245 Leave of Absence Tuesday, May 21, 2013 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 21, 2013 The House met at 1.30 p.m. PRAYERS [MR. SPEAKER in the Chair] LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. Speaker: Hon Members, I have received communication from the hon. Nizam Baksh, Member of Parliament for Naparima. He is ill and he has asked to be excused from sittings of the House of Representatives during the period May 20—27, 2013. The leave which the Member seeks is granted. PAPERS LAID 1. Administrative Report of the Mayaro-Rio Claro Regional Corporation for the year 2009/2010. [The Minister of Local Government and Minister of Works and Infrastructure (Hon. Dr. Surujrattan Rambachan)] 2. Administrative Report of the Ministry of National Security for the year 2011. [The Minister of Housing, Land and Marine Affairs (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal)] 3. Administrative Report of the Ministry of Sport for the year 2011. [The Minister of Sport (Hon. Anil Roberts)] 4. Administrative Report of the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards and its subsidiary, Premier Quality Services Limited for the financial year ended September 30, 2011. [The Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance (Hon. Rudranath Indarsingh)] PRIME MINISTER AND GOVERNMENT OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN) [Second Day] Order read for resuming adjourned debate on question [May 20, 2013]: Be it resolved that this House confirms its loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. [Dr. K. Rowley] Question again proposed. 246 Loss of Confidence in the Government Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Mr. Speaker: The list of those who have spoken thus far: Dr. Keith Rowley, mover of the Motion, the Attorney General, Member for Port of Spain South, Member for D’Abadie/O’Meara, Member for Diego Martin Central, Member for Oropouche West and Member for Point Fortin. The Minister of Housing, Land and Marine Affairs (Hon. Dr. Roodal Moonilal): [Desk thumping] Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute on the Motion before this honourable House tabled in the name of the Member for Diego Martin West and Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I begin by stating that Motions such as these, because of the very character of the Motion and the fact that these Motions are special in the culture of Westminster, it is by practice incumbent upon governments to meet and confront these Motions in a timely manner. There are Motions, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, that will be placed on the Order Paper, qualify for Private Members’ Day or as a Government Motion, and may not be debated readily or may even be allowed to lapse on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I wanted to state that this Motion was received in the honourable House on May 07, 2013. The day the Motion qualifies for the Order Paper was yesterday, May 20, 2013. Yesterday was the first day this Motion qualified to get on the Order Paper. The Government decided to debate this Motion on the very day it qualified for the Order Paper. [Desk thumping] You see, Mr. Speaker, another government in another time, would have looked at this Motion, and, on the eve of acknowledging its third year in office, which this Motion is timed to appear on the Order Paper during the very week when the Government acknowledges three years in office—another government at another time would have sought to take this Motion and bury it on the Order Paper and debate it sometime next week, next month or possibly leave it right there for it to lapse. The Government led by the Member for Siparia took the decision that we will waste not one day more by confronting the issues on this Motion filed by no less person than the Leader of the Opposition. So, Mr. Speaker, we were eager to debate; we were eager to debate. We came to the House yesterday and the Government, but also members of the national community, came to the House, and there was high anticipation as to what would be the content of the argument filed by the Leader of the Opposition. You see, Mr. Speaker, these are Motions that are not taken lightly. When we did our research it demonstrates to us that over the last three years or so, we have had more Motions of no confidence filed than they had in the last 10 years or so. 247 Loss of Confidence in the Government Tuesday, May 21, 2013 You see, Mr. Speaker, these are serious matters. They are special and serious because they speak to the character of those identified; they speak to the conduct. In the normal course of debate, one cannot raise an issue that speaks to the conduct of a Member, but in this special debate you can. And so, Mr. Speaker, Oppositions throughout our political history have been very careful as to when they would file this Motion, when they believe that the moon, the stars and the planets are in alignment, and the moment has arrived when you can come to the House with this Motion with an exposé of one kind or another, and you will cripple the Government in office that will trigger either an election that is around the corner or will trigger an early election. But, Mr. Speaker, nothing prepared us for what we met yesterday, and if you would have seen the front pages of the newspapers today and you would have felt that I was looking shocked, I was [Laughter] because I sat here in awe with my mouth agape staring incomprehensively at the other side because I just could not believe that Parliament had reached that all-time low. Mr. Sharma: What a shame! [Desk thumping] Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal: I could not believe. [Desk thumping] I could not believe that we had reached a point where any Member of this House, far less the Leader of the Opposition, could have come to the House and seek to build a foundation on a matter of no confidence based upon a few pages of typewritten script purporting to be emails among persons in Government office. Mr. Speaker, it was a bewildering day. The country looked on and many of us, the majority of people, were astonished that that was the issue. 1.40 p.m. Mr. Speaker, when I read and when I studied this Motion, I asked myself— [Interruption] Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: We studied well. Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal:—which we spent enormous time in our caucus and so on, studying, reflecting and discussing—and when I looked at the Motion I looked at this Motion which stated: “Whereas”—the “actions”—of the Government—“under the leadership of the Prime Minister…attacked and conspired to undermine key institutions of State, namely: • The Judiciary; 248 Loss of Confidence in the Government Tuesday, May 21, 2013 [HON. DR. R. MOONILAL] • The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; • The Parliamentary Opposition;… • The Media” And it goes on to express lack of confidence. Mr. Speaker, I asked myself when we were preparing, what evidence is this? Where would the mover get the evidential support to bring a case that is meekly compelling? Where would you get it? Did we intervene to fire judges as they do in other countries? The Attorney General told us about some countries of the world where, by executive order, they dismissed Chief Justice and judges, and so on. Did we intervene in matters before the court so that we can be accused of perverting the course of justice? Mr. Speaker, did we discriminate against any public institution in a manner that is calculated to undermine their effectiveness? I looked again, I said, did we tamper with any matter before the DPP to arrive at a certain outcome?” When I saw the Opposition named here, I was even more bewildered. Mr. Speaker, you see, the Motion reads, if we extrapolate, that the Government attacked and undermined the parliamentary Opposition. Now, I would challenge anybody to find where in the world you have a similar Motion. How does a Government attack and undermine the parliamentary Opposition— [Interruption] Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: They are doing a good job themselves. Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal:—which is defined as a key institution of State—let us assume we do not want to debate that. Mr. Sharma: It does not obtain anywhere else. Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal: Yeah, it does not obtain, but let us assume we do not want to debate that—[Interruption] Mr. Roberts: But Lee Sing undermine “dem”. Hon. Dr. R. Moonilal:—but the parliamentary Opposition? Mr. Speaker, how ludicrous! Could you imagine if the Government files a government Motion that the Opposition is undermining the Government? [Laughter] But that is the role. In Westminster politics it is adversarial politics. Their job is to raise critical matters, and in a manner that they deem fit. That is their job. The Government’s job is to respond, and respond in a manner we deem fit. 249 Loss of Confidence in the Government Tuesday, May 21, 2013 You cannot accuse a Government of undermining the parliamentary Opposition. So I said, “no, no, the Opposition Leader would have his evidence to support this because he cannot in a frivolous, reckless manner state that. So there would be some evidence that the Government—Cabinet—used its power to deny resources to the Opposition, to fire workers in the constituency office, to undermine their preparation for debates and so on. Mr. Speaker, nothing was forthcoming.