in this nation. We have spoken about it at length but it seems that members of the Opposition in this Parliament want our recent history 294 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. MAHARAJ] to disappear like some magical act, Madam Vice-President, disappear from our minds and from our history books. But we would record our history in the records of this Parliament so it will never happen again, so when the future generations read the archives they will never make the same mistakes, Madam Vice-President. We had that economic boom and unprecedented levels of revenue received by the former administration and we had a crowning opportunity to repay these persons who today are our senior citizens, but this did not occur, Madam Vice- President. I think we have all heard of the concept of short change, like when you see an item for $2, you pay 10 and you get back five you call that short change, Madam President, and our senior citizens of this country have been short-changed by the former administration. Too many of our senior citizens are still vulnerable and face social and economic hardships, too much hurt has been felt, too much suffering and pain and too many tears have fallen. For the last nine years there has been an administration, and for me this is not to really be crude, Madam Vice-President, but, in my mental eye, it is like a vampire sucking the lifeblood from our country and our senior citizens. [Desk thumping] Our senior citizens have watched and I am sure that their hearts bled as billions of dollars were wasted and spent on extravagance while their tears streamed down their cheeks and fell to the floor in vain. It was a type of ungratefulness, insensitivity and heartlessness that pierced the mind of any humane person and rendered it incomprehensible, Madam Vice-President. I think it incumbent on me, as part of this governmental system, to give a national apology on behalf of the former administration, Madam Vice-President, to the senior citizens of this country [Desk thumping] because it would not come from them but we will give it on behalf of them because we need to say “Sorry”. That probably should have been one of their first tasks instead of engaging in processes of political cheerleading, Madam Vice-President, and for squandering their endless days of struggle and sacrifice. We can move forward now, Madam Vice- President, getting that off our national chest. Madam Vice-President, this Bill laid by the People‟s Partnership Government takes us one step closer to the 18 principles adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, as it relates to older persons, on the 16th of December, 1991 and I would like to highlight some of these principles. One, older persons should remain integrated in society and participate actively in the formation of policies which affect their well-being. Two, older persons should have access to health 295 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 care to help them obtain the optimum level of physical, mental and emotional well-being. Older persons should be able to pursue opportunities for full development of their potential and have access to educational, cultural, spiritual and recreational resources of society. Four, older persons should be able to live with dignity and security and should be free from exploitation, mental and physical abuse. Madam Vice-President, we must understand that this Bill would see more individuals 65 years and over getting increases in their social pension so that their base incomes would be, at minimum, $3,000 per month. We only saw recently the figure stood at $1,950, Madam Vice-President, and, because of the People‟s Partnership Government and the pressures of election and election defeat and election ploys, Madam Vice-President, it was hiked to $2,500. So I say it is really because of the People‟s Partnership that the movement was taken from $1,950 to $2,500, Madam Vice-President. Really, what we are seeing is the hike of $1,050 or a 54 per cent increase over a short period of time due to the People‟s Partnership. This figure of 3,000 will form a more stable basis and provide new levels of income security, poverty reduction, economic stimulation and societal activity. Things will become a little easier, Madam Vice-President. Madam Vice-President, groups such as Global Action on Ageing see social protection such as social pensions as an indispensable but often overlooked strategy for development. In fact, HelpAge India, a non-profit NGO geared towards health care for the elderly, conducted a study in which they noted that pensions had improved the quality of life, improved status in family and gave greater self-confidence to recipients. Madam Vice-President, while this Bill is a move in the right direction, I know that this Government admits and fully acknowledges that more has to be done regarding the holistic support and care for our senior citizens. Things will be different now because it is clear that a new ideology has spread through this land, a new political thinking and philosophy has engulfed the minds of our people and a new day of hope and delivery has come to the lives of our citizens. I say the great journey of national restoration has begun. As a shining example, as the hon. Minister of the People and Social Development indicated, it is a direct impact programme by the Ministry. Already we see the system of delivery being modified to heighten public awareness and reach further and deliver faster than ever before and I think we must applaud the Minister for his focus on improving and creating a new front line personality of his Ministry, an interface that will reflect the highest levels of national service. 296 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. MAHARAJ] Also as stated, the People‟s Partnership Government plans to embark on a programme of decentralization. This will lead to a new found convenience and the expeditious delivery of government facilities and services to the public so that people from Sangre Grande, Siparia, Point Fortin, Barrackpore, Cedros and Mayaro will not have to journey to Port of Spain and San Fernando ever so often to deal with some aspect of their business. Let us look at the big picture and towards the future, and we must come to realize that senior citizens can be wholly and positively integrated into mainstream society. Madam President, after a lifetime of service to our nation, whether in the public or private sector, these individuals have accumulated a storehouse of professional and technical expertise, a wealth of life experience, wisdom and judgment that only comes from facing life‟s trials and tribulations. This nation must go beyond and consider avenues and pathways to allow senior citizens to contribute to keep themselves energized and active. Primary studies, such as that conducted by the National Institute on Ageing and at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation are showing that volunteer work may help the elderly avoid becoming frail and undergoing other signs of ageing. If one reviews the document Learning and Social Participation by Senior Citizens in Japan, an analysis of major issues from an international perspective by Toshio Ohsako, it shows that Japanese senior citizens are encouraged to take more initiatives in the activities and to engage in a more individualistic mode of thinking, lifestyle and professional activities. What this really means, Madam Vice-President, is that the elderly citizens are considered an important human resource capable of contributing to the social, economic and cultural development of the society rather than portrayed as passive citizens who become social and economic burdens on society and its younger generation. Research from the same report showed senior citizens very interested in volunteering, especially in the area of environmental protection and recycling. In the United States, there is the organization called Experience Corps where senior citizens are making a big difference by volunteering and tutoring students to read. There is another similar type initiative called Generations Together, carried out by the University of Pittsburg, where a senior citizens school volunteer programme has been set up and I want to just cite some of the benefits from this programme. Benefits towards students—they progress academically and improve interpersonal skills, develop meaningful relationships with older adults, gain a sense of history and cultural heritage, increase their understanding of ageing; and to the volunteers, the senior citizens, they establish friendships, have an opportunity to share their skills and experience, develop a new positive 297 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 perspective towards youth and their local schools and increase their own knowledge and skills. So, Madam Vice-President, senior citizens should be encouraged to participate and form various associations and clubs of their interests where they can continue to share ideas, create recommendations, socialize and recreate. For instance, senior citizens can assist in career day workshops for graduating youths and personal mentorship bonds can be formed between youths and retirees. Madam Vice-President, we must go even further to assist our senior citizens. Social services such as medical care must improve, because, when we talk about this Bill, it is only one aspect of a holistic approach that is required in dealing with the needs of our senior citizens. I know that the Minister of Health is setting out an aggressive agenda so that better levels of treatment, care and medical attention will be received. The People‟s Partnership Government will take a 360- degree approach in providing support to our senior citizens. So, Madam Vice-President, I hope that this honourable Senate fully realizes that this Bill serves as a confident and strong step in the journey forward for our senior citizens and for Trinidad and Tobago and we know that there is a lot to be done but this Government of the People‟s Partnership is strong, we are creative, we are focused and we are devoted. We are committed, capable and competent. Most of all, Madam Vice-President, we understand that our job is to serve our senior citizens and all people of Trinidad and Tobago. Day by day, this Government is making the adjustments needed to improve the quality of life of our senior citizens and this Bill speaks to such adjustments. Madam Vice-President, today marks a day of deliverance, a Government that will show love and care for elders this year. No more neglect, no more suffering, no more tears, only smiles, happy hearts and joyous cheers. They lifted us when we could not walk and now the People‟s Partnership Government gives them warmth and strength in their time of need. I thank you, Madam Vice-President. [Desk thumping] Madam Vice-President: hon. Senators, in the sixth sitting of the First Session of the Tenth Parliament, allow me to congratulate you, Sen. Danny Maharaj, on your maiden contribution. [Desk thumping] Sen. Ted Roopnarine: Lies, half-truths and innuendoes. [Interruption] The title of my contribution today is a now famous saying of a former Prime Minister and living legend in the political history of Trinidad and Tobago. The former Member for Couva North, Mr. Basdeo Panday, a hero to many, including myself, 298 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ROOPNARINE] famously referred to an issue in this way—lies, half-truths and innuendos. That label can also be attributed to the Government‟s PR on this issue. [Desk thumping] At this time, let me indicate that I will lend my support to this Bill [Desk thumping] and I congratulate—[Interruption] just a minute—and I congratulate the hon. Minister on his contribution in this Senate [Desk thumping] though I am very unhappy about what was originally offered by the coalition for the people and what the coalition is now giving to them. It is basically a six for a nine. [Desk thumping] Let me also at the start of my contribution say that I wish the junior members of the coalition well. Sen. Panday: Same team. Sen. T. Roopnarine: No, the junior members of the coalition, I wish them well. I wish the COP well, I wish the NJAC well, I wish the TOP well, I wish the trade union party—what are they called? The S—some—I wish the trade union party well. I hope that the trappings of power will not cause them to compromise their core principles as their presence in the coalition caused the PPP‟s success at the polls. It was their presence that caused the success at the polls, not the UNC‟s presence alone. Sen. Panday: Thank you, thank you, thank you. [Laughter] Sen. T. Roopnarine: Now, large segments of people trusted these groups and expected them to act as a check and balance on the dominant coalition partner, the UNC. They expected the smaller parties to act as a check and balance on the dominant coalition party, the UNC. This Bill allows them a glimpse into the UNC‟s modus operandi. [Desk thumping] I also wish the UNC well in its second attempt to govern the country. The UNC comes with a political history and baggage in the halls of power— there are a number of them still before the courts—and one can therefore use that political history when assessing its likely behaviour in government. We all know that the party that ultimately calls the shots in this Government is the UNC, merely by dint of their prior experience, which is fair enough, and the overall control they exercise in terms of parliamentary numbers. So the smaller parties will have to keep a very close eye on the larger party to make sure that they now, for the second time around, tread the straight and narrow. On the issue of the Senior Citizens‟ Grant, I would ask the junior members of the coalition, how do you feel? The junior members of the coalition, how do you feel? This is not a question to answer to me or to the Parliament but to the 299 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 population of Trinidad and Tobago. You, the Government, knew, or ought to have known, that, one, the coalition promised the population to reduce the age of recipients of the non-contributory allowance to 60 years. That was a promise the coalition made, the UNC part of the coalition, to 60 years of age. The newspaper advertisement is proof of this. The coalition promised this enhancement across the board to persons 60 years and above and that all qualifying seniors would receive $3,000 and not a diminishing pension—is that not so?—based on small earnings. So, when September comes, only a tiny percentage of seniors are going to get $3,000. That is a fact. The remainder, vast majority, is going to receive decreasing amounts. There is no $3,000 pension. There is a $3,000 pension ceiling. [Desk thumping] You know the difference between the two. [Desk thumping] Deny. Go ahead, deny it. Further, it is not going to be across the board. If one already receives the contributory NIB pension, you will receive only the difference to bring it up to $3,000. You will not get an additional sum upon your contributory scheme. 6.00 p.m. When my good friend—I do not see him here today, Sen. Abdulah; we have been friends for a very long time—walks the streets of San Fernando after September, I hope he has satisfactory answers for the people, as will my friend, the hon. Subhas Panday, when he and I walk the streets of San Fernando in September and they ask the question, I am going to say, "Ask Mr. Panday; he will tell you." I am sure he will tell them. Sen. Hinds: He does not care. Sen. T. Roopnarine: He does not care? No, no, he cares. He is a caring person. He is a very caring person. He will give them some sort of explanation, but I am going back to Sen. Abdulah because he is a man of good character and of sound integrity. When he walks the street of San Fernando and his people ask him about this pension, I hope he has something good to say that they will be able to accept and believe in. I hope that the TOP leadership has satisfactory answers for the Tobagonians, for the people of Tobago, this twin island state in which Tobago is an equal island, an equal part of the country. It is not Trinidad and Tobago as a Ward. It is Trinidad and Tobago. They are equal. What explanation is TOP going to give? I hope that TOP has convincing explanation for its elderly middle class support across the country. These political groups may find themselves with less credibility and evaporating support which, in my opinion, would be a bad thing for the nation as they are needed as a check and balance against a dominant coalition partner, the 300 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ROOPNARINE] UNC. Remember, the UNC already has an answer to this pension issue: deny, deny, deny. We never made such a promise or undertaking to the population. Is that not so? we never made such a promise. You never made such a promise? Shame! Shame! We never made such a promise and, therefore, we are home free. Next issue. For the sake of our nation, I hope the UNC component will change their modus operandi in this regard and be frank with the population. If an across the board grant or pension of $3,000 for persons over 60 years of age is financially difficult or impossible, say so to the people. [Desk thumping] Just say to the people, it is financially impossible. Sen. Cudjoe: It is easier to blame the PNM. Sen. T. Roopnarine: We are intelligent people. The people of Trinidad and Tobago are intelligent people. They will understand. Follow the example of your Senator, Prof. Patrick Watson. [Desk thumping] Follow the high quality of debate and the high quality of what he has said. The people of Trinidad and Tobago are intelligent. They are not going to be fooled, and in September they are not going to be happy. So all of this "ol' talk" and flowery language and so on, that we got just now from the learned Senator, I want to see when he goes around in September what he is going to say. If you say that your financial management does not allow you to keep your promise and you tell the people how you are going to keep the promise, I will tell you, the people will have more respect for you, they will trust you more, they will give you the breathing space you require, and they will allow you to govern. If you do not do it, your honeymoon period is soon coming to an end, and outside there is going to get very, very difficult. Sen. Hinds: Hot. Sen. T. Roopnarine: Hot. Five long hot summers are coming for you. I have no doubt about it in my mind. I see people of integrity and good principle on the opposite side. Sen. Dr. Henry: What? Sen. T. Roopnarine: I do. They are definitely not in the UNC. They are in the COP, TOP. They are people with good principle and so on. It is clear that in the next five years—[Interruption] Sen. Hinds: Where was Vasant Bharath? Sen. T. Roopnarine:—they are going to emerge less well thought of and with much less credibility than they entered this Parliament a few months ago, and that 301 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 is going to be a very sad thing. It is not going to be entirely their fault. It is going to be that the few are going to smear the many, and that is going to be the problem that you all are going to face. So I predict that Sen. Abdulah, a man of honesty, integrity and principle, will not stay five years in this Senate. Madam Vice-President: I would like to remind Senators, to contain your contribution towards the Bill rather than the future of individual Members in the Senate, please. Sen. T. Roopnarine: Thank you very much. If promises like the promise with respect to the old age pension continue to be broken and the now whispers of corruption become cries of corruption—[Interruption] Sen. Panday: Like UDeCott? Sen. T. Roopnarine: Yes, just like the airport as well. Sen. Panday: Like Calder Hart. Sen. T. Roopnarine: Yes—then I predict a short term for Sen. Abdulah in the Senate. I think he will leave rather than be tainted. He will not be thrown out or be dragged out. I think he will rather leave than be tainted. Sen. Panday: Talk about the short term. Talk about PNM—[Interruption] Sen. T. Roopnarine: No, I will talk about Basdeo Panday in a short while. This may be true of other persons— Sen. Panday: [Inaudible] Sen. T. Roopnarine: Stay cool under your collar. There is still one Panday left in Parliament. Sen. Panday: What about Manning? Sen. T. Roopnarine: I do not know. Why do you not ask him? Sen. Panday: "All yuh bust he throat." Sen. T. Roopnarine: Well, go ahead. [Laughter] I will remind you that you did not pass your screening committee either. You did not pass the screening committee, did you? Sen. Panday: Did you, if I can kindly ask? Did you? Sen. T. Roopnarine: I did not go before a screening committee and beg like you. Apparently, you came and beg afterwards. 302 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. Panday: The former Speaker did it for you. Madam Vice-President: Senators, please! Order in the Senate! Sen. T. Roopnarine: I apologize. I am sorry, my hon. Senator. Sen. Hinds: [Inaudible] Sen. T. Roopnarine: I have been chastised. I will not say anything. So I hope that it does not happen and broken promises like that of the grant for pension are resolved, so that Sen. Abdulah can continue to help keep an eye on your Government, and call them on what they are doing right and on what they are doing wrong. He knows of their political history. Whilst in government, they did bad things and they did good things. It is for us here to point out the bad, no matter how much you do not like it. You point out our bad, we do not like it; we point out your bad, you do not like it; but it is for us here to try to help you. By sitting in Government now, you have helped us because we have put aside our time as a party, to grow and grow and grow even stronger. Remember, our party— [Interruption] Please, please, please—the People's National Movement is the single largest political party in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] Single largest political party in Trinidad and Tobago [Desk thumping] and the UNC—The People's National Movement continues to be the single largest political party in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] Sen. Hinds: Well put. Sen. Panday: And the oldest. Sen. T. Roopnarine: Yes, the oldest and as well, the oldest political party in Trinidad and Tobago, with deep roots in the community. In fact, many of our members will be receiving some of your pension. [Laughter] So I pray that you will overcome the bad parts of your administration, and that you will remain there to fulfil your mandate and do good. Our country will rest easier at nights knowing that people like Sen. Abdulah remains in Government, and junior Members of the Government remain in coalition to keep an eye on the UNC. Sen. Hinds: What about Brig. John Sandy? He is a nice—[Interruption] Sen. T. Roopnarine: Yes! I mean, they have made a good start. The Brig. is a very, very good man. [Desk thumping] A very good man. Let us look at some of this law. It is really a mess. In the Act and the amendment to the Act, there are three key words that have given problems to this 303 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Senate. The words are grant, pension and entitlement. In the legislation as it stands, there is an entitlement to a grant. In the proposed legislation, a senior citizen is entitled to a pension, and the word "grant" has been changed to pension. Is that any real change, or is it mere legal sophistry, or is it noise signifying nothing? Because if you have an entitlement to a grant and you have entitlement to a pension, the key word there is entitlement. You are a lawyer. You know that. They key word is an entitlement, not pension or grant. Sen. Hinds: UNC has a [Inaudible] of its own. Sen. T. Roopnarine: So there is no real change there. According to Black‟s Law Dictionary, an entitlement is an absolute right to a benefit, and a benefit could either be a pension, a grant, an allowance, or any such thing. So the key word there is entitlement. If you had taken out the word "entitlement" or added in the word "entitlement", we would have said that there was something that had been changed legally. All of those supposed legal changes really is no change at all. Sen. Hinds: No legal consequence. Sen. T. Roopnarine: Nothing! So the UNC has convinced the rest of the coalition that they have made a big splash by changing the wording of the legislation, so that old persons are entitled to a pension and not a grant. Now, it is interesting what the meaning of the word "pension" is. Collins Dictionary of synonyms and antonyms gives that main alternative meaning of pension as an allowance. So you have just taken away their grant and give them an allowance. Fair enough. What is the difference between the allowance and the grant? You do not know? It is a distinction without a difference, and it is obviously the power of rushed legal fraud. There is no improvement in the protection given to senior citizens under this proposed legislation. None whatsoever! 6.15 p.m. The hon. Minister of the People and Social Development inadvertently let it slip that the UNC dominated coalition did not want to give an entitlement, but a lesser right, when he said in the other place: “If you give anybody a grant; if you have a consensus and you ask senior citizens to vote for what they want, a grant or a pension, everyone will prefer a pension. A pension sounds like an entitlement, and the perception of the people is very important in anything you do; in governance, in politics, and in dealing with people.” 304 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. ROOPNARINE] A six for a nine; you did not give them an entitlement. Why did you not just give them an entitlement? This speaks volumes, and I hope the other members of the coalition are listening, so that you know why things are done the way they are and why words are put in the way they are. The obvious economic question that arises is: Where are the funds going to come from? Has anyone on that side indicated where the additional recurrent expenditure was going to come from to fund the pension? I remember in the previous Motion on the economy, the hon. Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and Gender Affairs said that the Government intended to raise taxes and remove subsidies from utilities, which I assume means that we are going to pay more for electricity, water, et cetera. There has also been an indication by the Minister of Energy and Energy Affairs, that part of all the subsidies on gasoline might be removed, so those are likely to be sources of revenue that they are going to use to fund the pension. If this is so, at the end of the day you are going to have to tell us what effect this is going to have on the economy. If this is the manner in which you intend to fund the pension, is it going to have an inflationary effect on the economy? Is it that while the price of everything has gone up, you give them a pension, but at the end of the day you take it away with the other hand? These are very serious questions; we would like the senior citizens to get a real, proper pension that accords with what the cost of living is today. If you could do that, you would get the accolades that you seek from the population and they would be rightly given to you. I would very much like the hon. Minister to answer just some of those questions. In any event, I have already indicated, as far as I am concerned, that I would support this Bill. Thank you. Sen. Corinne Baptiste-Mc Knight: Madam Vice-President, as this is the first time I have taken the floor, allow me to congratulate you on your reappointment and your elevation to higher office. I wish also at this time to congratulate all the Members of this House, those returning and the new Members, and say to you all that I look forward to working with you in harmony, to achieve the great purpose of this House. [Desk thumping] I have to admit that I rise to intervene in this debate with mixed emotions, because there is no measure that could bring relief to any sector of this population, particularly when it affects the elderly and, by extension, the youth. 305 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

So had this Bill come in a vacuum, I would not have had to say other than— [Interruption] Madam Vice-President: We have a procedural motion. PROCEDURAL MOTION The Minister in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Madam Vice-President, in accordance with Standing Orders 9(8), I beg to move that the Senate continue to sit until the completion of the Bill before it. Question put and agreed to. SENIOR CITIZENS’ GRANT (AMDT.) BILL Sen. C. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Madam Vice-President, had this Bill come without a history, I would have had absolutely no difficulty in supporting it wholeheartedly, but this Bill represents to some in the Executive, the end of a process, the fulfilment of a promise. The difficulty I have is that whereas this Bill does bring a large measure of relief to some senior citizens, I am minded, like some others who have spoken before me, of the large number of senior citizens who live in dignified destitution. Some of them were mentioned by Sen. Prof. Watson, some by Sen. Ramkhelawan; these are the people who worked and retired in the 1980s and 1990s; these are the people on whose blood, sweat and tears this country enjoys the standard that it now does. These are the people who paid from salaries that were a fraction of what salaries now are, for primary, secondary and tertiary education for the upstanding citizens who continued to build this country in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. We are talking about retired principals, matrons and school inspectors at that time, retired judges. My colleague, Prof. Watson mentioned a retired judge who at age 90, I am sure, when he hears about this would chuckle, because I would be surprised if his pension does not qualify him for some measure of relief in this senior citizens legislation. The money and resources, in that day and age, that these people could have been investing in their retirement income, their retirement package, was the money that they invested in their children and, therefore, in this country. These are the people who disillusioned most of those who I know had decided they were staying home, they were not going out to vote, but when they realized that a change could mean a change in their circumstances, they went out. Make no bones about it, they were voting their self-interest. What happens now? 306 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. BAPTISTE-MC KNIGHT] The media and some of their more cynical friends tried to convince them that the economic state of the country could not and would not afford the luxury of that kind of pension. But in response to articles in the media and call-in programmes, we all got more rhetoric from the platform to say that it was going to happen, that it would be guaranteed, it would be irrevocable. So the change happened and now these people are being told in a manner that is disingenuous, to say the least, and, at worst, very loose with the truth, that this Bill is the answer to their hopes and prayers. [Desk thumping] The letter of this Bill says, yes, they would no longer get a grant, they would get a pension. True, that is what you promised. It says that they will now get $3,000 a month; well, not so true. A couple of them would, those at the very bottom of the ladder who get nothing, because nobody could live on $500 a month. Those would get $3,000. In your zeal to promote your own indiscretion, you neglect even to say what is positive, that is, you are now allowed a ceiling, so that some could earn, with Government assistance, up to $4,000 a month; which is a good thing. Although by now some of them are convinced that those of us who were telling them, "Hey, dat cyar happen, probably would not," does not integrity, sensitivity and a sense of fair play say to the Members of my Government, that they owe, if not an apology, an explanation in clear and unambiguous fashion; [Desk thumping] an explanation of, one, whether it was ever your intention seriously to implement this promise. If it was your intention and you come into office and find that you cannot, tell us what the circumstances are which militate against your being able to fulfil the promise. The Government side should applaud Sen. Prof. Watson, because he has done more for you on this Bill this afternoon than all the rambling that went on in the other place and all the "ol'" talk we have heard so far from that side. [Desk thumping] Tell us whether it is part of your plan to really recognize the sacrifice and the hard work of this cohort of people who have served you long and hard, some of them meritorious. You give them awards from time to time, but if you walk with that medal to Hi-Lo, do you know what would happen? Somebody would lock your neck because they would think it is gold. [Laughter] It has very little value except sentimental. 6.30 p.m. Tell us whether it is part of your programme, however long-term, to bring some measure of relief to all of these people. And, further, tell us how it is and what situation made it imperative for you to increase this senior citizens‟ grant, pension, whatever you eventually call it, that had already been increased 25 per 307 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 cent, to increase it by a further 20 per cent at a point when no consideration is given to any of the senior citizens to whom you made a promise and who are getting nothing. I think that at the beginning of a term of office my Government needs to convince us, your people, that you respect our intelligence;—[Desk thumping]— that you realize that we understand that there would be hurdles that you have to cross; that there would be problems that you would encounter. Share this with us. After all, this is our business too. It cannot be secrets from us. So I would like the hon. Minister, in winding up, to take a leaf out of his colleague's notebook and answer these questions for the listening public. Now, I have three other problems. One of them is this acquired right of $3,000. Well, we realize that it is not $3,000, eh. The $3,000 is a figment of the imagination except for the really poor. Now, such as it is, it is supposed to be irrevocable and guaranteed. So I look carefully at your Bill and I see clause 2(d)(i)(2) and I say to myself, something is wrong here. In the first version you had maintained a subsection to which no mention had ever been made, i.e. the subsection that stipulated that any changes, be it increase, decrease or discontinued, was the sole prerogative of Parliament. Now, if this new pension is to be irrevocable, I could understand you removing that clause, because if it is not to be touched, then Parliament does not have to get involved in it ever. But, hello, what happens.? You remove the attribute from Parliament where it rightly belongs and you give it to the Minister and here again you are doing a blinkers on a poor, unsuspecting population. The Minister can increase or decrease. Discontinue is out of the question. Let me ask you a question. If the Minister finds it necessary to decrease this pension to zero, what is the result? Does it continue at zero? Now, who are we fooling? John Public, Mary Blinkey-Eye, not that stupid. [Desk thumping] So in order to help you to deliver that promise, I am circulating an amendment which suggests that we delete this clause 2(d)(i)(2) from the Bill all together. At least that way: absolute truth. It is irrevocable and it is guaranteed. [Desk thumping] Now, the last area of problem I have is your clause 3. By the way, there is another reason I want to delete that. My experience in this House is pretty short but a lot of what happened influenced me greatly, and one of the things that influenced me most was the tenacity with which the last Opposition always insisted that the rights of Parliament should not be reduced. So that very often I joined with them whenever the last government came with something that said the Parliament will no longer be doing this; it will be an attribute of the Minister. We 308 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. BAPTISTE-MC KNIGHT] objected to it. Now, it is not more than six steps from the Opposition Bench to the Government Bench and in the course of those six steps, a total shift. [Desk thumping] What was anathema before now becomes a good idea: give the Minister this prerogative; remove it from Parliament. Parliament is supposed to be the watchdog of the Executive and on behalf of the people. [Desk thumping] So that if Parliament does not have the right to change this, nobody will; it would remain $3,000 for some and less for the rest until we come back with another Bill that reorganizes the whole pension packet. My last point: Clause 3. This is another vexed question, this question of validating the actions and activities of a board or an agency and I have no idea what I am being asked to validate. It says that we validate any increase in the grant paid by the board to persons between May 01 and August 31. Now it may be one amount; it may be more. Please, tell me exactly what I am being asked to validate. I have a problem with these nebulous, blanket authorizations. So I want to say that I am very impressed by many of the action programmes that the hon. Minister has said that his Ministry of the People and Social Development is rolling out, but I just want to give him one thing to think about. Now, among those, about 60,000 people who do not qualify for the Senior Citizen‟s Grant, you have, as I say, some dignified destitutes. These are the people whose children, some of them themselves are near to retirement, because I am talking about people in their 80s and up, and the children would help them, but they cannot look after themselves; prepare for their retirement; look after their families and give the kind of assistance that these parents need. So they apply for senior citizenship grant and when your agent comes to the home; it is nicely appointed. In other words, there is no squalor there. There is a little fridge; there is a little TV—not a plasma screen—you might even have a little microwave. So that they look on in haughty disdain and decree that, "No, you are living high on the hog, well above the level". So they do to not qualify. Mr. Minister, you have got to straighten that out. [Desk thumping] If we are talking about reducing the gap, you cannot assume that a few appliances mean that a person's entire income is not going on drugs to replace the CDAP that is not working for them. A senior citizen must not be reduced to begging for what my Government says to us is a right. I would ask that you accept the amendment which I offer in good heart to improve your legislation, as much as I think you would accept and I remind you, please, tell us, the senior citizens, why your promise has been varied. I thank you, Madam Vice- President. [Desk thumping] 309 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. Sylvester Ramquar: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. As I enter this debate dealing with an amendment to the Senior Citizens‟ Grant (Amdt.) Bill 2010, I am forced to remind myself of hearing in the other place talks about betrayal and who read the people's manifesto; how well they read it; talks in this House about shameless and fraudsters. Apparently I am not sure what they read or if they read this manifesto at all. In our manifesto we promised the population that within 120 days we will do a number of things and item 17 on page 12 tells you clearly what this Bill is about. "We will replace the Senior Citizens‟ Grant with Old Age Pension and increase it to $3,000." And that is the end of what we promised in the 120 days. The other issues they were talking about come in page 41 of the manifesto. If they have not read the earlier part, do not blame me. 6.45 p.m. But, in addressing the matter before us, I want to deal with a couple of points. One of the points I really want to deal with is the name change from pension to grant. I am fortunate or not fortunate to be in this Senate, every time we talk about pension. I, like Sen. Ali, remember Act No. 17 of 2007, when those on the other side came to this Senate and changed the name Old Age Pension to the Senior Citizens‟ Grant. What was more important to me was that they deleted section 3 and replaced it with a new section 3. I want to read section 3(5). Sen. Ali did it earlier, but apparently, people did not pay attention to what he read. “A grant under this Act is subject to review and may be increased, decreased or discontinued...” This is what we are talking about. When they talk about it being an entitlement, they had no intention of taking it out. If the Senate would permit me, I refer to my friend Sen. Al-Rawi—I hope I pronounced his name right—at about 4 o‟clock on July 20, 2010 at page 19 where he said: “I invite you to reflect upon the fact that the last government had introduced an amendment to the Pensions Act by the creation of the Senior Citizens‟ Grant. In reversing the position, as the People‟s Partnership has done, and that is in moving to the creation of an absolute entitlement—and I would be careful of the use of the word “entitlement”; an entitlement in law to a pension—” If they had any question in their mind about the intention to take away the old people‟s pension, it is very clear both in the Act and the Senator supported it a couple of days ago. We were very clear what they wanted to do, and to deal with 310 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. RAMQUAR] that issue, we changed the name to “pension”, so as to ensure that the senior citizens of this country have a comfort in their mind that they would not get up one morning and by the sleight of hand, they take away the pension, like what they did to the Caroni (1975) Limited workers. We must remember that. They lifted the income ceiling so that the Caroni (1975) Limited workers can get $650 per month and NIS of $1,000. No sooner did they increase the NIS to $2,000, they denied the Caroni workers who were betrayed on every turn, whether it was the plot of land, agricultural plot, the promise for new jobs or whatever they talked about. They have been betrayed by that government. They have the gumption to come this evening and tell us about honesty, truth, fairness and shameless? I am glad that Sen. Cudjoe joined the debate. She reminded us that all the grants we inherited came from the PNM. I want to correct the young Senator by telling her what we inherited from the PNM. We inherited a residential qualification for old age pension, which talks about having to live here for 60 years. That must be some kind of qualification. When you look at a non-citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, the same old age pension, living here for 20 years, that person would be entitled to an old age pension. A citizen who is born here or spends most of his life here, has to ensure that he lives here for 60 years; not visit his children or grandchildren; and not go away for any operation that cannot be afforded here; and not spend any time to recoup. He has to live here for 60 years in order to get his pension. And we are talking about fairness? That is what we have inherited. We inherited a Senator who treats senior citizens as cattle—I invite you to go to Chaguanas. I know the hon. Minister is trying to deal with the situation. After six months, eight months and two years, they lost your file. When an officer who is dealing with you leaves, goes on leave, your pension file goes off on leave. That is what we have inherited. To demonstrate it, the hon. Minister took it upon himself to go and see for himself. He went to Diego Martin and on the first day, there were 750 persons in the pouring rain. He went to another community and there were 1,600 by 9 o‟clock and on the following day it was 4,000. He told you the numbers. This is because of the gross neglect, the treatment of human kind and the behaviour to our senior citizens. Every good book talks about our parents. The Bible says to honour your mother and father so that your days may be long in the land. The Quran says that paradise is a feat of your parents and Hinduism states that your parent is your first guru. We have to understand how we treat them. Not because you are on the 311 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 other side you would play Pontius Pilate, holier than thou and that we created all the evils. We are dealing with some of the evils that you have created. Pensions do not happen just like that. Everyone does not want to go to an office and be humiliated, shut up, sit down, wait your turn, come back tomorrow the officer is not here. There is one benefit. I have the honour of dealing with senior citizens every day, in trying to access benefits for them. Somebody might come to me—a young person with four or five children and no father, like the senior citizens—but they are in tears. You have to close the office and talk to them. They do not have a cent, not even water to boil. They are sent to the senior citizens office or the social welfare department for a “little” grant. This is called emergency temporary assistance which the government provides for them. They would hear things such as: “De officer in charge not here. De vault lock and those who have de keys not present.” That is what we subject our senior citizens to. If we have to deal with this issue, we cannot deal with it in isolation and try to score points on who will win. Let us see the legacy we got from the PNM and how we are going to deal with it. We have CECEP and URP, where the government perpetuated for the last 10 years and to date they do not have a pension plan. They have to line up and form a queue in the senior citizens department. [Interruption] Sen. Hinds: How will this help? Sen. S. Ramquar: I will tell you in a minute, do not worry. I am coming to you. The daily paid in this country, who are serving the Government do not have a pension plan. They are given a grant and within a short period of time the grant is ferreted away or eaten up and the salaries or income are reduced. They end up going back to the office. They are humiliated and treated like cows, in order to get a little pittance from the Government. With respect to NIS contributions, if you contribute—it is a system that you are contributing to—less than 750 contributions, one month short than 15 years, you are not entitled to a pension; you are entitled to a grant. Like the daily paid workers, in no time, the money finishes and you take the queue. When we talk about the $6 billion it will cost us, Sen. Hinds, this is what is causing it; failure by the last regime to deal with these issues to correct some of the weaknesses in the system. Survivors benefit, there is a system where the main contributor dies and the survivor is expected to live on $120—$500 per month maximum. That is grade 10 or 12. That is what we expect them to live on. When they go to the social 312 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. RAMQUAR] welfare office, they get all kinds of “tra la la”. You have not addressed that. You failed to address it because you brought local people to govern the board from outside the region but they do not understand the people, their culture or their need. You send people from head office. With respect to NIS, a dependent parent‟s child dies in an accident and the parent is subjected to live on $60 depending on what class the child was in or $291.60. That is what the PNM gave us. That is the legacy they left for us to deal with.

They left us with no Pension Act. In fact, let me deal with NIS one time. We are talking about shame, shameless and “gangsterism”. One of the problems that NIS faces is bad investment decisions and more than that, people who take advantage of the system. If you are talking about trickery, “gangsterism” and those kinds of things, we are talking about people who took mortgages from NIS and used their connection to register it in the Red House. They have no mortgage deed and they owe nobody at the end of the day. That is trickery and “gangsterism”, Sen. Hinds. That is being shameless. You come today to talk to us about who is trying to betray whom. Let us talk about those things. There is absolutely no Pension Act in Trinidad and Tobago. Pensions in Trinidad and Tobago come under the Insurance Act of 1980. For government officers there are a number of pieces of legislation. I can go through all of them for you. They deal with retirement, public allowance, judges, fire service, prison officers, widows and municipal corporations. There are many Acts available to us. Each one is piecemeal and is trying to put a patch in a dam that is leaking. That is what we have been doing over the years. We fail to accept the fact that we need to have comprehensive legislation to deal with pensions in all its efforts. If you think it was bad, when we came to discuss the 2007 Finance Act, which was the omnibus legislation dealing with a number of amendments; I saw that we were amending the Judges Pension Act to cater for $1,150 per month. I say we are in trouble. For a judge who has served this country, risked bandits and his life to defend the society, we have to come to the Parliament because we increased old age pension to $1,150 per month to get the judge a pension of a similar nature.

I know of a former Permanent Secretary, a PNM PS, who represented the constituency of St. Joseph, who was getting $300; a Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education. That is what we are faced with. When you sit like Pontius Pilate, talk about the legacy that we got from the PNM. That is what we got from the PNM. 313 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

With respect to the private pension Bills, there is no real Act that governs private pension plans. There was a draft regulation that was not assented to by the President. In the draft regulation it states that you cannot get a pension more than 66⅔ per cent of your final salary, regardless of how long you have worked. The 2 per cent actual rate would give you, after 33⅓ years‟ service 66⅔ per cent of your salary as a pension. Pension is about savings that can be used for national development and economic growth. We do not encourage them to save. We put a restriction that they only get 66⅔ per cent. If even they want to contribute more to get a better pension, they cannot. What is the sense in putting more money into a pension plan and you cannot get a benefit out of it? When you look at the fact that a pension plan may appear to give you 66⅔ per cent, but the average person caters for, upon retirement, the lump sum to fix the roof, do something on their house or pay for their children‟s education, you end up in a situation with 50 per cent, because 25 per cent is allowed out of the 66⅔ per cent for your lump sum. You end up with 50 per cent of your salary to live on for your life. After inflation you end up in serious problems dealing with that kind of situation. In any event, we have the question dealing with the oversight. The Government created the Central Bank to have oversight over pension plans. You have to register or seek the approval of the Board of Inland Revenue to get a tax break. You have to register with the supervisor of insurance which is now the Central Bank or the inspector of financial institutions. What happens? In the case of CLICO, there was absolutely no oversight. Every supervisor of insurance or Central Bank report is published, but how many companies have not published their annual accounts? Why annual accounts? They want to protect the pension plan. Some people are so smart, they would go outside the Insurance Act and invest the money in those kinds of units and end up in serious problems. 7.00 p.m. You have a situation where the trustee and investment manager is one and the same, and, therefore, they have a vested interest to use the pension fund to their best advantage. The case where we drove the Republic Bank shares to $114 was one bank wanting to keep their shares and one insurance company trying to get it. Today, the share is almost $70 and that is a serious loss to some of the investments. Here we have Government pensions—Sen. Ramkhelawan talked about it— with a growing unfunded liability—off-books liability. Because the State does not put that in the books as the liability, for public officers. Not one cent, Madam 314 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. RAMQUAR] Vice-President. Not one cent. The last UNC administration attempted to deal with that by giving the public officers an increase which would be equivalent to their personal contribution to the pension plan. So it would not be a strain on them to contribute, and the State would have contributed. But you know what happened? The PNM never allowed it to continue. So we end up in a situation where most of the public officers have an unfunded liability. He quoted a figure of $30 billion. That is the debt we owe the public officers. I want to remind those on the other side that in Argentina, when the oil fell out the barrel, pensioners went to the pension office and hanged themselves. When I am talking pension, I am talking pension from practical experience. I am talking about living pension; not a textbook pension. And I am not here to score cheap points, but it hurts to hear those on the other side who presided over $300 billion crying crocodile tears and talking about these people as if they really cared. If a public officer is transferred, or leaves the job and goes into the private sector, he loses his pension. So despite what we are trying to do―and I sympathize with Sen. Ramgoolam―in the public service, trying to deal with that situation, because they cannot leave as their pensions are hinged to staying in the public service; therefore, the whole question of attracting new minds. Do you know what the International Monetary Fund Report said happened in Indonesia? In Taiwan, sorry. No, sorry, in Singapore. They call them the “Asian Tigers”, and so forth. They said that the public officers‟ pensions are greater than the private sector pensions. So you can attract people from the private sector into the public sector and ensure a more efficient operation and transfer between both parties. But we have to address these questions. You know, the first question will be where the money will come from. Well, we had $300 billion. That is the story. I want to wind up and I am forced to answer my friend, Sen. Roopnarine, about the history of PNM. We, too, know about the history of the PNM. We know about Francis Prevatt and “John O”, and we know about UDeCOTT. And I am sure when the learned Attorney General is finished with them, we will hear a lot more names added to the list. We understand the history of the PNM. I do not know where he got his figures from about the largest party in this country. [Laughter] I do not know if he is talking about the size of the people, but it could not be the numbers. Because the two elections did not reveal those numbers, so I do not know what he was talking about in terms of size. He probably needs to change his glasses. The number of seats they have, from 29 to 12, demonstrates the fact that they are not the size they were. 315 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

The fact that they lost almost all the corporations, and some people were saying that Rowley, in his speech—the Leader of the Opposition was saying in his concession speech that, “We got three corporations.” He never told the nation that they lost six corporations. So I do not know where these numbers are coming from about the largest party. Yes, you have a history. A history of rape and plunder; especially feeding at the trough. And then we hear from Sen. Hinds. Like he left? Sen. Al-Rawi: He will be back. Sen. S. Ramquar: Sen. Hinds said that, “We will support,” but the beautiful thing is, Madam Vice-President, they never did it. They were aware of all these things but they never did it. They will tell you they have a working group on pension for the last 20-something years, and it all resorts to zero. They never hear a report coming out of it. That is how they buy time and fool the population. “One of these days, we will do something through you.” Madam Vice-President, I have hope. I have hope to tell those on the other side that we will do it. We began today as the first step, and we are going to do it. Thank you very much. [Desk thumping] Madam Vice-President: On today‟s sitting, please allow me to congratulate Sen. the Hon. Sylvester Ramquar on this maiden contribution; excellent contribution. [Desk thumping] Sen. Faris Al-Rawi: Madam Vice-President, hon. Members of the Senate, it is a sharing of emotion, I would suggest, with Sen. Corinne Baptiste-Mc Knight, that I rise with mixed emotions tonight. Indeed, I say it has been a novel experience to sit here in this august House and to participate in a debate that has gone on for as many hours as we have been here. It has actually been nearly six hours now, straight? Pleasurable hours. In the course of those six hours, my emotions oscillated. At first in the initiation of contributions from the hon. Minister, Dr. Glenn Ramadharsingh, I felt that there was something lacking in his contribution. He was a bit flat. So I started by taking little labels relative to the—by my count—10 persons who have spoken so far in these many hours; and in labelling, by use of one or two words, the contributions in this House tonight, I felt that he lacked fizzle. Perhaps I am inclined to borrow the word, he lacked “oomph”. It has been said here tonight. I say so, and I think that the failure to have effervescence in his contribution was perhaps born out of his feeling that this Bill was a foregone conclusion. You see, it has been much touted that the Government will have its way so that the 316 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] Opposition will have its say; and in having its way in the large numbers that the Government has downstairs, and in bringing it upstairs where there are merely six Opposition Senators, perhaps he was of the view that he could approach this honourable House and address us with a lack of effervescence, a lack of zeal, a lack of oomph, because it was a foregone conclusion that this debate would end in the passage of the Bill. Now, I will come to my position on the Bill in just a moment, but for now, I am categorizing by way of recap for the benefit of those who are listening to us and joining us, by way of media, the particular contributions that we have heard tonight. We next heard from whom I now call “Dr. Fitzgerald Hinds”, the hon. Senator; and I say so because in his contribution in relation to the state of the economy, he professed that he wished to provide a blood transfusion to what was then described as an anaemic debate, but which, from what I will say in a short while, I think was a very relevant debate. Dr. Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds engaged in a bit of blood letting before this House. The hon. Leader of Government Business, Sen. Subhas Panday, was enthused on the edge of his seat and, indeed, there was a lot of trading, which I think is perhaps the trading that existed in the Lower House. Dr. Hinds‟ contribution—Sen. Hinds‟—was one of a reflection—[Interruption] Madam Vice-President: Senator, while I acknowledge some amount of play in calling Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds a doctor, he is not; so please refer to him appropriately. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: I will be guided both by you, Madam Vice-President, and by my qualifying statement in using that term and saying that it was entirely my statement because of the tone of the contribution which he made, but I am nonetheless grateful for the hon. Vice-President‟s guidance. I then turn to the very short and poignant contribution of Sen. Ali, because in his contribution, he provided a reflection of the debate, in particular, in 2007, which resulted in the base to which this Bill comes to address. Indeed, he was addressing the issues of naming; he was addressing the issues of the concurrence of sections, and he provided us with a very useful tool which is used in law as well in understanding the legal intent of any bill, any piece of legislation, we are entitled to go to the makers of the legislation to see the intentions behind the legislation, to come up with the true effect and legal meaning. I want to underscore the legal meaning, because that is a point I am going to return to as well. In fact, my good friend, the hon. Attorney General, will remind 317 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 us all that the case in law is, in fact, a case called Pepper v. Hart, and it is the locus classicus on statutory interpretation, that we can turn to the makers of the legislation to see the true intention. The next contribution that we had was one which levelled me. I say that openly; and that was because it was by the very affable, charming and honest Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson. I see a smile on his face. I was worried perhaps he may be asleep, but he is not. You see, not only does he have the boyish looks that he asked us to acknowledge that he does have, and has not yet quite reached what was promised as a pensionable age, but which is, in fact, not a pensionable age— and I will return to that as well—but his contribution caused me to pause, because at that moment in time, I said how refreshing to have that breath of fresh air tell us a truthful position. His contributions were very revealing to everyone in this House. It recognized that there is not quite yet a cohesive policy. Certainly, there is no stated policy by the People‟s Partnership. But, in fact, there is not a cohesive policy yet, because his reflections—and I say so, most respectfully, Prof. Watson—did not indicate that; because he hypothesized and pointed to very correct areas that needed to be addressed by all of us as citizens and as parliamentarians in this particular House, and in the Lower House. The next contribution was by my learned colleague, Sen. Shamfa Cudjoe, and I would say that I classified her contribution as the Tobago perspective. She was economical in the extreme in her time, which I hope to emulate tonight. In her 16 minutes of delivery, she gave our good colleague, Sen. Moheni, a lot of challenge and open invitation to join this debate, which I am sure he will in defence of his position in Tobago. You see, her address was slanted purposefully to address the perspective of the Tobagonians who went out to vote for the members of the coalition that now comprise the Government. Indeed, I look forward, as I am sure he will entertain us with his contribution, to the perspectives and the justifications from Tobago in answer to Sen. Cudjoe‟s position. Next we had the very debonair, as he also is, Sen. Subhas Ramkhelawan, who moved us with his ability to pinpoint, very efficiently again, the positions of the impact that addressing one aspect of pensions in a non-cohesive fashion can cause to the combination of legislation that comprises pension benefits, and social service benefits; social service deliverables. You see, Sen. Ramkhelawan pointed us to the fact that—and I borrow the expression from the Leader of the Opposition 318 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] downstairs in his debate where he said it is like a water bed, if you squeeze one end, the other end is going to bulge. He pointed us to the fact, Dr. Rowley did, that there is, in fact, a consequence in addressing the legislation in a non-holistic fashion; and that is that with the greatest of intentions to fulfil, or attempt to fulfil your election promise, that looking at it in a singular perspective without reflection to the whole caused a very unjustified effect in having left the middle behind. That is something which I am sure that this august House would hope would not be a continuing casualty of the hubris that this Government has exercised in coming here to deal with legislation in a non-holistic fashion. Indeed, I may point them now, as I will come to it in a short while, that in fact, the tradition in addressing pensions set by the PNM Government when it was in power was to deal with it—we have heard the word several times tonight—by way of omnibus legislation. You see, you have got to consider the whole before you consider the part, because you may throw it off balance. So in summary of Sen. Ramkhelawan‟s position, he dealt with the inequities of a non-holistic approach towards legislation. We then heard an excellent maiden speech by Sen. Danny Maharaj. He stood before this august House and distinguished himself with passion; with support for his party; with a reflection of the people, which I commend him for, because it is one which I share. But, very respectfully, and I do not wish to say so, more so because it was a maiden speech—I am only on my second, so I am grateful somebody spared me—but dare I say that it fell afoul of lack of particulars. Lots of old talk, which I am sure has some basis and rooting in it; but genuinely speaking, the cry, especially from the Independent Bench, and those people in Trinidad and Tobago whom I have come to realize watch the Parliament Channel; because I am surprised at how many people have commented on the contributions to me personally. So I am doubly careful that we must be relevant in addressing issues without rhetoric. And I say rhetoric to us all, because there may be rhetoric on the Opposition Bench, and there is rhetoric on the Government Bench. But, indeed, I must compliment the Independent Senators because they always anchor us back to the relevance of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. We then heard from my good colleague, Sen. Ted Roopnarine. You see, Sen. Roopnarine is a very humble man, and he does not like to over-score his positions. He is one who is willing, as we saw in the debate on the state of the 319 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 economy, to give way to have questions answered; and it is a useful style that he has adopted in asking questions that need to be answered. Sen. Roopnarine‟s contribution, as he termed it, and as I will borrow—one nonetheless coined by another Panday; the venerable silver fox, as many called him—was labelled, “Lies, Half-truths and Innuendos,” because he sought to address the tendency towards trivialization; and that is my word for today. You see, I am adopting a new habit in this honourable House. I took note of and borrowed the leaf out of the book of Sen. Ramkhelawan when he recommended to us the use of the word “austerity”. I marked it indelibly in my mind in that new page that I formed of my list of words obtained from the Senate. In my own contribution, I recommended—and it was received with some element of humour—the word, “hubris”, and I recommended to the hon. Members that they do not fall afoul of the very thing which they complained bitterly of, of the last government, which resulted in a change of governments. Today, the word that I am going to recommend as the word for the day in this honourable House is the word, “trivialization”. Because much of what has gone on by way of contribution from the Government Bench has been a trivialization of issues; most lastly hammered home, where I was not going to join issue, by Sen. Sylvester Ramquar. I will come to his contribution last. We then had an excellent, edifying, relevant contribution by Sen. Corinne Baptiste-Mc Knight. A lady whom I salute as a hero of this country; and, please, my salutation has nothing to do, and should not cause this Government Bench to say that there is anything other than respect flowing from the Opposition table to the Independent table. Because she has served this country with distinction as a public servant, and spoke to the perspective that public servants feel in this debate. Indeed, Sen. Ramquar addressed the issue in part, in his own way; but her contribution was marked in my mind because, again, it echoed the Independent Bench‟s call for a holistic approach in dealing with legislation so that none is left behind. Because that is a promise that the Government has put on to its plate, but I will come to what the Government does by way of its promises in a short while. The mixed emotion that I had, which at one point in starting led me to say, “Well, Faris, you are going to be short tonight; you are going to speak to a few points that others have not spoken of, not only in an attempt to be relevant, not only in an attempt to keep you all awake tonight, but on a purposeful track to see that the citizens of this country develop well.” But then, Sen. Ramquar came along and quashed all intentions I had of leaving certain issues alone. 320 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] You see, again, he adopted masterfully—because he has distinction and he has that silver hair that I bow to, because it means that you have years of wisdom and experience over me, and one day I hope to attain the wisdom that you have in your experience. You masterfully trivialized many of the promises that you made, and in fact, you gave us a misstatement which I will come to in a short while. [Interruption] I am very used to my good friend, the Attorney General, attempting to dissuade me from speaking by interrupting me. He, too, is charming, so I will not leave him out. Perhaps that will keep him pacified tonight. [Laughter] But the truth is that your attempt was an excellent one to trivialize this debate. On the last occasion, it was odd that I had to stand and readjust the debate on the economy after the hot heels of my good friend, the Attorney General; and tonight, you have lit that fire and passion in me again, Sen. Ramquar, to stand up to address the misstatements that you have made tonight. You see, I was going to leave alone things which I thought were said too often, because then I would be guilty of the very rhetoric which I dislike, and for which I have disdain; and I am sure the people of this country have disdain. In dealing with the debate on the efficiency of Parliament, the honourable leader of my bench, Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson, pointed us to the fact that she is, like I am, in the very invidious position of ranking both second to last and last on the list of people who are trusted, in recent polls and surveys. You see, they ranked lawyers second to last, and politicians last. Why do they rank us in that fashion? They feel that every time a lawyer‟s mouth is moving, he is lying; and they feel that every time a politician‟s mouth is moving, he is not only lying, but he is stealing your fingers. We have to establish the highest traditions in this House and demonstrate by our words, our actions and our commitment, and you know what? our fearlessness to tell the truth, that we are people of integrity. You see, I take integrity—and this, I promise you, is not rhetoric; I take it very seriously. I will call a spade a spade. I always have my “vex bag” packed. I am a man of independence, and I am prepared to take the positions. Sen. Ramlogan: You call a spade a spade and call a Hart a Hart. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: I will call a Hart a Hart because I agree with you. You know what? I join my good friend, the hon. Attorney General, in reminding him again, because it is the second time I must remind him, that it is the PNM that started the enquiry into the construction sector; and if the honourable Calder Hart, whose name has been called as a distraction in this House many times before, and there are charges to be laid, then so be it. [Interruption] I support it. 321 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

It is my country; you are my Government; you are acting responsibly and in my best interest, and in the citizens of this country‟s best interest in doing whatever is permissible and should be done under the law. You see, we saw a mark of extreme efficiency in the hon. Attorney General coming to this House, after two and a half months, and giving pronouncements on rape and corruption, and in making statements, which he promised to repeat to the public sector, outside where we do not have the privilege and cloak of parliamentary privilege, and he has not done it yet. But I am sure he is efficient and he will repeat the very words. [Interruption] I will condescend to provide him a transcript of what he said, so that he could repeat actionable statements outside of this Parliament. But we will come to that yet. [Interruption] Let me return to the debate before a point of order is raised and I must sit to the very elegant Madam Vice-President. Let me get back to the point of distraction that Sen. Ramquar caused for me. You see, he stood up very quickly. He said, “I do not know if anybody on the other side has read the People‟s Partnership or the coalition‟s manifesto,” but I keep my copy close at heart. [Desk thumping] Right? Seventy-three pages. [Laughter] Seventy-three pages of red, yellow and white. I have read it. I enjoyed it. It was colourful. It was a good effort for an emerging party. A party called upon to try and come up with policy when my own party seemed to have committed hara-kiri. [Desk thumping] You see, we had two and a half years. [Desk thumping] I want to remind you, because I am addressing a very serious point. It has been bandied across this floor, and as I told you, I am not one who is afraid to address issues. We did not lose a government in two and a half years. The people‟s mandate, when called upon for a general election, resulted in a change of government. I salute democracy in this country. I support it. Because I reminded this honourable House in my maiden contribution, ministers, and therefore, by extension, governments, are people in revolving doors. It is not the first time that governments have changed. The UNC has been there and done that. Okay? So, let us deal with the issues here. You see, my point tonight in dealing with the issue of trivialization of the effects of this Bill and the truth behind this Bill is very pointed in the fact that having given a promise, you are being measured. You know, there is a statement in management, “If you cannot measure it, it cannot be performed.” Our manifestos give us measurables. Your statements give us measurables. The repetition of your statements ad nauseam, which the public calls rhetoric, has 322 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] beaten us into a mind-numbing distraction; a new sense of politics: repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, repeat it. People will get so bored and turned off, and we will become so irrelevant, 20 seconds of news coverage later, that is all you are getting. So what is the real issue? You invited us to look at the People‟s Partnership‟s manifesto, and I did. Yes, under your 120-day plan, you spoke of, and you marginalized, but it is not something that I, as a creature of the law, am accustomed to doing. We look at documents in a comprehensive whole. You see, it is unfair and disingenuous of you to point the hon. Members of this House to a statement which says, simply—and let me get to the page. I think it is page 8, if I remember carefully. Page 12, item 17: “We will replace the Senior Citizens‟ Grant with Old Age Pension and increase it to $3,000.” Close the book. Drop it down. And do not worry about looking at page 41, because I want to wiggle. I do not want to acknowledge that. Page 41 is irrelevant; trivialized. “Good people of Trinidad and Tobago, do not pay attention to that.” But what does page 41 say? Page 41 says: “Aging population. Life begins at 60. A fair deal for older people. There must therefore be a social security system that guarantees to retired persons a decent life. We owe it to our seniors to reward them for their contribution to our nation. Our Government will: Protect the rights of the Elderly. Provide incentives for medical students to specialize in Geriatric Medicine to care for our aging population in Trinidad and Tobago. Develop school-based programmes to promote interaction between the young and the elderly in their communities. Reinstatement of the Old Age Pension Act. Pensions must be an entitlement and not a grant. Pension laws must be amended to provide for the national and regional portability of pension benefits and for improved pension benefits. 323 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Remove all restrictions and qualifications for people to receive an Old Age Pension and thus every citizen will automatically receive a State- funded Old Age Pension upon the attainment of pensionable age. Increase the value of the monthly old aged pension entitlement to $3,000.” [Desk thumping] How can I leave the construction of the promise in a disparate fashion? You know why it is disingenuous to do that? Let us assume that I were to accept the absurdity of the argument from my perspective. 7.30 p.m. I was going to leave alone the touted ad. I thought, surely somebody would have brought it up but, you see, yes, oh gosh, the ad, the rhetoric, the everything. I will show the ad [Sen. Al-Rawi raises document and shows same to Senators present] [Interruption] We know what it says but it is here. It was repeated in a timely fashion, relative to your promise, before the general election and again prior to the local government election. You see, it formed an inducement. It formed a material representation upon which the citizens of this country relied to be delivered and it is simply in addressing, because I did not want to address the rhetoric of this statement yet again, but Sen. Ramquar evoked my response because it is disingenuous to suggest that the manifesto should not be read as a whole. Specific references to pension [Desk thumping] at page 41 and at page 12 should not be read together. That is my perspective. That is not only my perspective, but it is the perspective shared by many citizens of this country because it has been echoed by the Independent Bench, it has been echoed in the newspapers, it has been echoed far and wide and you came to this Parliament as hon. Members of this Parliament to say that you want to correct a misconception. You see, you said you came here to correct the misconception between the use of the word, “grant” and the use of the word, “pension”, and that is what you are correcting, a misconception, because it has been accepted as an incontrovertible fact and admission that the words, “entitled to” in the legislation, as featured for the first time in 2007, when the amendments were brought in the finance omnibus legislation in what I call Act No. 1 of the Finance Act in 2007, the words, “entitled to” became a feature of that legislation for the first time. The pension is not a new issue. It has been around, born out of the bowels of the German experience in Otto von—what is it—born out of the German experience in 1889, I think it was, that it became legislation, repeated in the 324 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] American Civil War promises—[Interruption] von Bismarck, thank you—born out of Otto von Bismarck‟s contributions, legislated in 1889 in Germany, repeated in the American experience out of the promises of the revolutionary wars and the civil wars, dealt with in Trinidad and Tobago in 1939, legislated in Trinidad and Tobago in 1954. It is not a new thing, but the words, “entitlement to a pension”, those magic words that create the entitlement—because it is not the definition of “grant” and it is not the definition of “pension” which creates the entitlement, it was not that, it is the words “entitled to”. That was introduced by the People‟s National Movement in 2007. I see a head shaking. I am a man who comes with “mih facts” prepared. Let me deal with it. I have every piece of legislation relating to this Act from 1939 to date. I have read it. I check my facts. I am not in the habit of making a statement that is not there. In 2007 the words were introduced. In 2007 the entitlement was created. What really was dealt with? In 2007, a definition of a grant was introduced. What is a grant by that Act? The grant by definition in that Act is a very simple definition. Permit me to lift it from the Act itself. The use of the word, “grant” in 2007 defined in the Act itself by that legislation came by virtue of section 11 of Act No. 17 of 2007, and in defining the word grant: ““Grant means the Senior Citizens‟ Grant payable under this Act.”” That is what a grant means. Grant does not mean what the Oxford dictionary says. Grant does not mean only what Black‟s legal dictionary says. Grant does not mean what the judicial Stroud‟s Dictionary says. Grant is defined within the terms of the meaning of the Act. What magic formula have you come up with by use of the word, “pension”? Here is the similarity in the use of that word because a pension is defined in this Bill in very similar terms to a grant and that is at section 2(c) it says: “„Pension means the Senior Citizens‟ pension payable under this Act.” Same thing. So the definition of “grant” and the definition of “pension” are irrelevant. They are confined within the context of the Act. [Desk thumping] No authority has been brought. It is disingenuous of the debate in 2007 because that is where the origin of this malady arose. It is disingenuous, and I will come to that point, because it arose in the contributions of the hon. Sen. Wade Mark as he then was, who is the Speaker of the House, but I would come to his contributions in a moment. You see, I was not there in 2007. Dr. Ramadharsingh was, many other people here were, I was not, so I condescended to read the entire debate in 2007, which is again before me, and I will come to that in a moment. 325 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

You see, the fact is, the entitlement was put in by the People‟s National Movement. Okay, we are bordering on the rhetoric right now. Yes we created the entitlement. No, the word, “pension”, does not magically change the shape and look and feel of the grant. It is the same. It is a foregone conclusion. There has been no judicial pronouncement which could easily have been done on an entitlement by way of a declaration—you could seek a declaration from the court as to the meaning of the word. That has not been done. It is idle rhetoric rooted in the contributions on this debate in 2007 when the pension was being converted as a word to “grant” that has created this thing, and it is the trivialization of this Government, [Desk thumping] in coming forward today, to distract us, a point which I was going to leave alone until Sen. Ramquar evoked the emotions in me that I now demonstrate. [Interruption] Evoked. I will not use the word, “provoked”. So you see, it is not that. Let me, in an attempt, before I do not get a warning as to time, point very quickly to the fact that it is, in fact, the comparison of the legislation which drives us to an understanding of this Bill and, more particularly, because it echoes from the Independent Bench not only a comparison of the legislation but the conclusions arising as to why it is hubris for you, the members of the Government, to not condescend, I would not use the word, “apology”, I do not want to be part of the constant trading and one-upmanship of which people of this country are tired. I want to elevate this debate and to tell you that it is okay to say, “I made a rash promise [Desk thumping] to win an election”, because the country operates on a very dangerous ticket. What is the ticket? We got five years‟ ticket in government. So you pulled a shot because you do not have any policies not stated, and I challenge you to show me your stated policy in particular as to revenue generation. We have asked for it. Sen. Ramkhelawan was kind, he said he would give you a “bligh” until the budget, so will I—because this is our last debate until then—so you do not have a stated policy so you turn to election pandering, which is what it properly was—I am not trying to evoke one- upmanship to you—and then you came upon and dug out this point and you said, “If I cannot beat them leh mih at least fool them.” But who were the casualties? This debate tonight is a debate on a pension. It is a debate on an accepted method of sustenance, of provision, financial assistance, to the aged in our society. The aged in our society, they are the litmus test by which the sophistication of the development of our society is measured. You see, [Desk thumping] it is said, as was said tonight by the hon. Dr. Glenn Ramadharsingh, 326 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] yes Gandhi said it and I am sure he genuinely feels the words, “Poverty is the worst violence”, but the litmus test that is before this Senate, and is the fact, is that it is our measure of respect by way of treatment to the citizens of our country, [Desk thumping] our aged and senior citizens of this country, that is the test. However, what have we done by trivializing the truth of this debate? We have accepted that it is okay to toy with their emotions, put plainly and naked on the plate. “It is okay, I will fool a few old people, I will get a few votes—I will get more votes. The Opposition will have its say”, because there were other issues other than deliverables, you know. You will find—and it came up in the debate when we were speaking about the efficacy of Parliament—we have a manpower shortage problem amongst Ministries, in institutions. You could be the best working Minister in Trinidad and Tobago, as I am sure every Minister who steps into those shoes is, the fact is, unless you got the manpower and you pay them well, and you inspire them and you motivate them, you cannot get the most laudable and noble of objectives performed because you have not got the resources to deliver it. So it is okay to toy with our aged because let us call it a spade a spade or a heart a heart, let us toy with them, let us not deliver. But you know what? That is not okay and the line is drawn today by me when I say, let us raise the level of this debate, let us stop the one-upmanship that has been a creature of the past and let us deal with the truth of it, because, as told by the hon. Senators of this Senate on the last occasion, you are driving our car. We are passengers in your car. You are driving, you are steering the wheel and we all want to get there safely and successfully. It is your watch. Now, when we look to the truth of this―and I want to confine myself to only a few observations because much of it has been said already by the distinguished Senators of this Senate. My concerns were that the passage of the legislation in the Lower House failed to address a material deficiency in the legislation, in the Bill as it is now presented, and that is the very point of negative resolution. How many of you who are newcomers to Parliament knew what negative resolution was before you came to this Senate? Therefore, by extension and extrapolation, how many members of the citizens of this country know the effects and the method by which negative resolution is done? Sen. Ali was very kind in truncating what I would have gone into, which is, the dangers of the trap of negative resolution, so I had a problem with provisions relative to the negative resolution and I will come to that point in a moment. 327 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

But more so, I had a problem with a very serious misrepresentation on the part of this partnership. You see, the Bill proposes to repeal section 3 of the 2007 Act, section 3 of Chap. 32:01 which was amended by the 2007 Act. In seeking to do that it says specifically, and I have not got the legislation in hand yet but I recall it, it says that you are going to replace and repeal section 3 in its entirety and in particular you are going to throw out subsections (1) to (6). The two bits upon which much song and dance were made in 2007 by the hon. Sen. Wade Mark and by Dr. Jennifer Kernahan—and I will come to their contributions—was on the very provisions of section 5 and section 6. So when I saw that go out the door in the announcements made by the hon. Minister, Dr. Ramadharsingh, before the local government election, I said, well, my God, these people are keeping to at least part of their promise. But what happened? Election came and went. Yes PNM lost six local government bodies and gained three only. If I could use more expressive words here, I would. I will tell you in the corridors. It was a good beating, right, but we learn from our lessons. Some of us here are young and full of energy and hot blood and [Desk thumping] we join here in Opposition not to become Government Ministers. So “I ain‟t fraid de fight” and the challenge to rebuild this party [Desk thumping] because I am new. However, let me say that in coming forward to this position, the representation which was levelled is the amendments which came on the 30th of July, 2010, back door trivialization of amendments. What did they do? They snuck in section 2(1)(d). What was that? Let us read it. The Bill, the offensive bit, the Bill before this Senate. Section 2(1)—sorry, 2(2): “The Minister may by Order, subject to negative resolution of this Parliament amend the Schedule to this Act.” Accepted uncontroverted fact. What is the Schedule? The very entitlement. The rhetorical question was raised in the Independent Bench, what happens if you drop it to zero? Dare I condescend to at least give valuable consideration and say one dollar? What happens when you drop it there? It did not feature in the timing of your presentation to the citizens of this country when you delivered it prior to the local government election and in your campaign promises but you realize the wisdom in the fact that there is a pension crisis globally because there is a dependency ratio, as other Senators have labelled, I am just giving it the label as it is called, the pension crisis, an aged population, a decreased fertility rate and with a decreased fertility rate less young people able to work, and who are working for smaller salaries, to support an aged population. So we have a pension crisis looming, unfunded $30 billion pointed out; agreed and accepted. 328 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] So in your wisdom in accepting PNM common sense, let us not call it PNM common sense, what featured in the legislation from 1954 come up, you recognize on the 30th of July for the first time in a back door sneaking amendment, “Yes, we need to keep some measure of control.” Let us introduce section 2(2) and put it in the hands of a Minister. Forget Parliament, man. We are not worried with Parliament. Parliament does not need to deal with these things. Let us give it in the hands of a Minister on an issue which is part of a money bill. Let us forget about that. But what was said in 2007 about that? What were the protestations in 2007? You know, it was said by Dr. Ramadharsingh, when he sat in the Lower House in delivering, that the more things change is the more they stay the same. Sen. Wade Mark was an exceptional Senator in his ability to stand up every time and make magic out of thin air. He could hold on to a sliver of an argument and breathe life into it. So what did he say in 2007? Sen. Mark said and I quote: “They are mamaguying the elderly in our land. Hear what this Government is proposing in clause 11(f)(5). It says: „A grant under this Act is subject to review and may be increased, decreased or discontinued.‟” What does he say further? “That was never in the Old Age Pensions Act. What are you telling the elderly in this country—persons who have been receiving old age pension, as soon as they have reached 65 years, and those who are moving towards 65 and have legitimate expectations to get old age pension? This…” Had it been the Vice-President sitting then, this would perhaps not have been said: “This fascist regime is telling the elderly in this country: „You see this grant that I am going to offer you, I could give you it, I could take it back and I could abolish it.‟ Madam President, how can we support this measure? How can any Government in a modern society, where by 2050 close to 30 per cent or 40 per cent of our population will be 60 years and over—We have an ageing population and the Government should be trying to take care of those people. Instead, is this how you treat the elderly? You are telling them that you are going to take their pension; you are now going to give them a grant; and you would review this grant whenever you see it is necessary, and you could increase the grant or you could discontinue it.” 329 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

He failed to say that you would review it in the Parliament by an affirmative resolution. He failed to say that. It has been said from the Independent Bench today. So what have you done? You have gone better. You say, “Doh worry with Parliament. We will keep it, we will sneak it in on the 30th of July, slip it in, trivialize it, talk „a set ah rhetoric‟ on the other side”—[Interruption]—forget about that, foregone conclusion, more votes in favour. Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, the speaking time of the hon. Senator has expired, but, before you ask for an extension, at the request of the Leader of Government Business, I would like to suspend the sitting of this Senate for 10 minutes. We would be back after 10 minutes. Sen. Panday: Thank you very much, Madam Vice-President. 7.50 p.m.: Sitting suspended. 8.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed. Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, the speaking time of the hon. Senator has expired. Motion made, That the hon. Senator‟s speaking time be extended by 15 minutes. [Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson] Question put and agreed to. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Much obliged, Madam Vice-President and hon. Senators. Before we broke I was at the cusp of making certain points but a material observation has arisen, of which we have been informed, and that is that there is a difficulty nationally with respect to the Caroni River and the position that it may, in fact, overflow its banks. On that point may I express, on behalf of us all—I am sure you will give me that licence, every member of this Senate I am sure is united in the position of saying that we wish all of our brothers and sisters in this country the very best experience out of that. Let us hope and pray that there is no difficulty from which they cannot recover and that whatever assistance is needed will be meted out by all of us. Thank you, Madam Vice-President. [Desk thumping] Madam Vice-President, I know that on the issue of our time tonight, because of the occurrences, that I, out of courtesy, will curtail my positions to allow the hon. Senators of the Independent Bench to make a final contribution. May I say that I omitted to inform this honourable Senate that I was, in fact, quoting Sen. Wade Mark‟s contributions to the Senate on Tuesday, June 26th, 2007 when the 330 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] Senate commenced at 1.30 p.m. If I could return to that point in what was a near mid-flight for me and I am now starting from the ground, I was reading Sen. Mark‟s positions where he said, and forgive me if I am repeating: “…We have an ageing population and the Government should be trying to take care of those people. Instead, is this how you treat the elderly? You are telling them that you are going to take their pension; you are now going to give them a grant; and you would review this grant whenever you see it is necessary, and you could increase the grant or you could discontinue it.” But Sen. Mark goes further, Madam Vice-President. He says: “…this is a callous and cruel provision. It is an attack against the elderly in our country. We will go to every nook and cranny to educate the 90,000 to 100,000 elderly persons in this country on why they must vote out the PNM. This Government is heartless, callous and cruel to the elderly in our country.” Madam President, do you think that that came overnight? Those were Sen. Mark‟s words in the context of his contribution to the honourable Senate, specifically in relation to the provision which allowed for the variation of the grant, either upward, down or by way of abolition. What do we have featuring in section 2 of this Bill? Dressed in different clothing the wolf has come, not wearing white wool but black wool. It is a wolf disguising itself because it repeats the very same effect that the repealed sections 5 and 6 had and I dare say that it is disingenuous to trivialize the consequence of this provision, to reduce it to the power of a Minister, to remove the Parliament‟s ability to deal with it, and I say so, by way of affirmative resolution, putting in the time trap which a negative resolution bears and rolling it out to the people of this country as if it was all PNM rhetoric and bad legacy that we had inherited—sorry, that you have inherited— we, the Government, because we are all part of this, the citizens of this country that you have inherited and that you must now spend time in dealing with. Madam Vice-President, Sen. Mark said, and it is material to the observations on the Independent Bench tonight, further in this contribution: “…I am telling the Government today…” And I quote: “…that a UNC government will repeal this legislation and we will reintroduce old age pension. Further, we are going to have a benchmark for old age pension, a minimum of $3,000, and we are indexing that to inflation. This Government is mamaguying old people and the elderly, but we shall expose them.” 331 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. Mark‟s words. His ghost still sits in the chair which Ms. Beckles occupies because it is the very words that are haunting this Bench and that caused me to be evoked into action tonight. Dare I say all I need do is to read the entire debate from the Opposition Bench—no I would not do it [Laughter]—to hear the sentiments of “mamaguy” and “ol‟ talk”? Permit me one small reference further because it was not Sen. Mark in his flair and charisma alone. There was in a contribution that night the submissions of Dr. Jennifer Kernahan and Dr. Jennifer Kernahan was responding to the Minister Christine Kangaloo‟s point that the PNM Government‟s policy did not revolve only around the grant or the pension or the $2,500 as it became but that it involved all the social programmes which my good friend, the hon. Minister, Dr. Ramadharsingh, has already listed. The programmes are there. He acknowledged them and I thank him for his honesty in saying that good programmes were there. I am not concerned as to the paternity of those programmes per se. I am concerned about the moral rights to the citizens of our country in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the trap of hubris that I warned us that we should desist in pursuing. You see, if there is good policy we have to hold on to it. That is where I was shaken by Prof. Watson. It was his breath of fresh air, the young 58-year-old that he is, in telling this Senate honestly the position that the COP I am sure has and with which I am sure it will infect the UNC. It was in that position that I was shaken and I said perhaps I will not respond in the manner in which I intended or could have but let me read―and I promise to wrap up on this point or just after―Sen. Kernahan‟s position: “This Government is saying to us that they have the power to increase, decrease or abolish pensions. Pensions are socially accepted mechanisms to secure the livelihood, health and well-being of persons in this society. They said that they are able to do so at any point in time. I am glad they have said that tonight to the national community, that they have the power and they can exercise it at will.” Distinction, Madam Vice-President. The other side has not told us that, you know. It is an observation by us tonight that they can and it is an observation as to the timing when they introduced it and the trivialization of the effect of the provision which they introduced that the Opposition Bench and that the Independent Bench have echoed tonight. Not even, born out of the bowels of the UNC contribution in 2007, did anyone condescend to tell us the true effect of clause 2 of the proposed Bill. 332 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. AL-RAWI] She said, Dr. Kernahan, in describing in conclusion, that there were two prongs of attacks upon the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. In her latter prong she cautioned that: “„It is the law and we can do it at any time we want…‟” In speaking of the amendments then proposed. “…there is no sense of entitlement. We will give you what we want and if we want.‟” She cautioned on behalf of the citizens of this country the effect which, may I say, I think that the inclusion of the clause in the positive sense of a positive resolution with the tag-on to a money bill being as it is, that that should still reside in this Parliament. I would not go so far as to allow the People‟s Partnership to keep its promise because I think it is a dangerous one because it does not take account of the pension crisis or of the debt trap or of the experience amongst the “PIGS”, and by that I mean Portugal, et cetera, et cetera, Greece, Greece finding itself in the jaws of the IMF right now. I think that every Government has a responsibility to future generations, to allow caveats in the legislation to revisit it. 8.10 p.m. Certainly, history has shown us that there has been no downward degrade of any pension gift entitlement grant, but that is a good caution to keep. But I dare say with time trap existing as it is, the negative resolution aspect and the movement away from the Parliament into the hands of the Minister, is a negative step and that is one which I hoped that the Lower House would have addressed but, regrettably, it has not been addressed. Correct me if I am wrong and I am guided by you, Madam Vice-President, and those who assist you and amongst us all, if there was a possibility for that amendment, I would this evening insist upon it, because it is in the best interest of the future generations who are not blessed in the circumstances that we are now, who still can enjoy some degree of economic viability in the plantation economy that we have, as Sen. King has described it. But when the money is done, if ever it is so and we have not yet diversified as we all want to, we must at least allow them the caveat to come back and revisit the position, and for that reason I will keep it. Madam Vice-President, there is so much that I wish to contribute on. I hope that in the course of my tenure in this Parliament, I will have the ability to continue to be relevant if I can dare say that I have been. However, I wish to leave you with a concluding statement with a gentleman who sometimes oscillates in his position, but who I think in an epiphany which I must commend him for, in 333 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 his letter written to the Editor of the Trinidad Guardian, he wrote—and forgive me even though Sen. Hinds has said it—M. F. Rahman. Rahman and Rahim in Arabic, means compassion and mercy. He left us with the compassion and mercy in Arabic—on June 21, 2010 and I quote: "The campaign promise of the People's Partnership to abolish the PNM contrived 'Senior Citizen's Grant' (SCG) and to reinstate Old Age Pension (OAP) as an unqualified right for 60 year olds is now on the brink of revision that renders it a virtual clone of what it purports to replace. All it now appears to undertake is to increase the existing grant from the PNM's last minute $2,500 figure by $500"—on a sliding scale, as a ceiling my words. He ended his letter by saying: "Now it can be said that the PP made rash promises without understanding the art of finance, or that it deliberately lied to the electorate. The PP"—he said PP, but I say People's Partnership—"is advised to revisit this promise in an holistic context and to make good on its pledge. They can do it and will rise for their integrity and wisdom." I know that there are Members of integrity on that side. Please, step away from the hubris of coming here to trivialize a debate. You are more than that. I know you and believe you to be more than that. We are more than that. We promise to assist you in not making it too embarrassing an admission on your part because there is no embarrassment in admitting something for the benefit of our citizens. You will be complimented. You will set the standard for those to follow. I will hope to follow in your shoes. Sen. Hinds: It might be a little too late now. Sen. F. Al-Rawi: However, hon. Senators, it is late. I thank this honourable Senate for allowing me a small contribution. Thank you, Madam Vice-President. [Desk thumping] Sen. Prof. Harold Ramkissoon: Madam Vice-President, let me first congratulate you on your elevation, and my gratitude to you and fellow Senators for affording me this opportunity to make my inaugural contribution in this honourable Senate. [Desk thumping] My thanks also to the senior Senators and the parliamentary staff for making us feel comfortable; feel at home in this honourable Senate; and for providing some guidance to us. I must admit that being immersed in a different cultural environment and having to hit the ground running, could be somewhat daunting to some of us. 334 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON] Let me turn my attention to the Bill at hand. Apart from the negative resolution which I learned quite a bit about today, and which I think this Government has or should revisit, there are two basic changes suggested in the Bill. It seeks to amend the Senior Citizens' Grant Act by recommending the following: “Changing the title from the Senior Citizens' Grant Act to the Senior Citizens' Pension Act, and increasing the amount in a scaling manner.” Basically, it is looking at the semantics part of it, and the quantum part of the Bill. The Bill addresses an issue that affects in a positive way, over 70,000 senior citizens of our country who are financially burdened, and I think this is commendable. Ours is a country, sadly speaking, in which our heroes and elders who have helped build and shape this country are too often forgotten. Among them are some of our senior citizens who are now in their 80s and 90s, and to whom our fellow Senator, Danny Maharaj, so eloquently spoke, who have laboured in our fields and in our plantations, who have laboured in the oil sector of yesteryear, and these are the areas that contributed significantly to our economy then. Some of us know of their sacrifices, of their pains, of their hardships, because some of us worked alongside some of these people. With their unattractive income, it would have been difficult to raise a family, but some of them proceeded to raise families of 10-plus. Some of their daughters and sons are to be found in all walks of life, the medical, the legal, engineering professions, as agriculturists and educators. These senior citizens have in no small measure contributed to our national development. Today, Madam Vice-President, they watch with anxiety as their savings dwindle, fuelled by inflation and by the rising cost of basic food items. It is our responsibility as a society, to as far as possible help relieve them of that anxiety. The past Government must be given credit for providing free drugs through the CDAP programme, food assistance, and free travel on buses and on the sea bridge. We commend them for that. This current Government now wants to offer a helping hand, and to take it a bit further. Very few, if any, would oppose the proposal to increase the grant or pension. I now turn to the first part of this Bill. Amending this Bill from a Grant Act to a Pension Act is, in my humble view, more reflective of our recognition of the contribution of most of our senior citizens. The monthly sum given to them in my view is an earned entitlement for the rest of their lives, and not a favour that can 335 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 be terminated at any time. Pension which is the term commonly used in most countries, and which was the term originally used in Trinidad and Tobago, better captures this. As regards the second part of the Bill which deals with the quantum, this varies from $3,000 to $1,200, and I think now with the adjustment to $1,000. In nine of the 10 categories, the total maximum income—that is the personal plus pension—is $4,000. However, the first category is $3,500, and a minor question is: Why the difference? I have no problem with the quantum, although I must admit I am not sure of the rationale on which it was based. However, I wish to turn to some related matters. One of our well-known columnists in an article in one of our dailies titled: "Public Service Poor Relief", highlights the plight of the public service retirees, some of whom also served this country well. The two issues here are: 1. The benefit of some of these retirees is less than those proposed in this Bill. 2. Some of the retirees are receiving approximately the same benefits they received years ago. Let me give you an example of an individual that I happen to know. A former senior civil servant, who is 80 years of age today, is receiving approximately the same pension of $2,200 that he received at age 60. I believe it was increased by $150 on one occasion. There are others in worse situations. Admittedly, some receive NIS, but in a number of cases they do not add up to maximum $4,000 currently proposed for our senior citizens. These public service retirees who feel that the system has worked against them, my suggestion is that the Government ensures that all the public service retirees receive at least the same benefits as those proposed in this Bill. Another issue has to do with the pension age which was linked to retirement age, and our colleague, Sen. Prof Patrick Watson, dealt with this to some extent and talked about the ageing population. We do not quite have an ageing population as yet in Trinidad, but there is a lot we can learn from countries such as Japan, which is going through this process. I come back to this retirement age. Today with advances in medicine, people are living much longer, and mainly for this reason some countries have adjusted the retirement age. I believe in Germany it is now 67, hence the need, Madam Vice-President, for us to revisit this. Then there is the sensitive question of the minimum wage with which this Government has to deal at some point in time. 336 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON] The minimum wage apparently is $9 an hour. Someone doing a 40-hour work week will be earning $360, and if you calculate on that basis for one month to 30 days, it is approximately $1,500, and the question arises: Can a single parent, for example any individual, survive on $1,500 a month? Can they meet their basic requirements: rent, food, transportation, electricity? We also need to look at the bigger picture of creating a more just and equitable society, but one in which hard work and entrepreneurship are rewarded, and one in which we can teach people to fish and provide them with the skills that will enable them to survive in this highly competitive and globalized world. Societies in which there is a great disparity between the lowest income earners and the highest tend to be more violent, and we heard mention of this. A very recent BBC report stated that countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have the greatest inequality, and it is not by chance probably that we also have the highest crime rate. I crave your further indulgence to discuss a related issue concerning our senior citizens which needs to be addressed. Ours may be a fun loving society, but certainly not very caring society. Unlike the old civilizations of China and India, we do not seem to know how to deal and treat with the elderly who are pushed further and further to the periphery of our society. Those who interface with our senior citizens on a regular basis, from the public service must display a more caring and sensitive attitude to our elderly. Too often they have to queue for long periods of time seeking service, whether it is at our health centres, the immigration office, the airport, licensing office or at our banks, and too often they encounter indifferent and discourteous officials. Why, for example, can all banks not assign a special teller to deal with senior citizens? 8.25 p.m. Madam Vice-President, permit me to relate a very recent incident. One of our very well distinguished citizens who had served this country, not only well but, indeed, very well, went to his doctor who suggested that he got an electrocardiogram. So he proceeded to one of our health centres in July and was told to come back in December. How could you ask someone to come back in six months for something that could make the difference between life and death? That gentleman is a former Senator of this honourable House. I notice that the hon. Minister of Health is not here with us today, but I believe she really has her work cut out for her. I truly wish her well. I do hope that with her unique style she would succeed where others have failed. [Laughter] 337 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

I could go on and on, but I would just relate one more situation, an ordeal that a number of us could relate to. This experience has to do with the renewal of a driver's permit for persons over 65 years and has appeared in two of our newspapers recently. I now want to quote that well-known author, citizen Michael Williams: "Each year, the over 65s must: 1. Get special medical certificate form from Licensing; 2. Get a photo from photo studio for $20; 3. Attach that photo to the medical certificate form; 4. Take form with photo attached to Licensing for endorsement; 5. Go to a doctor and wait for one or two hours; 6. Undergo a medical exam; 7. Pay $160 for a doctor's medical certificate. So while my under-65 friend pays $500 for a five-year permit, my 'free annual permit costs me $180 each year, or over $540 over…” —a three-year period. [Interruption] Sen. Ali: Madam Vice-President, I would like to make a correction to what the Senator is saying. For your information, I renewed my permit last week and I am over 65, but you can now renew it for two years instead of one. That negates Michael Williams' letter. So this event is so much easier now, you can renew it for two years. Sen. Prof. H. Ramkissoon: Thank you, Senator. I was, in fact, going to mention that. I was going to say, before you interrupted me, that ordeal which was an annual event or an annual experience has now become a biennial experience. [Desk thumping] [Laughter] When I personally encountered this experience three years ago, I asked myself the obvious question: Why is it that some governments, particularly those in developing countries, make life so hard for its citizens? That is the question you ask yourself. That is a step in the right direction, moving it from one year to two years, but you still have to go through the various stages. I appeal to the Government of the day to persuade providers of service to put in place adequate arrangements to facilitate our senior citizens. 338 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON] In supporting this Bill it is my hope that some of the related issues raised would be addressed, some of the recommendations that came forth would be considered, that some of the advice would be heeded. In conclusion, I remind us all, and I think a couple people hinted to this, that a society is judged on the way it treats its most vulnerable: its children, the mentally challenged, the physically challenged and, yes, senior citizens like myself. Thank you. Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, allow me on your behalf to congratulate Sen. Prof. Ramkissoon on an enlightening contribution. Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson: Madam Vice-President, I will not be very long, but there are just a couple things I would like to respond to and to join with the many other Senators in indicating support for any measure that makes the lives, not just of our senior citizens, but by extension any other person in Trinidad and Tobago to have a better standard of living. Sen. Prof. Watson said that he went to the market regularly, but that he had not gone since the flood. I did go on Sunday and, very quickly, to say that the price of tomatoes is now over $20; cucumbers are $7 a pound. I took up two yams and one dasheen and that was $40. I felt for some callaloo and rolled bush is now $7, and I could go on. So we understand how difficult it must be for senior citizens and people in general; so this measure is an important one as much as we are all quite genuinely giving our criticisms or making our appropriate contributions. At the end of the day, I would indicate that having heard the contributions of most of the Senators, I think the debate has shifted from one, not so much about pensions, but really about issues of integrity and truth and morality. [Desk thumping] I have a little concern that—[Interruption] Sen. Bharath: I think she said that sarcastically. Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson: I am very serious; I will tell you why. I have a little concern, when we are not willing to accept that our manifesto is almost a policy document. I have a difficulty when we casually ignore certain statements that we put in our documents and that we do not seem to believe that Trinidadians and Tobagonians vote for us as politicians and take some of our promises very seriously. If this Government does not believe that many people took its promises and your manifesto very seriously, then the consequences of not believing that would probably show up, certainly if not in a short time, at some later time. 339 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

There is just one issue I am going to point out in the manifesto, because it has been read by several other persons, that is the one at page 41 which says that you are going to: “Remove all restrictions and qualifications for people to receive an Old Age Pension and thus every citizen will automatically receive a State-funded Old Age Pension upon the attainment of pensionable age.” That is extremely attractive and Sen. Ramquar, who is not here, made an excellent contribution. He probably gave all the reasons why a number of persons would have voted for what is stated here at page 41. He is a very good advocate and very knowledgeable about issues relating to pension. I was a former Minister of Social Development and it was very painful when persons came to you because some people went abroad for surgery and ended up staying by their mother or some family while they got better. Sometimes they stayed a little longer and when they come back they are told, "Well, you do not qualify for pension." The subjectivity of some officer which Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight referred—I am sure we all have family members who have gone for pension. As we said, you might have children abroad who have sent you a nice fridge and stove and people come to your house and feel that you have purchased them, but you have not purchased them, and immediately they decide, "Refused". The only difficulty I had with what Sen. Ramquar said was that he gave the impression that the refusal was because those officers were treating people a particular way because of the legacy left by the PNM, to imply that it could be that those persons are PNM officers. That is unfortunate, because all of us know that is not true. We have developed a culture in Trinidad and Tobago of pettiness and jealousy and that has nothing to do with politics. When he said that one of the things was that people go there and they are told, "Sit down, shut up," we know that is throughout the public service. That is not exclusive to Social Development; that is also in a lot of other areas, but there are a lot of public servants who do excellent work. We know that this issue of suggesting that it is a PNM legacy to tell people to shut up and so on, but very recently one of his colleagues was talking to their own people and told them to shut up. [Desk thumping] Hon. Senators: Ohh! Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson: So we cannot suggest that is a legacy of the PNM. I heard the hon. Minister of the People and Social Development talk about customer service, and not only that minister, but I know of other ministers, I think 340 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. BECKLES-ROBINSON] the Minister of Public Utilities, also talked about customer service. That is an area where we fall down in Trinidad and Tobago generally, across the board. [Desk thumping] That has nothing to do with PNM, UNC, NAR or the Partnership; we have to work at that. Sen. Ramquar also talked about the length of time you take and the losing of files; that has nothing to do with politics, that has to do with work ethics. If the Minister of the People and Social Development could deal with that or the Minister of National Security, any minister who could deal with the issue of customer service in Trinidad and Tobago, I am sure it will be to their credit, but we must never feel that is a political issue, because, in truth and in fact, it is not so. When you say that you remove all your criteria and it will be automatic, anybody would want to vote for that, because they know very well the distress and stress a lot of people go through, not just for pension, but for any social welfare, anything that you go for. When you listen to what people have to go through, you understand that it is not just about saying that people would get an increased pension; it is looking at the whole system. So people feel comfortable, not only that they are going to get a pension, but that those who are serving them are not doing them a favour. That is the bottom line. Too often when government passes legislation for people to get all kinds of different benefits, whether we are going simply for our driving permit, some people feel that they are doing you a favour. A right does not mean that it is guaranteed under the Constitution or in the legislation; it means you have worked for it, your parents have worked for it, your grandparents have worked for it, and it causes us little to do things with love and care, which we cannot legislate for. Hopefully we would get to the stage to understand true service. 8.40 p.m. That leads me to make my second point, because, you know, Sen. Prof. Watson was making a very interesting point—two important points. One was that we have to be careful as a society that we are not disposing of our people as we get to age 60. Because, you see, by suggesting that you are moving from 65 to 60, you are giving people the impression, well look, you could retire early. But when you do the cost benefit analysis, could we really, as a society, decide that everybody should go home at 60? And even if we decide that, what is the whole issue of the brain drain; the fact that that is the age at which some people are at their prime? He talked about former Justice Cross who, at 90, can still give you some of the best opinions and best advice. When I listened to him I am very clear in my 341 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 mind that the Government could have taken a different position and said, "Look, we are prepared to consider this." And I think that is what he was saying: "We are prepared to consider looking at going to 60; removing the criteria.” But you see your manifesto does not say that. It makes it absolutely clear that you will remove all restrictions and qualifications for people to receive an old age pension and, thus, every citizen will automatically receive a state funded old age pension upon the attainment of pensionable age. You cannot casually dismiss it. Now, a lot of us did not think it was true. I mean, we know that it was in the campaign rhetoric and the hype, that we say things and everyone would love that to happen. We know that in Canada and in many other parts of the world what is being said here by this Government, a lot of countries actually practise, so it is not that it is not possible, but the fact is that it takes time. You have to do a lot of planning; you have to probably do it at a time when your economy is at its best and a number of other things. But the fact is that this is not a practical provision having regard to a debate that we are going through now about the state of the economy. Even on their campaign trail they were saying already that the Treasury was empty. So if you knew then that the Treasury was empty and you said it at every opportunity, then how would you make such a promise on an empty Treasury? My last point, because I promised that I am not going to be too long, and that is the issue of what Sen. Ali spoke about. I know that a lot of it was not very relevant to the debate, but the point is that having regard to the fact that most of what he said pointed to my term in office as a Minister of Public Utilities, I would just ask your leave for a little latitude to respond. You see, because he indicated—and he was, in essence, talking about the whole concept of the debate on negative resolution, but his focus was not so much on that as it was on the issue of quarrying and the Certificate of Environmental Clearance. He indicated that he was not able to get the orders. I simply asked the Clerk—and I would say that the Parliament is very efficient—and I was able to get it in about 10 minutes. So I have the copies here with me which I would not want to read for the purpose of boring the Parliament. But the point is, it is there. Sen. Ali: Madam Vice-President, I just want to correct the hon. Senator. I did not say that I had difficulty in getting the orders. What I was speaking to about having difficulty was, in fact, the reports of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. That is what my problem was. I have those orders here all the time. Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson: So assuming that that is so, I would apologize. So that if you are dealing with the issue of the statutory instruments and you said 342 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. BECKLES-ROBINSON] that the then Sen. Dr. Saith got up and said in the Parliament that there was no objection by the Statutory Instruments Committee as it relates to those Certificates of Environmental Clearance, that is linked to my last point, you see, because Sen. Ali suggested that it was laid in July and in August and there probably was not time for the 40-day period for people to respond and then the budget came. Now, I want to use a very recent activity to establish my point, because he said he cannot remember getting certain documents, as I recall it. I do not know how many of you have in your possession two documents that were sent in the package today; if you have had time to read them. One is the Highways Act and one is minutes of the first meeting of the Senate Statutory Instruments Committee, first session. Did most people read this today? Several people do not know that it is in their package. Right? You do not know it is in your package. The reason I am using this is because that is almost identical to what he is speaking about. There are a few of us who sit on this same Statutory Instruments Committee and, Madam Vice-President, you sat today. Now the committee is so efficient that the minutes of that committee from 11.30 a.m. when we sat, and the regulations, are already in your package. That is what a lot of people do not know. Should I impute improper motives that the Government did that and put it in your package like a thief in the night? I have no reason to do that; absolutely no reason. But it makes the point. Because, you see, if you had not taken that package that you got this evening and went through it, then you would not know it exists. I am not imputing any improper motives, but what happened was that we received about three weeks ago, a letter that simply said, for those of us in the Statutory Instruments Committee: “If you have no objections, simply indicate.” Now, what it does is, it increases the fine from $250 to $3,000 for the Priority Bus Route users. Now, I am a lawyer by profession. You send me a letter and tell me if I do object, say. There is not any legislation; there is nothing. Now, I sat in the last Parliament so I was there for the debate and I have a little understanding of it, so that they indicated that they were going to call a meeting because I objected. Fine. So we had our meeting today; they brought the technical people from the Ministry of Works and Transport and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and explained it. And a similar thing would have happened for the Certificate of Environmental Clearance where a letter must have been sent to the person sitting on the Statutory Instruments Committee to do exactly what we did today. I said I objected. I wanted to know, because if you are moving from $250 to $3,000, I want to have an idea. So they explained. And an identical thing would have happened. 343 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

And lo and behold, having completed the meeting which was called at 11.30 a.m., it is in your package. Do you understand what I am saying? I have to clear it; it is important, because the fact is that the mechanism exists if you wish to object and the suggestion that there are times that as Members of Parliament we may not see it is, in truth and in fact, correct. For example, the Minister of the People and Social Development today, you are talking on your Bill; you are not reading anything else. You might as well as you might not. It is not that you are doing it deliberately, but you are paying attention to everybody else. But this is there in the package. So I just wanted to make the point—and it was just fortuitous that this happened today so it would just be a perfect explanation of what I just said. Thank you very much. [Desk thumping] Madam Vice-President: We have one more? Sen. Elton Prescott SC: Thank you, Madam Vice-President. As appears to be the custom, may I congratulate you on your having been elevated to sit in the position as acting President of the Senate today and extend my congratulations to all of my colleagues in the Senate whom I am now succeeding after hearing some very superb contributions today. I have been reading the Standing Orders mainly to educate myself and I have not seen a minimum speaking time in any of the regulations, so I assume that my promise to remain within five minutes today might either be by way of a record for the shortest inaugural speech, or if it is not, then at the very least the Standing Orders could be reflected onto so that a change could be brought about. I am happy that all the attorneys on all the sides are here, because I could get this wrong. May I invite the attention of the House to the amendment and to the new section 3? It appears as clause 2(d) in the Bill. A reading of it suggests to me that this could not be what the Government intended. It says: “With effect from 1st September, 2010 a person who satisfies the conditions specified in section 4…” And this is that part: “and receives a monthly income in the sum specified in the first column is entitled to a monthly Senior Citizens‟ Pension in the sum specified in the second column of the Schedule to this Act." So therefore if we go to the schedule, it would mean that a person who, having satisfied section 4, receives $1,650, to choose one example, will now get $2,200. I 344 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [SEN. PRESCOTT SC] am wondering if that is what was intended, that this person will receive a pension of $2,200 only. Or should I choose another example? If we go down to the very last of them, somebody who receives $2,800 will now be receiving a pension of $1,200. Is it intended that that person should have $1,200 or is it $4,000? Or is the ceiling of $3,000 applying to such a person? If, indeed, I have it wrong, I would be quite happy to hear a correction. If I am right, I would invite the Government to give some further consideration to the language of the Schedule. Thank you very much. [Desk thumping] Madam Vice-President: I would like to congratulate Sen. Elton Prescott SC for what is possibly the shortest contribution that I have ever heard. Congratulations on your maiden speech. [Desk thumping] I will now call on the Minister of the People and Social Development. [Desk thumping] The Minister of the People and Social Development (Hon. Dr. Glenn Ramadharsingh): Thank you very much, Madam President. At the outset, let me please congratulate all the Members here today who have made their inaugural speeches. I think it was quite a high level of debate and it has proved to be a very interesting session, albeit that we will have to curtail a bit some of the comments that I would have normally had. I wish to first inform you that the Government will not be proceeding with the list of amendments circulated today. I want to assure this august House that all the good intentions that were spoken about the elderly in the society, this People's Partnership Government, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, has the heart and passion to lift the lives of the senior citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. It came into power just over two months ago, this partnership, and it was faced with all the realities that you all are aware of. It had to confront not only the economic and financial realities that exist, but also it had a duty to deliver on the promises that were made in the campaign. I also wish to say that a manifesto is a vision that a government has for a country. It spells it out. But I also want to assure you that the manifesto of the People's Partnership is a document that came from many documents, of many partners. It was distilled and put together by some great minds and I see some of you hold it very dearly. It is very good reading. Therefore, it is a road map to a place that we want to take Trinidad and Tobago. Some statements in the document, for example—I am just pointing out very briefly because we have to give an overview—that life begins at 60, is not 345 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 really about pension reform as much as it is about saying that we do not see the elderly and we do not see ageing as a nonproductive state of human life. We say that life begins at 60 because we envision that our elderly people will get a new lease on life at age 60. 8.55 p.m. We will commandeer projects and programmes that will enliven them. When persons reach 60, they would begin to prepare for this time of their life when there will be challenges and the Government will be there for them. My good friend Sen. Al-Rawi, said we should not take parts of it. As much as you are accusing us of taking parts of it for our own purposes, you have to look at the thing as a whole document; a document vision and road map for Trinidad and Tobago. There is a lot that could be commented upon. A lot of things were said that were not very relevant and were very adversarial and we do not have the time to deal with those. I would try to deal more with the technical areas. I want to thank the Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate, Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson for dealing with the issue of the processes involved in a negative resolution and the transparency of the process that exists in the Parliament, so I would not have to delve too much into that. I would get to some other areas that troubled you, especially Sen. Corinne Baptiste-Mc Knight, who is a distinguished Senator and member of our society who has served for a very long time. These are the people like Sen. Ramkisoon and others, who have contributed to make this country what it is today. I want to go to section 3, which states that: “Any increase in the grant paid by the Board to any person eligible to have received the Senior Citizens‟ Grant from 1st May, 2010 to 31st August, 2010, is hereby validated.” This caused Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight some discomfort because she was asking why must she or other Senators approve an increase in a grant paid by the board; a blank cheque. The Senator enquired as to what were the particulars. The Senator is very right to do that. I find that to be a very fair question and we will answer those questions. What caused this is that a government decided to go into an election and decided it was a very good idea to raise the pension. They raised it from $1,950 to $2,500, as a maximum ceiling. They did this on May 01, 2010, with a Cabinet Note; only a Cabinet Note. It did not come under the 346 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010 [HON. DR. G. RAMADARSINGH] parliamentary scrutiny that some persons in the Lower Bench speak so “gillibly” about. Therefore, from the contributions I have heard, this is the wrong way to do things. [Interruption] Sen. Hinds: It is glibly. Hon. Dr. G. Ramadharsingh: Is it that we would want things to be done by a Cabinet Note, without the scrutiny of Parliament, without hearing the debate in the Parliament; the high level of debate where we can have a free flowing discussion and hear the poetry and tongue-in-cheek praises of the inaugural speeches of some of our young bright Senators? Is this not more what we would like to have? Therefore, that is why this Bill is called an Act to amendment the Senior Citizens‟ Grant Act, Chap. 32:02, to validate certain actions of the board. The board in this instance is the past government that was voted out in the last election. These increases were made just before the election and they were made without coming to the Parliament. Therefore, what we are doing is basically taking some bitter medicine for a disease that was suffered elsewhere. However, we intend to do the correct thing. We have come here with the intention—there were lots of criticisms. I find it very interesting that some parties go to election without manifestos, for example a local government manifesto for local government election. But they have problems with the ones who declare— the entire nation would like to see a copy. In fact, it might be interesting to see what their manifesto has. Maybe a lot of people saw the manifesto and that is why the results are what they are. We are committed to achieving what we have stated in the manifesto. I will not go into it all. Some of you know the manifesto very well and I encourage you to keep on reading. However, in 120 days we promised to raise the pension to $3,000 and we did it. In 120 days we say we are not comfortable with the word “grant”, which can be taken away, it is not a matter of the technical—you want to search in the legislation and confuse yourselves over a period of time. The plain simple fact is that you removed the word “pension”. We say put it back, give the people a pension and not a grant in Trinidad and Tobago; all persons over 65 years. We promised it and we did it and if necessary, we will continue to implement all the promises of the People‟s manifesto, because it is necessary for a better life for all our citizens in Trinidad and Tobago. I thank you and I beg to move. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a second time. 347 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate. Senate in committee. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2. Question proposed, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill. Madam Chairman: We have an amendment to be moved by Sen. Mc Knight. Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Madam Chairman, I would like to propose that clause 2(d)(i) be deleted. Sen. Ramlogan: We propose that the Bill remain as is. We feel that the inclusion of the negative resolution is one which allows for parliamentary oversight and sufficient parliamentary oversight. More so, we are fortified by the comments made by the Leader of Opposition Business, in that the conduct of parliamentary administration and business is quite efficient and it is included in packages for people to read and carry out their responsibilities. We ask that it be left as is and we will not support the proposed amendment for that reason. Question, on amendment, put and negatived. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Madam Chairman, please I am a little lost. I have a paper here that says there is an amendment to be moved by the hon. Minister of the People. Has the hon. Minister of the People changed his mind about this amendment? Madam Chairman: He withdrew his amendment. Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Is that the amendment with respect to exceeding $2,800, but not exceeding $3,000? Sen. Ramlogan: He has withdrawn that. Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight: He has withdrawn that amendment? Madam Chairman: It was indicated in his contribution in the wind up. 348 Senior Citizens’ Grant (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Okay, there we go. Question put and agreed to, That the Bill be reported to the Senate. Senate resumed. Bill reported, without amendment, read the third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT The Minister in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday): Madam Vice-President, I beg to move that this honourable Senate be adjourned to a date to be fixed; and may I take this opportunity to wish all Members during this period of time before the Senate returns, a pleasurable rest. Thank you. Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson: Madam Vice-President, may I join, please, with hon. Subhas Panday in wishing all my colleagues—I do not know if it fair to say a vacation, because I know that Ministers do not really have a vacation, as such. But at least, they would have the opportunity to do some things, you know, to have an extra day, whether it be Tuesday or Friday, to do some of your work. Let us hope that you would make that effort to find some time to have some kind of small vacation. As well to my colleagues on the Independent Benches, to you, Madam Vice-President, and also the staff of the Parliament. Just to say as well that I know there were some concerns earlier about the Caroni Bridge and flooding. Especially to my colleagues on the Government, Independent and Opposition Benches who live in San Fernando, just to hope that all is well. In saying so, I am sure I will join with my colleague, Minister Panday. I am sure you would have no objection with saying that we know over the last couple days, it has been very difficult for the entire country in terms of the weather; and certainly, on behalf of the entire Parliament, we want to wish everyone the safety and we understand that this time is very trying. And to all of those who are involved in helping—the Government, the NGOs, and all the other agencies—that they will continue to do the best job possible, so that our citizens can be safe. Thank you. Madam Vice-President: Hon. Senators, before I put the question, please allow me to add my own comments. I think at this time, what our country is experiencing forces us to remove our political hats for brief moments so that we may put on our national hats in the interest of those who are affected by the flooding and the disasters that have taken place. Certainly, the price of foodstuff is one thing, but we are dealing with children, the elderly, and I do have first-hand 349 Adjournment Tuesday, August 10, 2010 experience, as many of us, with people whose homes have simply been flooded and pushed away. Walls have been pushed out. There are some persons, especially in some of the affected areas, who have been under water since last week. So, again I ask, anything that you can do, please do so in the interest of the national community. Question put and agreed to. Senate adjourned accordingly. Adjourned at 9.14 p.m.