19980116, house debates - friday january 16, 1998 · oral answers to questions friday, january 16,...

Leave of Absence Friday, January 16, 1998

709

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, January 16, 1998

The House met at 1.30 p.m.

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members I wish to advise that I have receivedcommunication from the Member for Ortoire/Mayaro, Mr. Razack Ali, who is illand has asked to be excused from today's sitting. He is excused.

GREETINGS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have also received correspondence from theClerk of the Tobago House of Assembly, dated December 21, 1997 which I shallread to you.

“Secretariat and Legal DivisionTobago House of Assembly,Jerningham Street,Scarborough,Tobago.

December 21, 1997

The Clerk,House of Representatives,Parliament Building,Red House,Port of Spain,TRINIDAD

Dear Madam,

The Tobago House of Assembly (1996—2000) at its Plenary Sitting(Sixteenth Meeting) held in the Tobago House of Assembly Chamber onThursday, December 18, 1997 by resolve, directed that the Season’s Greetings

Greetings Friday, January 16, 1998

710

for a Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year be extended to the hon.Speaker of the House of Representatives, and other Members of the House ofRepresentatives and their families.

Yours faithfully,

Acting Clerk of the Assembly”

This actually arrived on January 1, 1998 and it is the first opportunity I have had ofbringing this to the notice of hon. Members.

I am sure that hon. Members would wish me to reciprocate these greetings tothe Members of that Assembly.

SESSIONAL SELECT COMMITTEES(APPOINTMENT OF)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I also wish to announce the names of Membersof the Sessional Select Committees which are to be appointed by me in accordancewith Standing Order 71(2).

Standing Orders Committee

Mr. Hector McClean (Chairman)

Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj

Hon. Trevor Sudama

Hon. Mervyn Assam

Mr. Gordon Draper

Mr. Fitzgerald Hinds

Mr. Barendra Sinanan

House Committee

Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj (Chairman)

Dr. The Hon. Reeza Mohammed

Hon. Pamela Nicholson

Dr. The Hon. Rupert Griffith

Mr. Kenneth Valley

Mrs. Camille Robinson-Regis

Committee of Privileges Friday, January 16, 1998

711

Committee of Privileges


Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj

Hon. Ralph Maraj

Mr. Chandresh Sharma

Mrs. Camille Robinson-Regis

Mr. Martin Joseph

Regulations Committee


Hon. Harry Partap

Dr. The Hon. Vincent Lasse

Mr. Razack Ali

Mr. Jarrette Narine

Mr. Roger Boynes

STATE LAND(REGULARISATION OF TENURE) BILL

Bill to secure certain squatters from ejectment from State Land; to facilitate theacquisition of leasehold titles by both squatters and tenants in designated areas andto provide for the establishment of land settlement areas, [The Minister of Housingand Settlements]; read the first time.

PAPERS LAID

1. Report of the Auditor General on the accounts of the National MaintenanceTraining and Security Company Limited for the year ended December 31,1996. [The Attorney General (Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj)]

To be referred to the Public Accounts (Enterprises) Committee.

2. The 1996 Annual Report of the Environmental Management Authority.[Hon. R. L. Maharaj]

3. Report of the Auditor General on the accounts of the Public Library ofTrinidad for the year ended December 31, 1995. [Hon. R. L. Maharaj]

Papers Laid Friday, January 16, 1998

712

4. Report of the Auditor General on the accounts of the Public Library ofTrinidad for the year ended December 31, 1996. [Hon. R. L. Maharaj]

Papers 3 and 4 to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Attorney General (Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj): Mr. Speaker,the Government will be able to answer questions Nos. 1 and 4—8. We would liketo have a further two weeks to answer questions Nos. 2 and 3.

Question proposed.

The House divided: Ayes 16 Noes 12

AYES

Maharaj, Hon. R. L.

Persad-Bissessar, Hon. K.

Lasse, Dr. The Hon. V.

Humphrey, Hon. J.

Sudama, Hon. T.

Nicholson, Hon. P.

Rafeeq, Dr. The Hon. H.

Assam, Hon. M.

Singh, Hon. G.

Partap, Hon. H.

Mohammed, Dr. The Hon. R.

Singh, Hon. D.

Ramsaran, Hon. M.

Maraj, Hon. R.

Khan, Dr. F.

Sharma, Mr. C.

NOES

Valley, K.

Oral Answers to Questions Friday, January 16, 1998

713

Manning, P.

Rowley, Dr. K.

Imbert, I.

Robinson-Regis, Mrs. C.

Narine, J.

Hart, E.

James, Mrs. E.

Bereaux, H.

Joseph, M.

Sinanan, B.

Hinds, F.

Question agreed to.

The following questions stood on the Order Paper in the name of Dr. KeithRowley (Diego Martin West):

Caroni (1975) Limited(Professional Services)

2. (a) Would the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resourcesindicate whether any Member of the board of Caroni (1975) Limitedhas been engaged to provide professional services to the company?

(b) If so, would the Minister state the date on which the Board approvedthe engagement and the payment of these services?

(c) Would the Minister further state:

i. when was the board member so engaged?

ii. has he/she submitted a report?

iii. if so, on what date was the report submitted?

iv. the total cost to Caroni (1975) Limited for the services so engaged?

v. whether any Caroni (1975) Limited personnel and materialresources were utilised in the exercise?


714

State Enterprises(Board Members)

3. (a) Would the Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism state whetherany board members of the state enterprises, appointed since December1995, have themselves secured contracts with the state enterprises onwhose board they serve?

(b) Would the Minister indicate whether any such board members haveassumed posts in the state enterprises on whose Board they serve?

(c) If the answer is in the affirmative, could he give details of these andstate whether the positions were publicly advertised?

(d) If they were so advertised, would he state the total number ofunsuccessful applicants who responded to advertisements for eachposition which was subsequently filled by board members?

(e) Could the Minister give details of the remuneration packages involvedin each case?

Questions, by leave, deferred.

1.40 p.m.

La Mango Hard Surface Court

1. Mr. Eddie Hart (Tunapuna) asked the hon. Minister of Works andTransport:

(a) Is the Minister aware that work on the La Mango Hard Surface Courtsituated at Maracas, St. Joseph which was 80 per cent completed at theend of 1995, has since ceased?

(b) Would the Minister state:

(i) the reasons for the work stoppage;

(ii) whether there is any intention of resuming work on this court?

(c) If the answer to (b)(ii) is in the affirmative, can the Minister state thedate on which work is expected to resume?

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Sadiq Baksh): Mr.Speaker, the Minister of Works and Transport is aware that work on the LaMango Hard Surface Court has not restarted. This project has not yet been


715

restarted as the design was being reviewed to ensure that the facility was built toconform with the standards required by the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairsfor such facilities. Work on the court is expected to resume in 1998. A date for theresumption of work cannot be given at this time, but apart from the amendmentswhich are necessary to ensure conformity with standards, all that is left to be doneis the paving and installation of lights.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Police Record Statistics(Serious Crime Categories)

4. Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West) asked the hon. Minister of NationalSecurity:

Would the Minister provide comparative statistics from police records inrespect of all categories of serious crime for each year from 1994 to date?

The Minister of National Security (Sen. Brig. The Hon. JosephTheodore): Mr. Speaker, this honourable House is advised that the Trinidad andTobago Police Service has identified 45 criminal offences including murder,manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, narcotics offences and robbery as serious crimesin Trinidad and Tobago. Among these, property related crimes such as break-ins,robbery and larceny are the most prevalent.

According to available statistics, data from the Trinidad and Tobago PoliceService provide the total number of serious crimes reported to police stationsthroughout Trinidad and Tobago over the years 1994—1997, as follows:

1994 18,620

1995 16,783

1996 17,089

1997 16,812

The average detection rate over these four years stands at 24 per cent.

It should be noted that the detailed statistical data from police records inrespect of all categories of serious crimes consist of several packages. I have,therefore, asked the Clerk of the House to distribute a copy to each of the hon.Members.


Vide end of sitting for written part of the answer.


716

Coat of Arms and National Flag(Use of)

5. Mr. Fitzgerald Hinds (Laventille East/Morvant) asked the hon. Minister ofNational Security:

(a) Would the Minister advise whether and, if so, when his ministryapproved the use of the Coat of Arms and the National Flag oncopybooks bearing the party symbol of the UNC which were distributedto school children?

(b) If no such approval was granted, has any offence been committed anddoes the Minister intend to take any action?

The Minister of National Security (Sen. Brig. The Hon. JosephTheodore): Mr. Speaker, this honourable House is informed that no approval wasgranted by my ministry for the use of the Coat of Arms and the National Flag onthe copy books bearing the party symbol of the UNC which were distributed toschool children.

Part (b) of the question asked, whether in the circumstances mentioned, anoffence has been committed or not? It is the view of the Minister of NationalSecurity that the matter of determining whether or not an offence has beencommitted is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister ofNational Security has no intention of usurping the functions of the Director ofPublic Prosecutions in his constitutional role and duty. [Desk thumping]


Tunapuna Administrative Complex

6. Mr. Eddie Hart (Tunapuna) asked the hon. Minister of Works andTransport:

Would the Minister indicate:

(i) the date when the contract was awarded for the construction of theTunapuna Administrative Complex;

(ii) the date of commencement of construction;

(iii) the anticipated dates of completion and opening;

(iv) which departments of Government are to be accommodated in thecomplex?


717

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Sadiq Baksh): Mr.Speaker, the contract for the construction of the Tunapuna AdministrativeComplex was awarded by the Central Tenders Board on December 8, 1994. Thedate of commencement of the construction was October 2, 1995. The completiondates of the building were as follows:

practical completion on building works - June 20, 1997;

practical completion, fitting out - September 1, 1997;

original completion date - April 2, 1997.

Additional works are to be done on the west block which would house theTunapuna Magistrates’ Court in order to facilitate increased security. This work isexpected to be completed by the end of February, after which this block will beoccupied.

Occupation of the east block is expected to begin around January 26, 1998.Departments of Government which are to be accommodated at the complex are asfollows:

East block: Tunapuna Post Office; District Revenue Office, St GeorgeWest; Community Development Division; Town andCountry Planning Division, and Elections and BoundariesCommission.

West block: The Magistracy , Tunapuna Magistrates’ Court.


URP Construction Projects (1995)

7. Mr. Jarrette Narine (Arouca North) asked the hon. Minister of LocalGovernment:

Would the Minister indicate, by regions, the location of all the 1995 URP

construction projects which were discontinued and have not been resumed to date?

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Sadiq Baksh): Mr.Speaker, the Minister of Works and Transport wishes to advise that efforts arecontinuing to obtain a complete list of projects undertaken in 1995. This hasproved to be quite difficult because of the absence of proper recording systems.Information is available, however, for the years 1996 and 1997. As soon as the1995 information is obtained, the answer requested by the Member for AroucaNorth will be furnished. [Interruption]


718

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Sen. The Hon. S. Baksh: We wish to indicate, however, that a number ofprojects which were part of the 1995 Unemployment Relief Programme werecompleted in 1996 and 1997, some by the Ministry of Local Government, some bythe Ministry of Works and Transport and some still to be continued.


URP Projects (Progress Report)

8. Mr. Jarrette Narine asked the Minister of Local Government:

(a) Would the Minister indicate the total number of URP projects inprogress, by regions?

(b) Can he indicate:

(i) how many are construction projects;

(ii) how many are sanitation projects?

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Sadiq Baksh): Mr.Speaker, the 1998 Unemployment Relief Programme has not yet started, thereforeno project is in progress at this moment. However, the number of projectsundertaken, by regions, at the end of October, 1997 were as follows: Region 1, 54projects; Region 2, 87 projects; Region 3, 67 projects; Region 4, 72 projects;Region 5, 57 projects; Region 6, 61 projects; Region 7, 58 projects; Region 8, 46projects; Region 9, 195 projects.

The construction projects in the following regions: Region 1—Diego Martin,24 projects; Region 2—Upper Laventille Morvant, 43 projects; Region 3—Mt.Hope, 21 projects; Region 4—Mausica, 23 projects; Region 5—Sangre Grande,14 projects; Region 6—Couva, 42 projects; Region 7—San Fernando, 28 projects;Region 8—Fyzabad, 31 projects; Region 9—Lower Laventille, 53 projects.

The numbers of sanitation projects in the following regions are as follows:Region 1—30 projects; Region 2—44 projects, Region 3—46 projects; Region4—49 projects; Region 5—43 projects; Region 6—19 projects; Region 7—30projects, Region 8—15 projects; and Region 9—142 projects.



719

1.50 p.m.

Mr. Narine: Supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. From the information givenby the Minister of Works and Transport, about 75 per cent of the projects weresanitation projects. I would like to ask the Minister at this point in time, whether$200 million was spent on the programme last year, and if between 50 and 75 percent were sanitation projects, where was the money spent?

Hon. S. Baksh: Mr. Speaker, the programme was never $200 million. TheMember is misleading the House.

Mr. Narine: Some people not even paid as yet!

Mr. Speaker: Would you allow the question to be answered! You have statedcertain facts about $200 million and the Minister started answering.

Hon. S. Baksh: Mr. Speaker, the sum was not $200 million. A number of veryimportant enhancement programmes under the Unemployment Relief Programmetook place—our training programme and our women's programme—and, in fact,over 90,000 people were employed in the Unemployment Relief Programme. Inaddition to that, over 1,026 young people between the ages of 17 and 35 weretrained, and over 18,064 women participated in the Unemployment ReliefWomen’s Programme. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Manning: Supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. Ministerbe kind enough to let us know what the allocation to the Unemployment ReliefProgramme was last year, and what was the expenditure on the programme,including outstanding liabilities by December 31, 1997?

Hon. S. Baksh: Mr. Speaker, the original allocation for the UnemploymentRelief Programme for 1997 was $130 million. At the end of 1997, the expenditurewas $158 million, to accommodate the training programme and the women'sprogramme.

Mr. Manning: Does that fully account for all the bills? In other words, haveall the bills incurred in 1997 been paid, or are there outstanding bills and, if so, towhat quantity?

Hon. S. Baksh: Mr. Speaker, I would not be in a position to answer at thistime. [Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Minister’s Retraction Friday, January 16, 1998

720

MINISTER’S RETRACTION(KEN SOODHOO’S APPOINTMENT)

The Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism (Sen. The Hon. BrianKuei Tung): Mr. Speaker, you will recall that at the last sitting of this honourableHouse on Friday, January 2, 1998, I said that Mr. Soodhoo had responded to anadvertisement put out by the Trinidad and Tobago National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited (NP) when I was winding up the debate on the ProvisionalCollection of Taxes Order, 1998. At the time I made the statement I believed it tobe true, but I have since learnt that there was no advertisement put out by NP. Itherefore withdraw my statement in order to set the record straight.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF PROGRAMME

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Sadiq Baksh): Mr.Speaker, I rise to make a brief statement on the status of the Unemployment ReliefProgramme (URP) as at December 31, 1997. It became obvious a long time agothat while the Unemployment Relief Programme has accomplished significant andbeneficial changes in its scope and role within the country, the micro-managementof the URP’s many and varied programmes and projects at the national level wasbecoming increasingly impracticable.

The training components of the URP, including the very valuable programmefor the empowerment of women, were successful. However, the areas of projectmanagement, the hiring of workers, and the auditing of work completed in relationto paysheet claims, increasingly led to severe difficulties for the ministry’s humanresources. As a consequence of this, it was considered necessary and advisable thatthe Unemployment Relief Programme be transferred to the Ministry of LocalGovernment. It was, therefore, assigned to the Ministry of Local Government witheffect from January 1, 1998.

There are a number of advantages to this decision. The Ministry of LocalGovernment is in the ideal position to allocate funds on a more equitable basis, andin direct relation to the specific needs of the municipal and regional corporations.In addition, the municipal and regional corporations possess adequate staffresources to micro-manage the expenditure of the URP, and to more effectivelymonitor on-site programme implementation. We look forward to greaterproductivity in the URP, and to closer linkage between the funds dispersed and thespecific needs of local communities. I am confident that in the short-term and in

Unemployment Relief Programme Friday, January 16, 1998

721

the longer term, the wisdom and benefits of the operations of the URP, through theMinistry of Local Government, will become abundantly evident.

Mr. Bereaux: You recover now! You could talk.

Hon. S. Baksh: Mr. Speaker, let me now clarify the position regarding thecentral management of the URP. The status of all URP officers was that the periodof their employment ended on December 31, 1997. However, in the case of Mr.Arnim Smith, it was necessary that his services be retained beyond that period inthe Ministry of Works and Transport. Mr. Smith has been assigned theresponsibility for resolving all matters including wage claims outstanding at the endof last year.

If you permit me, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express myregret over the embarrassment to which Mr. Smith has been exposed with regardto the current issue surrounding the position of Programme Manager of the URP.

Hon. Member: Some people have still not received their money forChristmas.

Hon. S. Baksh: I may add that Mr. Smith has proven to be effective in copingwith the challenges of this very sensitive position. He continues to be responsiblewithin the Ministry of Works and Transport for ensuring a smooth transition fromthe Ministry of Works and Transport to the Ministry of Local Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I am appealing to you, a statement was beingmade by the Minister and we kept getting all sorts of comments which were notsuitable and which were interfering with the CAT reporter—the Hansard reporter.I appeal to you that we should conduct the business of the House with a little moredecorum.

Dr. Rowley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: On this topic? No.

Dr. Rowley: Just for clarification.

Mr. Speaker: On the statement? Outside, afterwards.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (DISHONOURED CHEQUES) BILL

Order for second reading read.

The Attorney General (Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj): Mr. Speaker, Ibeg to move,

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998[HON. R. L. MAHARAJ]

722

That a Bill to reform the law relating to dishonoured cheques and similarnegotiable instruments be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is to remedy some deficiencies which existin the law, insofar as dishonoured cheques are concerned. It is intended by this Billto prosecute on a summary basis, any person who utters or passes a cheque on anon-existing account, an account with no funds, or an account with insufficientfunds, or a person who has no credit facilities to cover the cheque, person orbusiness institution.

2.00 p.m.

The Bill attempts to provide a mechanism for compensation by an order ofrestitution in favour of any person who has been adversely affected by thepresentment of the dishonoured cheque.

Mr. Speaker, the existence or proliferation of bounced cheques in ourcountry—bounced cheques are cheques which are drawn on a banker andsubsequently dishonoured on presentment—has, for a long time, plagued thebusiness community in Trinidad and Tobago. For some years now, the LawCommission has been doing some research on the matter, but over the last twoyears since this administration took office, there have been representations made toit from the Chamber of Commerce and through the Ministry of Trade and Industry.The Minister of Trade and Industry has, in this matter, requested and maderepresentations to the Attorney General, who then got the Law Commission tostudy this issue, have the necessary consultations, and then Cabinet took a decisionin respect of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, and as you will know from your experiences—not only as an individual in Trinidad and Tobago, but also in the capacity as alawyer—a cheque may be dishonoured because the drawer has no account,because the account has no funds or has insufficient funds, or that there is noapproved facility to cover the account. Against the background of a growingeconomy in Trinidad and Tobago, fierce competition among business persons,coupled with the easy availability, at times, of bank and credit cards, and havingconsumers as well as unscrupulous businessmen, there has been an abuse of theuse of the process of the payment by cheque. Millions of dollars are lost each yeardue to the fact that goods and services are obtained by the use of dishonouredcheques and also by the fraudulent use of bank and credit cards.

May I say at the outset, that this Bill does not intend to remedy all thedeficiencies which exist as a result of the use of cheques or credit cards, or in any

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998

723

way attempt to deal with the computer frauds which exist, and with reforms of theLarceny Act of 1916. This is a measure to deal with this particular problem, butmay I say that the Law Commission is in the process of considering all aspects ofmatters relating to fraud committed by the use of credit cards, computer frauds andreform of the Larceny Act of 1916.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the law which governs Trinidad and Tobago inrespect of larceny, obtaining by false pretences and matters relating to dishonestyare covered by an Act which was passed in 1916. That Act was copied from theUnited Kingdom and there has been no reform of it, although in the UnitedKingdom there has been reform of the Theft Act and other pieces of legislation.This administration is in the process of looking at this Act and at these matters,and in due course announcements will be made and the relevant legislation will bepresented to Parliament.

The increased incidences of the issue of cheques which are dishonoured uponpresentment have resulted in the business sector making representations that theissue of bounced cheques should be made a criminal offence, but there should alsobe some sort of provision for restitution and for there to be a balance in order togive people the opportunity to pay the amount of money which is mentioned ontheir cheques within a particular time. One would see that from the provisions ofthe Bill. I will mention clause 7(2) of the Bill which states:

“A person who obtains property or services by uttering a dishonouredcheque may be prosecuted immediately under this Act or any other law if at thedate of the utterance he—

(a) knew he did not have sufficient funds in his account and was incapable offunding the account within ten days from the date of the utterance; or

(b) did not have an account with the drawee.”

So apart from creating a criminal offence, it does provide a defence that within10 days these sums of money are paid. The Bill will amend the law by making thepresentment of a cheque which is dishonoured a criminal offence, unless thepresenter of the cheque can establish a reasonable belief that at the time he wrotethe cheque there were sufficient funds in the account which would enable thecheque to be honoured.

In Trinidad and Tobago there is no specific offence under the existing law ofpassing or using a bad or dishonoured cheque. The Bills of Exchange Act, Chap.82:31, section 47, provides that when a Bill is dishonoured by nonpayment, an


724

immediate right of recourse against the drawer and endorser accrues to the holder.This Act, however, does not address the problems created by the issuing ofcheques for which there are no funds or those issued on non-existent accounts. Ifone issues a cheque on a non-existent account, prosecution can be resorted to. Inthe past prosecution has been resorted to under the Larceny Act for obtaining byfalse pretences, but the decided cases show that there are some difficulties inestablishing guilt under the existing law because that law was passed in 1916.Section 34(1) of the Larceny Act states as follows:

"Any person who, by any false pretence, with intent to defraud, obtainsfrom any other person any chattel, money, or valuable security, or causes orprocures any money to be paid, or any chattel or valuable security to bedelivered, to himself or to any other person for the use or benefit or on accountof himself or any other person, is liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Although that is the law, in order for a prosecution to succeed, the prosecutionmust prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s or the accused’sintent was dishonest and a deliberate act.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened from the decided cases is, if, for example, anaccused person says that he thought the account was open, he had giveninstructions for an account to be opened, he was under the impression the accountwas opened and he had filled out the necessary forms, it would mean that it raisedan issue as to whether there was intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.10 p.m.

Therefore, for that and other reasons there has been some difficulty in gettingconvictions for false pretences where there were bounced cheques under the law asit exists.

Mr. Speaker, at this time under the existing law, when a bounced cheque ispresented, that person has an immediate right to sue for recovery under the civillaw and also to make a complaint to the police for the action to be prosecuted. Ihave already mentioned some of the difficulties existing with the prosecution ofthis matter. In respect of the civil claim, one knows that there are delays in thesystem, and the person in whose favour the cheque is made has to be subjected togreat delays in order to get compensation.

What this Bill attempts to do is provide some mechanism whereby there wouldbe criminal sanctions in respect of any such act, but there would also be someavenue wherein if cheques are so written the persons who write the cheques, if for


725

some reason the moneys were not there to pay the amount, there would be someperiod of time to pay, in order to show that there was this good intention. Oneknows that a prosecution cannot be completed in 10 days, therefore, although itmakes it an offence, it does provide a defence if it is shown that the person had theintention. That is to say, he did some other thing which shows that he had theintention, perhaps he thought the money was there, but as soon as he found out itwas not, he actually paid within 10 days or made arrangement for it to be paid.

In the United Kingdom, this aspect of the Larceny Act which we have to coverthese matters was corrected by introducing an offence of deception. Thus, underthe English law, the Theft Act of 1996, persons who write bounced cheques, areprosecuted.

Under the present circumstances the business community and other membersof community are being put at risk by the prevalence of bounced cheques. It isquite clear that the present law is not adequate to deal with the situation, apartfrom the difficulties in prosecution and obtaining quick relief in the civil courts.Therefore, there is a great injustice against persons in whose favour these chequesare written and who are met by inadequate funds or no funds in the account.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this to demonstrate some of the difficulties that wehave under the present law. I mentioned a short while ago about a defendantsaying—if he did not have an account at the time—as part of his defence, that hewas taking steps to open an account. Another defence used in the court is, theperson honestly thought that there were funds in the account. Therefore, if Mr. "A"today writes a cheque for a certain sum of money in favour of Mr. "B" and forsome reason it bounces, if he is prosecuted, and believes that at the time he wrotethe cheque there were sufficient funds in the account and that was the way inwhich he saw it, he could go to court if he is charged and put forward the defencethat at the time he wrote the cheque he honestly thought there were funds in theaccount. Where you have under the existing law a requirement that that intent hadto be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if there is doubt in the mind of themagistrate or the jury, it would mean one would not be able to establish thatingredient.

It has also been advocated when a person is charged that he had overdraftfacilities. This presents a problem because the person could say he has an overdraftfacility and the bank would pay the cheque under that facility. There could also bethe case where a cheque had been deposited and the person was of the view that itwould be honoured, but in truth and in fact, that cheque was dishonoured. These


726

are some of the difficulties in establishing the offence because the person would beunder the belief that he had sufficient funds. In most of these cases it has beenabused.

What we are trying to do in this Bill is to remedy some of these matters butstill provide a person who is affected or a person who would have written such acheque, with a way of establishing that he had the intention and to show that hehad this intention, by paying the sum of money, if it was not paid within the time.

Mr. Speaker, before I go to the actual provisions of the Bill, I would say thatthese reforms we are putting forward today have occurred in other parts of theworld. I already spoke about the United Kingdom. In their Theft Act they haveintroduced measures to deal with the question of bounced cheques. Australia, in1986, passed an Act relating to cheques and other certain negotiable instrumentsto deal with a similar kind of problem. They have used a new law to protectpersons deprived of their moneys and to penalize offenders.

In the Canadian Criminal Code, section 320, there are similar provisions inorder to provide relief for persons who have been defrauded as a result of bouncedcheques.

I found it very interesting that in the French position they have taken it veryseriously. The mere fact of writing a bad cheque is regarded as a criminal offence.They have dealt with a cheque as a if it is money and have laws which forced oneFrench commentator to say:

"Perhaps such sanctions will finally bring users of cheques to realize that to payone’s creditors with a "bad" cheque is to defraud him because to issue a 'bad'cheque is like issuing counterfeit currency, a thing which is serious both fromthe moral and economic point of view."

Thus, what this Bill tries to do is reform the law to create an offence which wouldbe easy to establish, but also provide available defences for a person who acts ingood faith.

We have had the benefit of representation and comments from the businesscommunity in relation to the formulation of this Bill and in relation to the Bill itselfwhen it was drafted. The Chamber of Commerce has written to us since this Billwas published and we have had discussions with them.

As I go through the Bill I would mention some of the matters we will take onboard in relation to it. Clause 2 of the Bill is the definition section. In effect, it


727

defines what a cheque is but excludes a post-dated cheque in respect to the time ofutterance. I would say at the outset, there are instances—and I understand in thebusiness community as well—where many people give post-dated cheques. Thequestion which would arise is: When a cheque is post-dated, obviously to aparticular date, when that date comes if the drawer does not have funds in theaccount, should he or she be exempted from the provisions of this Bill?

2.20 p.m.

As a result of the representation made to us, we have decided that we aregoing to amend this definition section to include a situation where in relation to apost-dated cheque it will be made quite clear that when that date comes, if thereare no funds in the account the provisions of this Bill will apply to the cheque.Therefore, it would cover situations where persons who give post-dated chequesdo not have moneys in their account at the time when the cheque becomeseffective.

Mr. Speaker, it defines what a dishonoured cheque is. “Dishonoured cheque”means a cheque which cannot be covered because of insufficient funds. We knowwhat a drawee is but it defines what a drawee is. In most cases a drawee would bethe bank or the financial institutions. A drawer is the person whose name appearson the cheque and it covers a situation where the signature is of the person himselfor someone signing on his behalf. It defines what funds are and it definesrepresentative drawer because there are instances where a person would sign in arepresentative capacity so it covers that. It says:

“(2) A drawer has “insufficient funds” with a drawee to cover a cheque whenthe drawer has:

(a) no account;

(b) no funds in the account;

(c) an amount of funds less than that needed to cover the cheque; or

(d) no credit facilities to cover the cheque.”

Mr. Speaker, there is an expression when one “passes” a cheque:

(3) A person “passes” a cheque when, as a payee, holder or bearer of acheque which has been or purports to have been drawn and uttered byanother person, he delivers it, for a purpose other than collection, to athird person who thereby acquires a right with respect to the cheque.”


728

One knows that in most cases a person would write the cheque in favour of anindividual and that cheque sometimes can also be passed on to another individual,endorsed or otherwise:

“(4) A person “utters” a cheque when, as a drawer or representative drawer,he delivers it or causes it to be delivered to a person who therebyacquires a right against the drawer with respect to the cheque, andanyone who draws a cheque with the intention that it shall be delivered, isdeemed to have uttered it, if it is delivered.”

Mr. Speaker, one can have a cheque but having a cheque which may bounce is notgoing to do any damage. It is when one presents or utters it and therefore theclause defines when the uttering of the cheque takes place. When as a drawer hedelivers the cheque or he causes it to be delivered to a person, that is when oneutters the cheque.

Mr. Speaker, clause 3 of the Bill is where the offence is created:

“3. (1) A person commits an offence when he obtains property or services byuse of a dishonoured cheque.”

In other words, if one has a bounced cheque and one does not present that chequethere is no adverse effects. If it does not affect property or services then nodamage is done. The person commits an offence if he obtains some benefit,property or service as a result of the use of the dishonoured cheque. Clause 3 goeson to state that:

“3. (2) A person obtains property or services by use of a dishonoured chequewhen—

(a) as a drawer or representative drawer—

(i) he obtains property or services by uttering a chequeknowing that he or his principal, as the case may be, hasinsufficient funds with the drawee to cover it and otheroutstanding cheques;”

If I may explain that part, Mr. Speaker, the person who writes the cheque, if atthe time he knew that he or his principal did not have sufficient funds to cover thatcheque and other cheques which may have been written on the account;

“(ii) he believes that at the time of utterance payment may berefused by the drawee upon presentation;”


729

Therefore, if he has any doubts whatsoever that payments would be made, inaddition to what is mentioned in (i) and:

“(iii) payment is refused by the drawee upon the presentation;”

Those are the three ingredients of the offence, Mr. Speaker.

It then explains, as a representative drawer, the ingredients, they are the sameingredients.

In clause 3 (2)(c) it deals with the situation where a person may write a chequebut may stop the cheque or countermand his instructions in writing the cheque. Itsays:

“3. (2) A person obtains property or services by use of a dishonoured chequewhen—

(c) as a drawer or representative drawer, he obtains property orservices by uttering a cheque knowing that he or his principal,as the case may be, at the time of the utterance, intends, withoutthe consent of the payee, to stop or countermand the paymentof the cheque, or otherwise to cause the drawee to disregard ordishonour the cheque, and payment is refused by the draweeupon presentation;”

Mr. Speaker, if someone is writing a cheque but one knows that the cheque isgoing to be stopped and he is aware that he is merely writing it in order to fool theperson, that would constitute an offence. If one looks at clause 4, subclause (4)one sees that under presumption it provides a way in which to regard as primafacie proof of the intent in that kind of situation:

“4. (4) Where a drawer or representative drawer, without the consent of thepayee...”

That is the person to whom the cheque is written,

“stopped or countermanded the payment of the cheque, or otherwise causedthe drawee to disregard or dishonour the cheque, and failed to return or tenderthe return of the property obtained or the value of services rendered by thepayee it shall be prima facie proof that the drawer or representative drawerhad the intention to stop or countermand payment or otherwise cause thedrawee to disregard or dishonour the cheque at the time of its utterance.”


730

One sees that the law provides that there will be a prima facie proof of theperson’s intent.

I go back to clause 3, subclause (3)(2)(d):

“he obtains property or services by passing a cheque knowing that payment ofthe cheque has been stopped or countermanded, or the drawee of the chequemay disregard or dishonour the cheque, and payment is refused by the draweeupon presentation.”

Subclause (c) deals with where he knows of the intention and (d) deals with thesituation where it has been stopped or countermanded and clause 4(4) wouldprovide the prima facie proof in respect of clause 3(2)(c) and (d).

Clause 4 of the Bill deals with presumption. Although I had dealt with part ofclause 4, it demonstrates, in some way, how it would not be difficult to prosecutein matters like these in situations where people have really given bounced cheques,if I use that expression. Clause 4(1) states:

"When the drawer of a cheque has insufficient funds with the drawee to coverit and any other outstanding cheques at the time of the utterance, the drawer orrepresentative drawer, as the case may be, is presumed to know of theinsufficiency."

2.30 p.m.

So if when the person writes the cheque, he knows that when it is going to bepresented, he would not have sufficient funds to cover that cheque, or he knowsthat it would not have sufficient funds at the time of the utterance, he is presumedto know that there are insufficient funds. That is a presumption in law by this Bill.

Secondly, under clause 4(2):

"A drawer or representative drawer, as the case may be, of a dishonouredcheque is presumed to have intended or believed the cheque would bedishonoured upon presentation by a person..."

And it has here "when", but there will be an amendment to "if".

"...if—

(a) the drawer or representative drawer had insufficient funds with thedrawee at the time of the utterance to cover it and any otheroutstanding cheques;


731

(b) the person presented the cheque to the drawee for payment not morethan thirty days after the date of the utterance; and

(c) the drawer or representative drawer had insufficient funds with thedrawee at the time of the presentation."

Mr. Speaker, may I say, at this time, that clause 4(2)(b) has given greatdifficulties, in the sense that on the one hand, it was the intention to provide abreathing space of 30 days, but on the other hand, there is the contention that this30 days may defeat the effect of the presumption.

May I say that there have been representations made by the Trinidad andTobago Chamber of Commerce in respect of this clause and after discussions andlooking at it, we are minded to delete clause 4(2)(b), because one can see that itwill present difficulties. But, obviously, we will await the views of the Oppositionon that matter. But we are minded to delete that. The Chamber of Commerce andother aspects of the business community are very strong in that this could producesome difficulty, so that we are minded to do that and we await your views on it.

Mr. Speaker, clause 4(3) states:

"Where a cheque is dishonoured because of insufficient funds, the drawee mayprove the dishonour by the introduction in evidence of a notice, or protest ofthe dishonoured cheque, or of a certificate under oath of an authorisedrepresentative of the drawee declaring the dishonour, and this proof shallconstitute prima facie proof that the cheque is a dishonoured cheque."

What this subclause does is provide a way in which it can be proven that therehas been evidence of a dishonoured cheque, a prima facie proof. Normally, itwould be a notice or a protest from the institution—the bank—and it would beregarded as prima facie proof.

One of the representations made to us is that if this clause is going to give tothe drawee, declaring this as prima facie proof, then there may be somemechanism to ensure that the institution or the drawee would be careful and thereshould be some sanctions in relation to this matter. As a matter of fact, if I maysay, the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Commerce represented to us andrecommended that we should consider adding a section in which there would besome sanction—it may not be imprisonment, but some financial sanction—againstan institution which acts recklessly in producing such a certificate. We haveconsidered that and we are minded to include such a clause in order to protectpersons who write cheques.


732

So, I wish to give notice that at the committee stage we would move anamendment to include such a subclause.

Mr. Speaker, clause 5 is the penalty section and it says:

"A person who commits an offence under section 3 is liable on summaryconviction to a fine in an amount equivalent to ten times the value of thecheque and to imprisonment for five years."

This may sound harsh, but we have had discussions on this matter; there weregreater penalties recommended and this is what we came up with. As a matter offact, I should say that the Chamber of Commerce is in agreement with this clause.The only aspect of it the Chamber wanted to ensure was that there must be theoption of imposing a fine or imprisonment. Our response to that—and I couldprobably say what the response is immediately—is that under section 68 of theInterpretation Act, it is covered. Under penalties section 68(3) says:

"Where in any written law more than one penalty linked by the word ‘and’ isprescribed for an offence, this shall be construed to mean that the penalties maybe imposed alternatively or cumulatively."

I have been advised, too, that this does not present a problem in that regardand I must say that in my discussions with the Chamber, it has accepted that.

Clause 6 of the Bill provides ways in which there can be restitution. There is anerror in the typing of clause 6, it is not “restoration”, it is “restitution”. In my Bill,there is “restoration”; it is “restitution”; the marginal note has “restitution”.

"In addition to the penalties referred to in section 5, the court may—

(a) order the restitution of any property which has been obtained by thedishonoured cheque and has been recovered from the defendant oranother, or which is in the defendant’s possession or control;”

So one sees that the criminal court is being given the power to order restitution togive justice to the person who is defrauded and:

“(b) order restitution of the value of any property or services which have beenobtained by the dishonoured cheque.”

So it can order restitution of any property and can order restitution in the value ofwhatever has been effected.

“(2) Where the court makes an order under subsection (1), payment may bemade—


733

(a) to any person having an interest in the property or to the personwho provided the services; and

(b) to the extent that—

(i) the property is not fully restored; or

(ii) full compensation has not been provided for the services."

So one sees the wide powers given to the court to meet the justice of anyparticular situation to order restitution.

Mr. Speaker, clause 7(1) says:

“Where a person obtains property or services by uttering or passing a chequeand the uttering or passing is not accompanied by any false representationsother than a false representation that there are sufficient funds to his credit withthe drawee to cover the cheque, he may not be prosecuted under this Act if hemakes satisfactory arrangements with a bank to honour the cheque within tendays of the dishonour, and no prosecution shall be commenced...until theexpiration of that period of ten days.”

What it does really is give a 10-day grace in any case in which a person wouldhave written a cheque and did not have sufficient funds in their account, but itmakes it quite clear that the only representation which this kind of defence wouldcover, is representation that there were sufficient funds in the account. It wouldnot apply to where people make any other false representation which may beprosecuted under the ordinary law of fraud; it only deals with representation inrelation to the account.

May I say that the Law Commission, in looking at legislation of othercountries—there are several other countries including the United States ofAmerica, some states of the United States of America, including Commonwealthcountries which have gone this route with this kind of legislation—what it doesreally is that it recognizes that in any case, a case cannot be decided within 10 daysand it gives a 10-day period if, for some reason, sufficient funds were not in theaccount in order for that to be redressed; so it provides a defence.

2.40 p.m.

May I say that in relation to this clause, there has been a criticism by theChamber of Industry and Commerce and representations that the Governmentshould consider an amendment. It was really an oversight, in that clause 7 deals


734

with arrangements made with a bank to honour the cheque, but it must also includecases where the moneys are paid in cash to the payee of the amount of thedishonoured cheque. That situation would also be covered and there would be anamendment to cover that situation.

Clause 7(2) states:

“A person who obtains property or services by uttering a dishonoured chequemay be prosecuted immediately under this Act or any other law if at the date ofthe utterance he—

(a) knew he did not have sufficient funds in his account and was incapable offunding the account within ten days from the date of the utterance; or

(b) did not have an account with the drawee.”

That speaks for itself, in that if a person has done that, he would beprosecuted. I should, for the sake of completeness, say that we have been able toaccommodate all the suggestions we received on this Bill with the exception ofone, which was the suggestion that there be an amendment to clause 6 to have itenlarged in order to provide for the automatic entry of judgment in civilproceedings brought by the payee of the dishonoured cheque against its drawer, inthe event that the moneys or the services being the consideration of such cheques,have not been reimbursed in accordance with clause 5.

The purpose of that representation, obviously, is to shorten the considerabletime it takes in civil proceedings and to give a shorter time for the creditor to havethe benefit of a judgment. I should say, that was one of the recommendations ofthe Chamber of Industry and Commerce, but we have not been able to accede tothat in this legislation. That would have serious constitutional implications. Webelieve that we could not, in this legislation, deal with this matter, but we haveindicated that we would consider it. In any event, there are going to be otherreforms in this area and depending on what we decide, we would then report tothem and to the Parliament.

May I say that we have been told by the business community, including theChamber of Industry and Commerce, that this legislation is of great importance tothe business community in Trinidad and Tobago; that it was long overdue. Theyare very happy with it and they believe it would go a very long way in promotingbusiness in Trinidad and Tobago, because having this archaic law which facilitatedthe use of bounced cheques, it operated adversely to business in Trinidad andTobago.


735

The Bill promotes the interest of Trinidad and Tobago because commerce isimportant for the promotion of national development. It strikes a balance, in that itprovides penalties for persons who issue bounced cheques, and also providesdefences available to them if they are acting in good faith. It will assisttremendously in regulating conduct in the business area in Trinidad and Tobago.

I beg to move, Mr. Speaker.

Question proposed.

Mr. Patrick Manning (San Fernando East): Mr. Speaker, when a country isreferred to as a developing country, the implication is that the administrativesystems of that country are not mature and may be inadequate, at least, in part.The implication is that the constitutional arrangements may not be, by any means,mature and perfect and, therefore, still the subject of some kind of evolution. Itmeans that the legal system itself may not be perfect, far from mature, undergoingchange of one kind or another. The connotation of “developing” being that thecountry itself has not reached a stage of economic, political, social oradministrative maturity, as a consequence of which, there are a number of thingswhich have to be done in that country by the Government if the citizens of thatcountry are to continue to aspire, or if the Government acknowledges that thecitizens of that country aspire to a much better quality of life than the one whichthey are at that time enjoying.

We know that it is just not possible for any government to do all that has to bedone in one day, nor is it possible for any government to do all which has to bedone in moving a country from a state of “developing” to “developed”, in oneweek. It cannot happen in one week, nor can it happen in a period of five years, asis the period of governance under the constitutional arrangements now existing inTrinidad and Tobago. So we all acknowledge and understand that in the conductof governmental affairs, any government has, of necessity, to establish priorities inseeking to conduct governmental business and in seeking to move its populationfrom one stage of development, as it were, to another.

The test of good governance, therefore, includes, among other things, the waya government establishes its priorities. I have great difficulty in understanding howthe Government of Trinidad and Tobago, in January of 1998, could give priority to“An Act to reform the law relating to dishonoured cheques and similar negotiableinstruments.”

May I remind you that while the Government establishes its priorities, it alsohas a responsibility to deal with the issues of the day which confront the country.

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998[MR. MANNING]

736

This piece of legislation is coming at the time when there are technologicaldevelopments in the banking sector, when the use of cheques are not anywherenear as common today as they were, say, 10 years ago; where you have the bankcard; when you have the credit card, which is becoming more and more current interms of its use in Trinidad and Tobago.

Hon. Member: Debit card.

Mr. P. Manning: Debit card, Mr. Speaker. And where you have a number ofother instruments which have overtaken the use of the cheque and which, today,have rendered the cheque not as popular as it used to be. In certain parts of NorthAmerica, you cannot even spend money. If you wanted to pay in cash for certainthings, you cannot do it. You have to pay by way of plastic, a credit card, or adebit card, as I am being advised. You have electronic banking.

So I cannot understand, as important as it might well be—I am sure it is notentirely useless at all—how the Government of Trinidad and Tobago could todayestablish its priorities in such a way that this House is meeting to consider “An Actto reform the law relating to dishonoured cheques and similar negotiableinstruments.”

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many other matters that are part of the agenda of thenational community today, that I cannot understand how this has been givenpriority. May I ask the question: How does this piece of legislation that we arediscussing this afternoon settle the issue involving outstanding salaries to womenin the Unemployment Relief Programme? Or, is it that the Government is notconcerned about those people who are in the Unemployment Relief Programmeand chose to establish its priority—and in this case, unless, of course, theGovernment proposes to pay them by cheque that could bounce, I do not know?Or is it that the Government does not care about those women in theUnemployment Relief Programme who have worked?

It is not that they are asking for charity, they are merely asking for equitabletreatment from the Government that is in charge of them. “We have worked on theproject, pay us please, and if there are discrepancies in the project it is not our faultthat they are there, it is a fault of the administrative system. We have no right to bepaying as a consequence of any action in respect of which we are not liable.” Howdoes this legislation impact on that? How does this legislation impact on thebudget for 1998 where, we are witnessing the spectacle and the scandal that nine


737

days into the budgetary period, a minister of finance could get up and say that thebudget has to be reviewed; a new budget has to come in light of a grave error thatwas made in estimating oil prices, and that there is going to be so significant ashortfall in oil revenue based on one’s assumptions of oil prices, that we have tocome back to the Parliament with a new budget. It is not that the Minister did notknow.

When his colleague—and as I will demonstrate later—and friend, the Ministerof Energy and Energy Industries went to speak in the other place, he made it clearthat it is clairvoyance, it is technical competence and it is good luck. That is howthey determined oil prices and the price on which the budget is to be predicated.The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries made it clear in the Senate that thisoil price is not stable in 1998. He stopped short of saying that we used to a higherprice, and that the country now has to face a reviewed budget against the backdropof a minister who comes to the Parliament and says: “Read my lips, no new taxesin 1998”. How does this legislation, an Act to reform the law relating todishonored cheques and similar negotiable instruments, impact on the budget for1998 and the difficulties that this country and its people are going to face as aconsequence of a grave error in judgment that has been perpetrated on it by theMinister of Finance and the Government of which the Member is a part?

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. Attorney General tell us whether this piece oflegislation will deal with the problems at Caroni (1975) Limited? I would like himto tell us because that is a priority consideration for the country at this time. Thatis what we should be discussing. The sum of $153 million goes from the Treasuryto Caroni (1975) Limited, but the Government, taking more than four months—they could send that—to answer a question that has been put by the Member forDiego Martin West of how much money has been paid to a board member who hasbeen given a consultancy job with Caroni (1975) Limited. They cannot find theanswer to that. Thousands of dollars. It is four months on the Order Paper andthey cannot find an answer to that. Perhaps, they did not pay by cheque, or thecheque bounced. They cannot find an answer to that but in four months they couldgive a line to Caroni (1975) Limited, to the open Treasury of $153 million thisyear. That is not important to the country. As far as that Government is concerned,it establishes its priorities in such a way that we are talking about bounced chequesthis afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, all of them bounce if you ask me. When the trade union involvedcould say that the froghopper infestation has been so bad that it is not 120,000tonnes, which was the target—we made that a couple years ago, 128,000 tonnes—


738

they did not agree with the revised figure of the board of 95,000 tonnes but that itlooks more like 50,000 tonnes and that the crop for 1999 has already beenprejudiced; that is not important enough. The Government does not consider that apriority. What it decides to do is to come here this afternoon and engage theattention of this Parliament in bounced cheques. One thing that we are sure of isthat when the Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism writes a cheque, it doesnot bounce; not in his capacity as Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism, inhis private capacity.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister visited Usine Ste. Madeleine. Iwant to know how this is going to help us there, knowing that they gave a contractto a company from India without tender, $28 million, and he starts the mill for thepresence of the press and as soon as he turns his back, five minutes later theyswitched off the mill. It is not ready. The mill bounced yesterday. It will takeanother two weeks for the Usine Ste. Madeleine factory to be ready unless theywork 24 hours a day.

The Attorney General and the Government do not consider that importantenough but they come to talk about bounced cheques and it is already paid for. If Iam to be guided by my colleague, that is a cheque that should bounce. No tender.How does this piece of legislation deal with the attitude of the Prime Minister ofTrinidad and Tobago, who in talking to a member of the media yesterday, wasasked a question which he finds hard—a member of staff of the Trinidad andTobago Television. The Prime Minister tells him that if he were his boss, he wouldfire him. Then, somebody talked to him and he came back later and told thegentleman he did not mean that, he was only joking.

Mr. Partap : He never said fired.

Mr. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, like you, I too read my Bible. I would like totell the Prime Minister what the book of Proverbs has to say about people like thatand, with your kind permission, I will quote from the book of Proverbs 26:18 and 19:

“Like a maniac who shoots deadly firebrands and arrows,

so is one who deceives a neighbour and says, ‘I am only joking!’”

3.00 p.m.

How does this legislation deal with an attitude like that? I would likesomebody on the other side to tell us how this legislation would impact on thesupply of rice in Trinidad and Tobago. Is it that they plan to pay by cheque for the


739

rice on the water? They have already paid. The rice has been on the water for sixmonths. The boat is in the harbour.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to draw to the notice of the hon. Member that Iappreciate the point he is making. There are many other important issues whichthis honourable House could be discussing, other than a Bill to reform the lawrelating to dishonoured cheques and similar negotiable instruments. That is aquestion of priority, as you have indeed pointed out.

I simply draw to your notice that your contribution started at 2.45 p.m. andyou have spent 15 minutes on the question of priorities. There is a responsibilityunder the Standing Orders to confine observations to the subject under discussion.

I am not attempting to stop you, but I think I must draw to your notice that tospend 15 minutes without even starting on the content of the Bill, may be a bitmuch. I simply draw this to your notice.

Mr. P. Manning: For my guidance, Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that Icannot make my point in the length of time which I consider to be appropriate,having regard to 75 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: I am simply indicating that anybody speaking on any matterbefore the House has to be relevant to the issue being discussed. The issue beingdiscussed is a Bill to reform the law relating to dishonoured cheques and similarnegotiable instruments. Perhaps, with justification, you have been speaking aboutseveral things to which the Government is not attending. It is my view, with thegreatest deference, that there is a time and place for all that. I feel that if one istalking about a Bill to reform the law relating to dishonoured cheques and similarnegotiable instruments, one has a responsibility to deal with the contents of this. Ihave allowed you 15 minutes. You have not started to deal with it as yet. I simplydraw it to your notice.

Mr. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, when a state enterprise decides that it wantsto borrow US $200 million, I do not know that the transfer takes place by cheque. Iam not aware whether we run the risk of such a cheque bouncing. I do know thatsuch a situation arose in the case of Petrotrin. Petrotrin went to Mr. Ken Soodhoowho was the chief executive officer of First Citizens Bank. The facts are that themerchant bank went to an American firm which I shall not name, that indicatedthat they were able to raise the US $200 million and would pay them by cheque,bank draft and whatever instrument is considered appropriate and negotiable.


740

The records will show that the representative of the bank came to Trinidad andTobago and held discussions with three persons. One I will refer to as thehonourable gentleman from St. Joseph’s Village in San Fernando; the other is theMinister and the third is Mr. Ken Soodhoo. The representative of that organizationwas shocked when he was asked for a 4 per cent finder’s fee. I have no doubt thatthey expected it to be paid by cheque. When the representative of the companysaid that their company does not operate in that way, and he was pressured, hesaid that he would raise it with his principals. Mr. Ken Soodhoo is reported tohave said to him, “How do you know you would make it to the airport?”

Mr. Speaker: I am now ruling that the hon. Member is being irrelevant to theissue which is being discussed. I ask him to deal with the issues.

Mr. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that this Bill should provide forthat arrangement. In fact, I am suggesting to this honourable House that clause 5or some appropriate clause in this Bill should be appropriately amended to takethat situation into account. [Desk thumping] That is more relevant and verycritical as we conduct our business here.

The company involved wrote the bank that reported it to the police and thePrime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. Speaker: I am ruling that the hon. Member is being irrelevant to theissues being discussed. I ask him to fashion his contribution so that he would berelevant to this issue. I rule that what he was just doing and for which he has justbeen applauded is not relevant.

Mr. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman from St. Joseph’sVillage is a banker. I am sure that when he met the Minister of Finance andMinister of Tourism, the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries who are allfriends, and the Chairman of the National Petroleum Company, they probablydiscussed the system by which cheques operate in the country, and the difficultieswhich face them when these cheques bounce. I have no doubt and I also believethat it could have been discussions of this nature that would have led to this Billcoming before the House this afternoon.

It is a group of friends and family. When the Chairman of the NationalPetroleum Company ran into difficulties of crossing the bars, as it is called at theuniversity, the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries wrote a letter to theuniversity, that caused them to reconsider. When they sit to discuss cheques whichbounce, I am equally certain that they discuss an upgrading of that financial system


741

and other things. I warn the hon. Prime Minister and I want him to know thatprime ministers are not immune from being used as scapegoats. All over the placethe Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism has been saying that for everydollar that he makes, the Prime Minister gets 30 cents. It is like tax. Whether hepays him by cheque or not, I am in no position to say.

3.10 p.m.

What is emerging is that there is a mafia operating at high levels in thisGovernment and, capo de tutti capo, the boss of all bosses is that patriarch, thehon. Member for Couva North.

Mr. Speaker, when the Chairman of the National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited talked about having a letter saying dismissal of Mr. Soodhoo,and that there was nothing in that to suggest that he had done anything wrong, didyou know if he had been embezzling cheques? I do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Once more, I draw to the notice of the Member for SanFernando East that he is being irrelevant to the matter being discussed. I advisethat, should he persist, I will ask him to take his seat and call upon another personto speak. I indicate also that the relevant rule reads:

“A Member must direct his speech to the question under discussion or to themotion or amendment he tends to move or to a point of order. The preciserelevance of an argument may not always be perceptible, but a Member whowanders from the subject will be reminded by the Speaker that he must speakto the question.”

I am indicating this to you for the final time. If you continue, I will be obligedto ask you to take your seat.

Mr. Valley: Mr. Speaker, can you say what page in May’s ParliamentaryPractice you—

Mr. Speaker: It is to be found in May’s Parliamentary Practice. Please continue!

Mr. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I was making the point that we have a numberof other important matters to discuss rather than discussing here this afternoon thequestion of bounced cheques. There is the airport scandal. When the Minister ofFinance came here and said that $100 million was spent on the airport last year, didthey pay by cheque or not? We asked on what it was spent. Did the chequebounce? To this day we have received no answer. We know that they are movingdirt in the airport. Was it $100 million worth of dirt? Was it that the same happy


742

family has been involved in activities at the airport that involve payment bycheque? What was it?

The responsibility of a board is to ensure that the business of an organization isconducted in an appropriate manner. In respect of National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited and this Ken Soodhoo affair, the matters have been mishandled.The Chairman of National Petroleum Marketing Company Limited knew exactlywhat was taking place. The Minister of Energy and Energy Industries knew exactlywhat was taking place.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat so that someone else canspeak.

The Minister of Trade and Industry and Minister of Consumer Affairs(Hon. Mervyn Assam): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity tointervene in this debate on a Bill to reform the law relating to dishonoured chequesand similar negotiable instruments.

It is most unfortunate that we have had, once more, such a spectacle in theParliament, as demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition and Member for SanFernando East. In the words of the hon. Prime Minister, his calculated malevolencein suggesting that we have seen the last of free and fair elections in Trinidad andTobago was equal this afternoon—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I ask for order, please! If anyone wants to raisea point of order, he can do so. I simply draw to your notice that the Member forSan Fernando East was given half an hour before I finally dealt with the questionof relevance. Please continue!

Hon. M. Assam: Before I was interrupted, I was saying that his calculatedmalevolence was only equal this afternoon to his disgraceful performance in thisParliament. I know that this is the carnival season and if the hon. Member for SanFernando East wishes to put on—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to refer toStanding Order 36(1). This, in part, indicates that a Member should confine hisobservations to the subject under discussion.

Before you rule, I would like to indicate that, based on the statement made byyou that the former speaker, the Member for San Fernando East, was stoppedwhen it was brought to his attention, I am bringing to the attention of the Memberfor St. Joseph, the House and the Speaker, that I am making a point of order basedon Standing Order 36(1).


743

Mr. Speaker: I rule against that point of order. That Standing Order talksabout “shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion”. The Memberhas just started. He is responding to something that the last Member said, and thatis permitted. He is into two minutes of his contribution.

Hon. M. Assam: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I know that we are into thecarnival season and, if the Member for San Fernando East is in such a mood andspirit, he should go elsewhere, although his performance was of a very substandardone and would not be admitted to any carnival show in this country.

He went on to chastise the distinguished hon. Prime Minister and Member forCouva North, saying that the Prime Minister was being used as a scapegoat bycertain of his Ministers in this Government. I merely want to remind him that he,too, was used as a scapegoat when he was Prime Minister of this country. Whenhe was in France, he was made a scapegoat by one Mr. Pouchet, which led to a billcoming to my office for US $1 million, which was purported to have been as aresult of a promise or a transaction made by the then Prime Minister and otherpersons travelling with him. However, Mr. Speaker, I leave the ugly commentsthat the Member for San Fernando East made for well over half an hour of hiscontribution to haunt his conscience, because he has blemished the honourableHouse this afternoon.

I merely wanted to make a contribution with respect to the business dimensionof this Bill. The Attorney General and Member for Couva South gave the legalramifications of the Bill. I know that the Member for San Fernando East is of theview—and he expressed it over and over—that his priorities are different from thatof this Government. I can well understand what his priorities are because he is inOpposition and we are in Government.

3.20 p.m.

I want to advise Members opposite that they are not in a position to dictate thepriorities of this Government or its legislative agenda; we will do so. Mr. Speaker,we do so not because we are a proud Government or because we are an uncaringGovernment, it is because we listen to the population and hence the reason webring legislation to this House from time to time. I will tell you what I mean bythis.

Immediately upon the assumption of office as Minister of Trade and Industry, Ihave been regularly bombarded by members of the business community,particularly small businessmen and women, who have been the victims of

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998[HON. M. ASSAM]

744

dishonoured cheques. I have been advised that when the former Government wasin office for just under four years, and the Member for Diego Martin Central wasthen Minister of Trade and Industry, several requests were sent to him in order forthat government to address the problems of increasing incidence of dishonouredcheques. We listened and after two years—

Mr. Valley: I just want to inform this honourable House that I know of nosuch circumstance where anybody wrote to me informing that there was a problemwith respect to payments. If the Minister has information, he can show it becauseall the files are in the ministry.

Hon. M. Assam: I do not wish to argue with the Member for Diego MartinCentral but he has hit the nail on the head, the files are in the ministry and lettersare there to substantiate the point.

Hon. Member: Bring them.

Hon. M. Assam: I do not have to bring them. Mr. Speaker, we have hadnumerous requests from the business community, particularly small businessmenand women about the number of dishonoured cheques that has been issued tothem. We felt the time was right to take action.

The Member for San Fernando East is still living in a dream world. Perhaps heis still suffering from withdrawal symptoms as a result of the removal from officein November 1995. It is a difficult thing, I suspect, for someone to be PrimeMinister today and nobody the next day. Nevertheless, the examples that theMember attempted to demonstrate to this honourable House this afternoon are sounfortunately ridiculous, that I cannot understand how somebody who was PrimeMinister and who held other portfolios in his government, could come and makesuch a spectacle of himself this afternoon. What the Member fails to realize is thatnotwithstanding the fact that there is an increase in the use of credit cards, todaytransactions with respect to cheques are well in excess of 60 per cent of thefinancial transactions of the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, as globalization, liberalization and free trade increase and aspeople become more affluent and are beginning to understand that they do notneed to carry around with them large sums of cash for very many reasons such assafety and inconvenience; as people are being educated more and more on the useof the banking system which involves more credit cards and more cheques, theincidence of the use of cheques has increased over time. This will not diminishconsiderably, notwithstanding the fact that we have a credit card system and even a


745

LINX system which links all credit cards together which can be interchanged in thesame ATM machines.

Mr. Speaker, one must understand that most people pay their bills by cheques.Business places do not pay their bills by credit cards. I am amazed that theMember for San Fernando East could make such a ridiculous assertion in thisHouse this afternoon. All businesses pay either their wages or salaries toemployees by cheques, some deposit them directly to their bank accounts or theypay all their creditors by cheques. If you go to any business, firm or company inthis country, there is what you call an accounts payable section and all or mostaccounts payable are paid by cheques. That is at the business level. At the personallevel, all or most of us may have credit cards but how do you pay your rent,insurance policy, or any other thing such as a utility or the like? The majority ofpeople still pay their telephone bills, water rates, electricity bills or groceries bycheques. Only recently, Hi Lo introduced the facility for buying groceries throughVisa or Master Card. If you had to go to Hi Lo to buy groceries, you either paidcash or a cheque supported by a bank card.

I cannot understand how the Member for San Fernando East could come tothis honourable House this afternoon and give the impression to this Parliamentand, by extension, the national community and everyone listening to him, thisdrivel, indefensible explanation that the majority of people use credit cards. I nowunderstand why he is no longer the Prime Minister and why so many members ofhis front Bench left him. [Interruption] You can mimic. I know you are a bunchof mimic men, go right ahead. I understand you. I understand why the front Benchleft, whether it is Rowley, Imbert, Ramrekersingh or Mottley.

Mr. Speaker: I appeal for order and seriousness.

Hon. M. Assam: I now understand how the Member could incur a legal debtof over $1 million of which even his General Council did not approve such anundertaking—engaging in all kinds of risky litigation. I now understand how thereis this clamour, both within and outside his party, for him to demit office. Iunderstand all this because his performance in this Parliament this afternoonshowed clearly that he does not understand the operation of the financial system.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I refer to StandingOrder 36(1) and I wonder how the Member could be going off on a tangent.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Member please continue. I rule against it.

Hon. M. Assam: Mr. Speaker, I say this clearly not to implicate the vastmajority of business people in this country but in all baskets of anything, there are


746

few rotten ones which tend to spoil the good ones. It is no secret that people useaccounts payable to finance their working capital in businesses so that instead ofpaying people in 30 or 60 days, they pay them in 90, 100, or 200 days.

3.30 p.m.

It is no secret that some persons use the cheque system to finance their shortbalances in their banks. Some persons engage in something which I learned inCanada; kiting. Kiting means that one has two to four bank accounts where onewrites cheques on one and puts it to another and it is then moved to the third andfourth account. One kites around so that the delay in the banking system—cashinga cheque in one bank as opposed to another bank in another branch—takes,sometimes, five to eight days and the intervening period is used to kite. Whathappens, however, is that the system beats them and the cheque finds itself into thebank much more quickly than they had anticipated and one is caught withoutfunds. That is the system of kiting which takes place with certain persons, bothindividuals and businesses in this country.

I will tell you what are the consequences of kiting, Mr. Speaker. If a small-business person, particularly, is given a cheque which either has insufficient fundsor no funds, or if the person who issues that cheque is involved in kiting, thatsmall-business person deposits the cheque in good faith, thinking that it will behonoured in order for that business person to pay his or her liabilities but he or sheis caught up in a dishonoured cheque situation, not of that person’s making.

There is a spill-over. There is an adverse consequence of one business personengaging in kiting, having that adverse effect on a bona fide individual or businessperson who can get caught up in a situation of dishonoured cheques. That is one ofthe serious situations.

It happens in other situations where persons today—I mean some businesspersons and some individuals—would issue a cheque in anticipation that theywould be getting funds to honour that cheque within 24 to 48 hours. It is likesomebody borrowing money on the basis that one would be selling a property; acar or a piece of land, and the transaction will be finalized in two or three months.They would get a demand loan from the bank knowing full well that they have acontract in their hands stating that: “In 90 days this transaction will be completed”.They transact business on the basis of anticipating the close of the transaction.They may very well get into difficulties as a result of this demand loan; thetransaction may fall through because of a number of situations intervening andsupervening during the 60-day or 90-day period. It happens with business persons,


747

it happens with individuals. In fact, it happens sometimes when persons have adirect means of their salaries being paid into their account in the bank and for somereason there is a delay in either the various ministries or even in the private sectorgetting their salaries to their account. They may issue cheques, thinking, perhaps,in a bona fide way, that they have money in their accounts and the cheques areeventually dishonoured.

There are several permutations and combinations of how cheques aredishonoured, for whatever reason. I am merely trying to bring to this honourableHouse’s attention that it is a serious situation, not one that is as laughable andcomical as the Member for San Fernando East attempted to imply. It has a certainpriority in this country if we are going to conduct business and expand growth inthe economy, particularly, in a globalized, liberalized situation, and where ourfinancial system is becoming more modernized and sophisticated.

If, for whatever reason, persons begin to lose confidence in the banking orfinancial system as a result of an upsurge in the dishonouring of cheques orfinancial instruments, our country and the business community would obviouslyget a very bad name. Consequently, what happens locally impacts on one’sreputation and credibility overseas. These persons overseas have a way ofcontacting their embassies in this country; the French will contact the FrenchEmbassy, the British would contact the British Embassy and the Americans wouldcontact the United States of America Embassy. They gather intelligence—and thatis their job, to gather intelligence—on everybody who is important or who havesome kind of business or relationship with their counterparts in the variouscountries. If it is found out that businesses or business persons here are conductingthemselves in a manner that is not proper, obviously their credit rating abroadwould be affected.

If one orders goods or services from companies abroad and they are normallygiven a 60-day, 90-day or a 120-day credit limit, they may very well findthemselves in a situation where they have to either issue irrevocable letters ofcredit or sight-draft, which, in fact, tends to crimp their financial resources andcreates more burden on them.

All these things are extremely important and I could not understand for the lifeof me how the Member for San Fernando East could trivialize such an importantmeasure before this honourable House this afternoon. There are so manyimplications, both for local, regional and international business and financialtransactions, Mr. Speaker, not to speak of the hardships which will accrue to


748

individuals and small-business persons in Trinidad and Tobago. Therefore, for himto come this afternoon and go through a parade and a charade, like a vaudevilleshow, bringing all kinds of irrelevancies which are not pertinent to the legislationbefore the House, is a manifestation of the lack of mental horsepower resident inthe hon. Member for San Fernando East.

It is unfortunate that we start the new year, it is unfortunate that we start thisThird Session of this Fifth Parliament with this kind of display by a person who is aformer Prime Minister, a person who has been in Parliament for 25 years, and who,from time to time, in a hypocritical crie de coeur, tries to remonstrate theMembers of this honourable House about the dignity and decorum of Parliament,also the skills of debating and what levels of debate we should engage in andundertake and he is the greatest sinner of all.

He comes here and quotes the book of Proverbs: “He who is without sin lethim cast the first stone. One would see, if we were in the days of Moses, who willbe stoned this afternoon. This habit of coming to Parliament with the Bible andquoting from it will not save him, Mr. Speaker, because there is a part in the NewTestament which I cannot quote verbatim, which says: even though you say Lord,Lord, you will not be saved.

Mr. Manning: It did not say that.

Hon. M. Assam: I said I am not quoting, I am paraphrasing.

Mr. Manning: You do not know it.

Hon. M. Assam: I do not know it. You are the hypocritical biblical scholar.

We must not detract from the seriousness of this Bill and all the implicationsand ramifications of it as it impacts on the fortune or misfortune of the businesscommunity and on individuals, particularly, as I said, the small-business persons;they are the ones who are hard-pressed and hurt most because they have cash-flowconstraints. Every cheque they receive in the minutest amount is important forthem to deposit in their bank accounts and to be assured that the cheque will behonoured at all times.

3.40 p.m.Even though this Bill provides for restitution in 10 days—or one suffers the

penalty of five years’ imprisonment or whatever fine, 10 times the value of thecheque—the interim hardship during those 10 days, for either an individual whohas been issued a dishonoured cheque, or for the small businessman or


749

businesswoman who has been issued a dishonoured cheque, that 10-day periodserves in many cases to be an extreme hardship. And even if that individual has anoverdraft which can absorb the amount of the dishonoured cheque, he has to payan exorbitant interest rate on it. He may have to pay 17 to 20 per cent on theoverdraft as a consequence of a dishonoured cheque.

The Member for San Fernando East, a man who has been the Prime Minister,does not understand that once business people pay higher interest rates, theinterest costs are passed on to the consumer, resulting in the higher price of goodsand services. This Bill has enormous implications for economic growth anddevelopment, and the Member for San Fernando East came here this afternoon andtrivialized a very important Bill and told us it is not a Bill of priority. Then we havethe Member for Couva South getting up and preening—[Laughter] the Memberfor Arouca South getting up every minute and preening like a peahen, readingirrelevant Standing Orders in order to shut up the Member for St. Joseph. Theycannot shut up the Member for St. Joseph, because if he does not have a platformhere, he has a platform elsewhere. I warned the Member for San Fernando Eastduring a budget contribution, do not invoke the wrath of the big bamboo!Apparently, the Member for Diego Martin West wants to do that. I do not think hehas the broad back of the Member for San Fernando East to take a big bamboo, sobeware!

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making very seriously is that this Bill has all kindsof implications, all kinds of ramifications for business, financial transactions, prices,costs, international transactions, the business community, financial community andbanking community—all sorts of implications—and I cannot understand how theMember for San Fernando East could not read the Bill and understand all of thesethings. I now understand why the people rejected him on November 6, 1995. Theysaw a charlatan as a Prime Minister and said they would have none of that.

The Member for San Fernando East does not understand basic business. Iwould have thought that my good friend from Diego Martin Central—his closeaide and confidant—would have assisted him in understanding the import of thisBill and given him some lessons in private, so that he would not come to thishonourable House and make such a fool of himself. Is that a parliamentary word? Ireally am disappointed, because I thought that the level of debate in 1998 wouldhave been such that when I come here, I would have learned something from theother side, but every time I have come to this honourable House for the last twoyears, I hear so much nonsensicality from the other side, such depravity and


750

irrelevance from the other side, and today I have not been elucidated on any matterwhich they have attempted to address in this House.

So, I hope the Members opposite understand the importance of this measure. Ihope they see the total ramification of the Bill as I have attempted to explain interms of business, commerce, individuals, financial banking, overseas transactions,the additional costs there could be, particularly to the small-business person, howthese costs could be passed on to consumers, and how they could send up the costof living and create problems for the consuming public. Mr. Speaker, I sincerelyhope that now that I have attempted to explain the business dimension to thishonourable House and, particularly, to Members opposite, they would have nodifficulty in giving their total support to a Bill which seeks to ameliorate thesituation in the business community and, by extension, the consuming public ofTrinidad and Tobago.

I thank you very much.

Mr. Colm Imbert (Diego Martin East): Mr. Speaker, I thank most sincerelythe hon. Member for St. Joseph for his contribution which has put the properperspective on this debate. It brought into context the entire question ofconfidence in the banking system and the whole gamut of financial instruments,and what can happen when there are irregularities within the banking system, andhow this can affect the country's reputation. [Desk thumping] I thank the Memberfor St. Joseph for broadening the issue.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to some of the highlyrelevant issues which were introduced by the Member for St. Joseph. Quite apartfrom the issues with regard to problems associated with dishonoured cheques—Ican assure you I will deal in detail with several aspects of this Bill, quite apart fromthe problems which can arise when persons issue cheques knowing there areinsufficient funds, and the distress and trauma that causes, the repercussions,implications and so forth. Cheques are only one form of financial instrumentswhere this type of problem exists.

I ask the Attorney General at this time, perhaps not in this piece of legislationbut in subsequent legislation, we can look at the implications of all sorts ofimpropriety within the banking system, and the penalties which should be imposedon persons both without and within the system for issuing bad instruments. Adishonoured cheque where there are insufficient funds is only one form offraudulent instruments. I ask the Attorney General to look at this, and I hope that


751

in the fullness of time he would bring a comprehensive piece of legislation to dealwith fraud within the banking sector.

Let me give an example which is very relevant to the matter that the Memberfor St. Joseph raised about repercussions of bounced cheques within the systemwhich cause financial institutions to incur loss, and as a result of incurring loss,increase their charges and their interest rates, as the Member for St. Joseph quitecorrectly and poignantly pointed out. I give an example of a situation wherecheque payments were involved.

3.50 p.m.

Within one of our local banks, a regular audit by a firm of internationalauditors picked up irregularities with regard to payments by cheque to persons fortransactions involving bond issues and securities. A regular audit picked up this.As a consequence, the board of the bank commissioned a special audit of thatbank, and on this basis, an issue—I believe it is called unjust enrichment; I amtalking in a general sense here—arose where it was determined that irregularpayments had been made by cheque to persons who had provided the bank with novalue. A special audit picked up this irregularity within the system, which couldhave tremendous repercussions on confidence in the banking sector in Trinidad andTobago; and embassies, when they learn of this matter—as the Member for St.Joseph has pointed out—will tell other embassies and it will spread throughout theinternational community.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the case at hand. The special audit of thebank, by international auditors, picked up these irregular payments to persons whohad given no value to the bank. As a consequence, it was recommended thatefforts be made to recover these irregular payments by cheque. I am advised that inexcess of $1 million—$1.8 million is the figure, I have been advised—wasrecovered by this bank. As a consequence, however, of these matters, the head ofthe bank was dismissed.

Mr. Manning: What bank?

Mr. C. Imbert: What bank? A local bank. Stop prodding me man! When thatperson was dismissed, I remember it was all over the newspapers, and there was aloss of confidence in the banking system.

Mr. Manning: Who was that person?

Mr. C. Imbert: This is one way where a cheque could bounce. Rememberthese persons overseas have received $1.8 million and they could have been

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998[MR. IMBERT]

752

writing cheques on the basis that they would be able to retain this $1.8 million, andthen when they had to pay back, the cheques might have bounced. Well, I do notknow if this Bill should be widened to include that kind of thing, if a personknowingly receives an illegal payment and writes a cheque which subsequentlybounces afterwards, when the action is taken, is that an offence? I ask the AttorneyGeneral to answer that. [Desk thumping].

This is a real matter, this is not a hypothetical case. In that particular bank, inthis particular country, a minister of a government sought to interfere by seekingthe appointment of a certain individual as the chief executive officer of that bank.The individual however, did not qualify to be the CEO of the bank and thechairman of that bank, in that country, resisted and refused to appoint the personwhom the minister wished to appoint. He confirmed the incumbent in his post andthe chairman subsequently was made to resign or felt he had to resign from hispost as chairman of that bank because of the interference of this minister whowanted a certain person to be the head of that bank and there was loss ofconfidence in the banking system. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about First Citizens(Merchant) Bank and I am speaking about a fellow called Soodhoo. That is all Iwill say on that. Those are the facts as I have been told, that is what the problemwas. It may not have been so, but that is what I have been told.

Mr. Speaker, let us move on. I would ask the Attorney General to look atsome matters relating to certain clauses in this Bill, to look at the whole concept ofwhether banks should be enjoined in the actions under this legislation. I think Irecall the Attorney General making a statement with regard to the certificate whichwould be issued by a financial institution certifying that a person had issued acheque where there were insufficient funds. Is that enough? Should we broaden thewhole scope of the penalties and the offences under this Bill? Because there are allsorts of problems that arise within the banking sector.

On many occasions cheques are dishonoured because of bank error. In manyinstances this error is not deliberate, it is accidental, it is done through lack ofknowledge or whatever. A person may have his cheque dishonoured, he may bearrested under this legislation, and simply because of a bank error he may suffer aloss of reputation, he may suffer an injustice—one of the favourite words of theAttorney General; he may even be prosecuted because of a bank error. I ask theAttorney General: If a bank makes a gross error with regard to someone's accountand causes that person to undergo humiliation, prosecution and evenimprisonment, should the bank not suffer a penalty? I ask the Attorney General tolook at that. Should there not be clauses in this Bill which will refer to such an


753

instance? I really would like to open up the issues that are presented in thislegislation. There are a number of issues which we need to look at.

Mr. Speaker, like the Member for St. Joseph, I am speaking from experience.There have been situations where instructions have been given to banks to transferfunds from one account to another, from one country to another, and the bankgives the assurance to the company or the business house that this transaction hastaken place, sometimes in writing this assurance is given, and the transaction, infact, has not taken place, due to human error or computer error. As a result,cheques have been issued which have been dishonoured and so forth. This happensmore frequently than one might think, and for all the talk of the Member for St.Joseph about the financial system in Trinidad and Tobago, our financial system isnot as sophisticated as we believe it is, especially with the transfer in foreigncurrencies to other countries. We are not as sophisticated as we believe we are. Iam speaking from personal experience. I have had experiences where funds havebeen transferred in foreign currency and have not reached the destination, or thecorrespondent bank; have been lost in transit and so forth; in this globalenvironment. So that, this is not as simple as it may appear to be. I ask theAttorney General whether gross error on the part of a bank should be an offencepunishable by fine or whatever. He should look at it.

4.00 p.m.

The other issue I would like the Attorney General to look at is the question ofnotice. I am not sure that the specific provisions in this Bill regarding notice arestrong enough because a person may have bounced a cheque and not be aware ofit. A person may have issued a cheque, went out of the country and returned andthe 10-day period may have expired, or he or she may not have been properlynotified that there was a problem. I think any grace period to allow a person tocorrect a problem should be after due notice. Someone should be served properlywith the actual service of notice, then the period should run. I shall leave theseissues for another part of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the whole question of what happens within thebanking system with interest rates when there is a loss of confidence. Let me giveyou an example of how punitive financial impropriety can be, in terms of theconsequences across the spectrum of business.

When a bank increases its interest rates, there are broad consequences for that.The Central Bank recently, in an effort to protect the foreign exchange, increasedthe reserve requirement for banks, causing an immediate increase in interest rates


754

between 1 and 2 per cent; some banks one and a half and others one and three-quarters and so forth. That immediately put a damper on investment in Trinidadand Tobago, both foreign and local, in terms of the cost of borrowing. That is oneexample of how interest rates can go up.

I want to come back to the issue of how interest rates can be increased by aparticular bank because it has incurred heavy losses and has been involved infinancial difficulty because of financial irregularity such as bouncing cheques. If abank has a big portfolio of bounced cheques or problems with its instruments,trading in securities and many bad loans and so forth, then this can cause a bank toincrease interest rates.

Something is happening in Trinidad and Tobago and we all have to be carefulabout being flippant with important matters. I have given an example of what ispurported to have happened in a particular bank where there were paymentsdeemed to be illegal, recovery of money and dismissal of a certain person and thiscaused loss of confidence in the banking system.

There are other ways in which persons can get involved in payment by chequeand can have payments among each other and the like, even engaging in kiting, asthe Member for St. Joseph pointed out. One of the problems we have within thefinancial system in Trinidad and Tobago today is the whole question of theinterlocking and internecine web of intrigue, interest, relationships and so forth.

When a person bounces a cheque, that is a big problem. By the way, I want toserve notice that we wish to propose some amendments to this Bill at thecommittee stage. I think this Bill needs a little more consideration. I am not in anyway opposed to the principle that there should be increased penalties or that weshould deal with this problem but I think we need to take a broader look at thiswhole question of dishonoured cheques and see whether what we are doing is thecorrect thing. I think we can deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back. One of the ways in which people can bouncecheques is if they create a web of intrigue through family relationship or whatever.For example, where cheques can be honoured and there are, in fact, no funds in theaccount. A person can put in place systems in which cheques are issued and it isindicated that they are in order when, in fact, there are no funds in the account,because of family relationship. I am sure the Member for St. Joseph is aware ofthese things, where people are given overdraft facilities without security, indeed,tens of millions of dollars because of intrigue, relationships and internecine websthat are created.


755

I want to give an example of a web that exists in Trinidad and Tobago, whichis rooted in the banking and the financial system that could lead to the issuance ofcheques and payments that are not honourable. Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon.Member for Couva North was on television and made some statement about hiswanting to know who is related to whom with regards to state companies;relationships and the like. This is what I am talking about, relationships. I wouldlike the Members on the other side to tell me: Are they aware that the Minister ofFinance is the former brother-in-law of the Minister of Energy and EnergyIndustries? Just an example.

Mr. Manning : One happy family.

Mr. C. Imbert : Are they aware that the Chairman of National Petroleum is thesister of somebody who is a very good friend of the Minister of Finance? These arethe kinds of webs that can be woven in the financial system. This is how things canhappen and cheques can be bounced. There may actually be funds in the account.Someone may wish to sabotage somebody and bounce a cheque when, in fact,everything is in order.

Mr. Sudama: How does that come in?

Mr. C. Imbert : I am giving examples of things that can happen. It is not justthat someone may write a cheque, there are not funds in the account and itbounces. Someone may, in fact, write a cheque and have funds in the account butbecause of a web of intrigue, where someone wants to do that person injury, theybounce the cheque.

That is why it is very dangerous when a Minister of government tries tointerfere with the recruitment and employment processes of one of the major banksin Trinidad and Tobago and put his handpicked person in as chief executive officer.When that is done, it can create a situation where the banking system can bemanipulated, persons' accounts can be tampered with, cheques bounced anddishonoured and people subject to prosecution under this Bill, when they aretotally innocent. I think Members on the other side need to know about theserelationships, the web inside of there of family and friends; one very happy family—

Mr. Manning : One happy family.

Mr. C. Imbert :—all defending themselves, covering and supportingthemselves when the entire affair is a scandal. When you go into it and check outthe facts, it is a scandal. Persons in the financial system are daring us to bell the catand say what is going on. We will not hold back. We know what went on and will


756

say what went on, so that confidence in the banking system can be restored and theactions of First Citizens Bank against particular individuals for financialirregularity, people would understand what happened. [Desk thumping]

All this "ole" talk about "no justiciable evidence" and it was "inconclusive andnobody knows what went on", this kind of talk is all a lot of rubbish. We have toclean up the banking system in Trinidad and Tobago. We cannot have people hereinterfering with the system causing problems with cheques and payments andcausing people to be subject to imprisonment and all sorts of things because offamily relationships and because they want to do injury to persons. I ask theAttorney General to look at that because I see a trend coming into Trinidad andTobago.

With this Bill, innocent as it seems, you are in trouble if you bounce a chequewith it. You have 10 days to fix the problem. If it is a conspiracy, such as the one Ijust outlined from governmental level down, "crapaud smoke yuh pipe"; next thingyour cheque bounces and you are in jail.

Hon. Member: Good thing I left that bank!

Mr. C. Imbert : No, I bank with that bank and I have confidence in it.

Mr. Hart : Every time the Attorney General talks is about jail.

Mr. C. Imbert : Mr. Speaker, I hope the Members on the other sideunderstand the seriousness of what is going on in this country. There are peoplewho want to tamper with the banking system and put their handpicked people inplace; persons who have no compulsion, no ethics or standards and who do notunderstand the difference between right and wrong and ask for commissions,kickbacks, bribes and see nothing wrong with that; [Desk thumping] people whoare being defended in the newspapers. It is scandalous. Anyway, let us forget thatand go back to this matter.

4.10 p.m.

I want the Attorney General to look very carefully at clause 7. I understood thepoint made by the Member for St. Joseph, he is absolutely right that for a smallbusiness 10 days is a long time. A cheque may bounce and within 10 days yourbusiness might fold up; that is absolutely correct. But we have to be careful thatwe do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, that is a valid point but is10 days enough? I do not think so. We are introducing legislation here, we arechanging the whole manner in which we deal with the issuing of financial


757

instruments and perhaps we should walk before we run with that sort of thing;perhaps we should make haste slowly. I do not think that 10-day period is longenough, we should look at it. It is the whole question of notice. A person shouldbe informed properly that he or she has issued a dishonoured cheque and then thedays should start to run after that.

We also have to look at the liability of the banks in this matter. If a bank causesa cheque to be bounced and causes someone to be in prison or fined and it turnsout to be a bank error, what is the liability of the bank in this matter? Let us lookat this Bill a little more closely. I agree with the principle of increasing the penaltiesand so forth, we need to look at it a little more closely.

I ask the Members on the other side, do not be so naive, open up your eyes.Things are taking place within your Government, there are persons within youradministration who do not care about your reputation; they could not care lessabout their own or the country’s reputation. They are only interested in doing theirown improper business and if the whole government gets tarnished in the process,well, too bad. Be careful, open up your eyes. A major bank does not dismiss amanaging director for coming late. When this happens, when someone getsdismissed from a senior post he or she usually takes action. Look at the case ofWASA, when the former general manager was sent home he took action. It is allvery strange, someone is fired and takes no action.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Attorney General, please let us take a good, longhard look at these clauses, at the grace period, the question of service of notice,the question of liability of the bank and let us have some more time to study thesethings together so that we can improve the banking and financial legislation inTrinidad and Tobago.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Desk thumping]

The Minister of Tobago Affairs (Dr. The Hon. Morgan Job): Mr. Speaker,I rise to support the Bill which seeks to reform the law in relation to dishonouredcheques which is intended, among other things, to prosecute summarily any personwho utters or passes a cheque on a non-existing account, an account with nofunds, an account with insufficient funds or who has no credit facilities to cover thecheque. This Bill also seeks to compensate, by an order of restitution, any personwho has been deprived of property or services by means of a dishonoured cheque.

Mr. Speaker, you, yourself and the media have been trying to pursue thepurpose of Parliament with respect to educating people and doing the nation’s

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998[DR. THE HON. M. JOB]

758

business in a manner that is honourable and indeed noble and I hope at the end ofmy standing here we would have achieved, to some extent, this purpose.

The Member for Diego Martin East, if he will permit me, I will remind him of astatement I made to the Member for San Fernando East. If when you are drivingyou look in your rear-view mirror you are likely to get into an accident. I heard theMember for Diego Martin East spend quite a lot of time dealing with banks andcalling names. He called a Mr. Soodhoo whom I do not know; I am not sufficientlyinformed. I wonder what that has to do with the purpose of this Bill but,nonetheless, I would want to deal with some of the issues raised with respect tobanks.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill has to be looked at in context. Every law,if it is a good law, has to be related to the cultural context, to the context of timeand place. In Trinidad and Tobago today many people have grown into a way oflife—some call it the PNM way of life; it is a way of life of lawlessness, it is a wayof life of corruption, it is a way of life of decadence and for many, even a way oflife of death. Corruption and lawlessness with respect to property. A cheque isreally a claim on property. When you write a cheque it means that you can getmoney for it or you can ask people to transfer money which is, in fact, a claim onproperty and real assets and services. Therefore, in a sense writing cheques withthe knowledge that you do not have assets that can be covered with those cheques,is a disrespect for property and other people's property. It is really going at thebasis of civilization.

If you go back into ancient time—I hear them quoting the Bible. There is awhole book in the Bible called Leviticus which is the Hebrew or Greek for laws. Ittells you in Leviticus what you must do about money and land, it tells you whatkind of loans you can make and what kind of claims you can make. It is all there.[Interruption] Mr. Speaker, that kind of irrelevance [Inaudible] because they arequoting the Bible about justice and these people who are quoting the Bible aresome of the most deceitful—what was the phrase the Prime Minister used? Theycome into the House of Parliament to tell lies on the Member for Tobago East.

Let me get back to the purpose for which I am here. I am saying that thecontext is important. We have a society that is immersed in lawlessness.[Interruption] Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of these people, if they will allow meto make my statement.


759

Mr. Speaker: The remark that has just been made by the Member for DiegoMartin Central will be expunged from the record. May I ask the Member for DiegoCentral please, you know that is not right.

Mr. Valley: May I? On this matter?

Mr. Speaker: In shouting that across the House. Do you not apologize forthat? Please continue.

Dr. The Hon. Job: Mr. Speaker, I thought that in the context of what I washearing from the Opposition this afternoon, I should spend a few minutes making itclear to the children of this country, in particular, that money is about property. Itis very important that if we are going to develop an economy we have to protectprivate property in all its forms. We have to get people to understand that if youdo not have confidence and security of property you cannot have accumulation,you cannot have that fund. Nobody would want to save, nobody would trust thecurrency. Therefore, we have to look at it in the context of culture.

There is, in the world today, a lead table. I do not know who are the peopleresponsible for doing this. There were some people who came in here last month,sometime in December, to deal with corruption. There are lead tables that saywhich countries in the world are the most corrupt countries and which are the leastcorrupt countries. I think they say that India and Nigeria are among the mostcorrupt countries in the world and some European countries—I think somewherein Scandinavia—are the least corrupt countries.

4.20 p.m.

The question is, if there is such a lead table published, it has an immense impacton the prospects of a country. There are people who are reading these things.Somebody over there said that there are members in embassies; they have theirown spy network; they do industrial espionage; they spy out the conditions.

Mr. Imbert: The Member for St. Joseph said that.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Oh, the Member for St. Joseph. And, indeed, I knowthat this is the truth because I myself have had international experience. I workedwith people who were doing that. So that I understand full well the importance ofensuring that according to the law, and according to how we behave in Trinidadand Tobago, we are protecting private property and we are making the society lesscorrupt and more lawful. It is important that we start there.


760

Mr. Speaker, much of the discussion with respect to banks, I found verysurprising. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal with some ofthe issues raised by the Member for Diego Martin East. The way the Member forDiego Martin East introduced the question of banks, I found to be very invidious.

Mr. Imbert: No, the Member for St. Joseph introduced it.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Am I going to be permitted to make my contributionwith unnecessary and unfair interruption? The Member for Diego Martin Eastspent a considerable amount of his time talking about banks, so, Mr. Speaker, Iwant to deal with that. I want to deal with banks.

My notepad here states: he is talking about widening the scope of penalties toget banks— "Was it merely the error of the person who wrote the cheque, or wasit an error of the bank? Should not a bank suffer penalty for causing someone towrite a bad cheque?" And then he talks about interlocking conspiracies; creating asystem where accounts can be manipulated; cheques bounced; scandals in thebanks; bell the cat in the bank so the confidence will be restored—all those werehis words—clean up the bank.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of banks, this Parliament must be advised to lookback a little. We cannot allow ourselves not to learn from the past. You knowsomebody said that when you do not remember the past, you are doomed to repeatthe errors of the past. So it might be a very good thing that the Member for DiegoMartin East raised this question of banks and corruption in the banks. I do notknow that he understands the importance of what he said.

Mr. Imbert: Oh, come on. So uncharitable.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Mr. Speaker, within my lifetime, within his lifetime, agovernment in this country condoned—and before I go on, he is suggesting, if Ilook at my notes, that people who tamper with banks are immoral people; they arehandpicking people to put in banks and they should do something about them.

Mr. Imbert: If the Member would just give way.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Mr. Speaker, let us look back a little. I used to beworking in a former Prime Minister's office at a time when a bank went bankrupt inthis country—the Workers’ Bank—and the Central Bank had to bail out theWorkers’ Bank, at the time when I was there, to the tune of half a billion dollars.

Mr. Bereaux: The Prime Minister was a director of that bank at the time.


761

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Mr. Speaker, half a billion dollars. And, subsequentlyto demitting office, that bank, as well as the National Commercial Bank, as well asthe Co-operative Bank, all of them folded up. The people who ran those banks toruin; the people who looted them; all those were people who were put there by thePNM. Nobody was locked up. Mr. Speaker, if you ask a child to write $2,000million, it would full up a copybook page with zeros—$2,000 million. People inthis country do not know these things. This is why the PNM is getting away,gallivanting and "gallaying" in this country. The sum of two thousand million dollars oftaxpayers’ money was unaccounted for. That is the bad debt portfolio of theconsolidated account of the National Commercial Bank, the Co-operative Bankand the Workers’ Bank—$2,000 million which taxpayers: I, you and everybodyelse has to pay for. Nobody was locked up. I did not hear them talk about that.

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that I had to talk today. The leader of mydelegation here just asked me to say a few words in response, otherwise I wouldhave walked with my documents and given details that would shock this nationinto commonsense. One of those banks deliberately used to put aside $80 millionto give away money to people—it is documented—without collateral; withoutassets; just to give away to friends and family.

Mr. Hart: Who was the leader of that bank, the leader of your delegation?

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: The next time I will bring it. They will hear scandalsabout banks; mismanagement of banks; corruption; interlocking conspiracies ofinterest between politicians and prime ministers; as you never believed possible inTrinidad and Tobago. That is what they will hear.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Panday and Selwyn John.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: When they are talking about these things, they betterunderstand, as I told the Member for San Fernando East.

Mr. Sudama: Who appointed the management?

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: I am saying this, not to divaricate from the substanceof the thing, but we have to warn people that we must look back with caution. I donot know that I can encourage myself to refuse to comment on those retroactiveviews; that kind of looking back that is so distorted; so partial; so biased; sounnecessary; so tendentious; designed to deceive; not to lead the mind to truth orto understanding. [Laughter]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about interlocking conspiracies between thepoliticians and the management of financial institutions, we must never forget that


762

fascist interlocking between politicians and a financial institution in this country—he is the one who raised the issue—the Unit Trust. They used the Unit Trust, apowerful institution, to deny me constitutional rights to speak.

Mr. Imbert: Personal matters.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: You understand. The Member for Diego Martin Eastwas warning us of how politicians on this side are uniting with banks to bouncecheques; or making allegations of bouncing cheques; giving their friends work;using this thing for their private business. I am talking not about allegations, Mr.Speaker, I am dealing with matters of fact. Things that have happened; notallegations. Two thousand million dollars in bad debts is not allegation.

Hon. Member: What is it?

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Fact. Wasting taxpayers’ money as if money was noproblem. When you are raising these issues, we need to look at remedies for allthat and I want to advise the Member for Diego Martin East that if he is lookingfor remedies to address those problems, he needs to look for all the remedies thatwould involve locking up politicians who were in the executive. [Interruption]Maybe we should make them retroactive, to lock them up when they had soscandalously, when they had so irresponsibly, when they had so maliciously—

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: —and malevolently abused the trust of the people andof the innocent and weak citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of a state bank, the state bank belongs to all thepeople. Who are the people who benefited from $2,000 million in bad debts.

Mr. Hart: Panday and Selwyn John.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Were they the people of URP? Were they the peoplefrom Tobago East?

[Mr. Speaker stands]

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Who are the people who benefited? Who are they? Sowhen we are talking about banks—sorry, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the sitting is suspended for half an hour.

4.30 p.m.: Sitting suspended.


763

5.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed.

Dr. The Hon. M. Job: Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of this Bill reads as follows:

“A person who commits an offence under section 3 is liable on summaryconviction to a fine in an amount equivalent to ten times the value of thecheque and to imprisonment for five years.”

I like that very much. Clause 6 says:

“In addition to the penalties referred to in section 5, the court may—

(a) order the restoration of any property which has been obtained by thedishonoured cheque and has been recovered from the defendant oranother, or which is in the defendant’s possession or control; or

(b) order restitution of the value of any property or services which have beenobtained by the dishonoured cheque.”

I have to emphasize that I like that because the children of this country, the citizensof this country, many of them have grown up in this way of life of corruption, akind of picaroon society as a way of life. One of them did say, in the height of anelection campaign, “All ah we tief”. Do you remember that? That sent a signal topeople, if you are a smartman and you can steal money, it is quite okay.

The question of cheques and this URP thing, much of what we are seeing asproblems with the Unemployment Relief Programme, everybody knows it has todo with ghost gangs and people who did not work and got paid by cheque andpeople walking out with bundles of cheques. The whole thing is a set of confusionand nobody is getting locked up. You print somebody’s name on a cheque. It wasalways like that, and this Government is trying to get on top of the case. It shouldbe commended. Everybody in Trinidad and Tobago should feel happy that this Billis here, to lock up people who illegally acquire cheques and therefore acquireproperty that is not rightfully theirs.

We have people who have grown up in a kind of culture of racket, corruptionand a kind of hero-worship of the smartman. I am saying that this Bill is to fit intoa kind of cultural context where we have become accustomed to no penalties. Youput a “no parking” sign on the road and the maxi-taxi parks on top of it, and infront of where the sign is, there is another police sign saying “no parking orwaiting here”, and he is there, right by the Croisée, every day. Nobody is losing hislicence. In the world of Morgan Job, I will charge you $500 the first time; $1,000the next time, and the next time you do not drive for the rest of your natural life in


764

this country. But it is not my will to make the law. Parliament makes laws. If I hadanything to do with it, it would be like that.

We have to understand penalties must fit the offence and there is a purpose topenalty. If you do not like the law, change it. If you have a law that says, peoplewho kill people, after the jury comes back and says they are guilty you are to hangthem, you must hang them. People get a disrespect for right behaviour; for lawfulbehaviour, when no penalties are imposed, when you bounce bad cheques andnobody does you anything. You have to do that.

We have to create the kind of environment which is instructive both in thedidactic sense of a school and in the didactic sense of the cultural environment, thecontext in which the child is growing. When they know that their uncle, cousin orsomebody was locked up for bouncing a cheque, they would not want to do that.They heard about it. This is the context in which we want to put people. We wantto put them in a context where—I remember we are talking about banks andconspiracies between politicians and banks. I remember hearing a certain PrimeMinister returning from a foreign jaunt and when asked at the airport about acertain gentleman whose debt of $15 million or $20 million was written off, hesaid, “that is him and the bank’s business”. That is Lenny Saith and the bank’sbusiness. So that the context has to include that. They are the ones who say banksmust be enjoined. That is the word he used. “You must enjoin banks.” Then hetalks about the fact that you have these conspiracies which are going to causeinterest rates to rise. In my notepad here I put a question mark. What does interestrates have to do with these conspiracies?

People do not understand economics; they do not understand what causesinterest rates. So I have to make a comment on that for clarification of the childrenwho might read this. “You understand this conspiracy is going to cause interestrates to rise; this web of intrigue.” When you are talking about confidence, in thesense that the Member for Diego Martin East raised it, and that people would loseconfidence in the banks and that can cause difficulties for people who are servedby the banks, I want to make it quite clear that I did borrow some moneys from theGovernment and the agency which was seeing about the loan was First CitizensBank. I never reneged on my loan; I was always paying my loan, but a Member ofParliament goes into the records of the bank, takes out my records and make thema public issue in a fraudulent, false, malevolent, mischievous and deceitful way. Healso did the same thing for Carol Cuffy-Dowlat. That is a more blatant example ofmischief than you can ever find.


765

That kind of way of using a privileged position to go into a bank to take outpeople’s account and make it a public issue, if you want an example of how apolitician can mischievously undermine or, in fact, influence public confidence inthe banks, that is it.

The question of confidence in the banks and political interference, it was thePNM government which took Miss Occah Seapaul’s bank accounts and put them inthe front page of the Trinidad Guardian. And they come here today to talk abouthow politicians can influence confidence in banks. They have a track record, anenviable one, of abusing positions to take innocent citizens to no public purpose,but to destroy individual character through knowledge of their bank accounts. Thatis a fact. That is not an allegation. We have to deal with all of that.

5.10 p.m.

I want to deal with the question of the necessity of this law in the context ofthe society in which we live, and to lead the mind in another direction that has todo with the evolving economy. The Member for St. Joseph did talk about theevolving international economy, and the Member for Diego Martin East also talkedabout the same thing.

I have been for many years, a voice crying in the wilderness on sundry issues,one of them being education. We all know that education had become, under thePNM, a gigantic and massive racket. The textbook industry, a $200 millionindustry; people printing textbooks with ghost names, ghost companies and soforth, which is the reason there are so many illiterate people in the country. TheMember for San Fernando East was forever regaling people with the informationthat Trinidad and Tobago is 97 per cent literate and I said if we are 97 per centliterate, then the three per cent was in his Cabinet.

I am making this point because education about the impact of fraudulentbehaviour of a culture of con-men on the loose without penalties is destructive tothe way we are going. The way this economy is going, it has to join up with theworld. It has to get into computer and buy things all over the place. As it is now, ifone has a credit card, one punches in the number on one’s Internet and one canbuy a book in New York or source something in the Far East or anywhere. Wewant more lawful people. We have to develop a society where people are going tobe more lawful because you are involving the world in commerce with Trinidadand Tobago and there has to be a kind of character. People have to understandwhen they are trading with Trinidad and Tobago they are not trading with fraudsand con-men; not with people who, their politicians and political leaders are going


766

to get up and tell everybody that “All ah we tief.” We are moving into the area ofsecurities.

I did say in Tobago yesterday that if they had listened to me—all of them;Opposition, as well as Government in their time—we would not now be just toyingwith the idea of reforming the pension system. What we are going to have isworkers in the public service, policemen whoever they may be, having pensionsavings account where they are paying for their own retirement benefits and notdepending on the Consolidated Fund to do that. If one is going to get into all ofthat, one is getting into an area where these pension funds are going to bemanaged in such a way that you are investing money abroad, people are investingmoney here and that kind of culture is going to be handed on and becomewidespread.

People are using not only plastic money, but using ideas and the futuresmarket, using the securities market, making forward contracts and all of that. Weare getting into the area of derivatives. So the children have to hear about theNyron Scolies, Fisher Black and Roger Burton; two gentlemen, one died in 1950swho got a Nobel Prize for developing some mathematical models for value,securities. Children have to know about all that and they are related to the issueswe are talking about. When you are making future’s contract and so forth, one hasto have a kind of character, a kind of lawfulness. We do not now have thelegislative framework, as far as I understand, to deal with all of that, but we haveto be thinking in that direction. Therefore, this Bill is very timely in the context ofall of that. One has to understand these things. So that the question of risk in themarketplace must be real risk; not risk contrived by con-men, criminal empires,and criminal conspiracies.

In this House of Parliament, I see at the back a picture of Mr. Des Vignes. Heis dead now because the day when he got killed in this Parliament they werediscussing corruption. The Opposition has spent so many years running thiscountry and nurturing and nourishing corruption as a way of life, saw nothing withit. Perhaps, the reason which explains the behaviour of the Member for SanFernando East that he does not think that this Bill is a serious issue; it should notbe the first issue; that we should not be dealing with corruption at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am asserting that this Bill is important for many reasons that arenot readily apparent; that there is a culture in this country where the Governmentsin the past have tolerated corruption and nobody got locked up and they made abig joke out of it.


767

I myself, and I am sure the Members for Couva South, and Couva North andeveryone here who swore—some by Gita, some by Quoran, some by Bible—theyswore to uphold the laws of the country. I do not know that they are willing to goand tell anybody that if by law or by due process, they were caught in corruptionthey should not pay the penalty. What I know as a matter of fact is that allgovernments in the past, especially the ones that were PNM, never locked up anypolitician. The $2,000 million that became bad debts in banks that were controlledby politicians; they put their friends, family, cousins to work in it to run it, and$2000 million disappeared. Nobody got locked up. We heard from the Member forDiego Martin East, that people want to tamper with the banks and these people areimmoral, they are handpicked people, they want to tamper with people’s moneys.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say except to make my summaryconcerning the fact that the representation of the Member for Diego Martin Eastwere unfair—and I should say in a partisan manner—looking at the question ofbanks and that, indeed, his interventions did not, in my view, vitiate the substanceof this Bill which is to update the penalties according to law, which is to guide thekind of behaviour in a modern economy so that people would understand that acheque is a very serious claim on real resources and real property and that wecannot afford to allow people to be abusing or misusing other people’s propertyand going without punishment, without penalty.

With respect to banks, this honourable House ought to take a hint from theMember for Diego Martin East and recollect with anger the way banks that wereowned by the Government were used by politicians and by the kinds ofconspiracies that the Member for Diego Martin East raised in terms of canalizingor should I say shifting funds. He used some words: Was it mere bank error or wasit merely error that some of these things can happen? We should really be askingourselves in hindsight, was it indeed error that the taxpayers of this country haveto suffer now the burden of $2,000 million worth of bad debts that were incurredon this country? We must also ask the question: Who are the people that benefitedfrom that? Was it the poor people? Was it the taxi driver? Was it the people fromTobago East? Was it the people from Laventille or was it people like Lenny Saith?One has to understand who are the people that benefited? The sum of $2,000million is a lot of money in any country, in any time, in any place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill, and I hope that the other Members of thishonourable House would recognize what I have just said and what the intention ofthe Bill is and give it their unanimous support. Thank you.


768

Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West): Mr. Speaker, let me apologize forany loss of decibels on my part. I am slightly under the air-conditioning. I rise tomake a short contribution on this matter. Let me begin by defending my colleaguefrom Diego Martin East who is not in the Chamber at this time. He, too, Iunderstand, is not entirely 100 per cent and he might also be suffering from beingin here too long under the air-conditioning.

In his absence I must set the record straight because my colleague fromTobago East has given the impression that the Member for Diego Martin East isopposed to the measure as brought by the Attorney General. I think that is anunfair comment. I distinctly recall my colleague from Diego Martin East sayingspecifically that we agree and support what the Attorney General is trying to do.What we have been saying is that it may be that we need to look at a couple ofclauses to be able to do it better so that it would not cause grief to innocent peopleor people who had no intention to defraud but might, under certain circumstances,find themselves under the heavy weight of the law under conditions where we canhave some kind of sympathy for what they had done, including bank error and soforth.

Therefore, it is not necessary for any Member on the other side to put it acrossas though the Member for Diego Martin East even on our behalf had, in fact,opposed the measure. When the Member for Tobago East said that nothing thatthe Member for Diego Martin East said vitiates the substance of the Bill, there wasnever any intention to vitiate. In fact, it was said that we will support the measurebut we need to have a look at a few clauses not the least of which is the wholequestion of the presumption of innocence and guilt which is a seriousconsideration.

Mr. Speaker, that might not impress some Members on the other side, but Iwill come back to that question about presumption, innocence and guilt. I willbegin by saying that there was much that was said by the Member for St. Josephwhich I agree with entirely. It is not very often that I agree with so much of whathe has said, but I agree with his presentation that the conduct of business in anycountry could label the environment of that country, and if that environment isdeemed to be of a certain type, people on the outside may view the country and itspotential in investing in a certain way.

5.20 p.m.

We do not want to call the names of any countries, but there are somecountries in Africa, Latin America and to a lesser extent in Asia, where the way in


769

which business is done is well known to the world, and the standards which theyfollow are not those which are acceptable to the vast majority of investors. Manyfirms choose not to conduct business in those countries because of their behaviourwhen conducting business.

That is why I support the statement of my colleague, the Member for St.Joseph. If in this country there are people who are making a habit of prospering bytheir conduct, insofar as they write cheques for money they do not have, receivelarge volumes of goods which they then convert to cash, enrich themselves andleave some innocent small or big business holding the bag, and that becomes theway in which we conduct business here, it could certainly have some negativeimpact on the country’s image and its overall progress. Some people will have topay. As you know, there are no free lunches. If somebody gets goods throughscheming, then somebody has to pay. Invariably, that person would be the innocentone. We view it in that context and we are not opposing any attempt to bring tobook persons who can be demonstrated to be criminals in the action which theywould take, insofar as they are seeking to obtain value for money which they donot have.

I would go a little further in the context of what was said by my friend, theMember for St. Joseph. He said that people would begin to lose confidence if thismisbehaviour with respect to the financial management and the trust between sellerand buyer breaks down. He is right. If there are bounced cheques in the systemeveryone would be looked at suspiciously, to the point sometimes where somebusinesses say that they are not accepting any cheques, only cash. Some want tosee a bank card and even when they see it, they want your telephone number athome. They are so nervous about the whole situation. Confidence can be damaged.

He also spoke about reputation, credibility overseas and business personsconducting their business in an improper manner. All these points I support and Iagree with the Member for St. Joseph. These are important points. I am getting theimpression that these tenets do not apply to the state sector. If Members on theother side are like me and agree with what the Member for St. Joseph said, theywould have serious concerns about what is going on in the state sector. Therefore,they would be driven to rectifying the problems in the state sector, so as not toresult in a loss of confidence and all the other ills which have been touched by theMember for St. Joseph.

From time to time I look at the Internet. It pleases me when I see the frontpage of the newspapers such as the Daily Express and Trinidad Guardian from

Negotiable Instruments Bill Friday, January 16, 1998[DR. ROWLEY]

770

Trinidad and Tobago. That front page of our newspapers is available to everysingle person in the world who has access to the Internet. Our image is availablefor viewing in a way that we have never been viewed before. Not once have I seenon the front page of any newspapers, any reference to bounced cheques. It willtake much bouncing of cheques to outdo our image creation to replace this. Thisnewspaper with the front page article headlined, “NP Board stands behindSoodhoo” is available all over the world. Anybody reading one of the premiernewspapers in the country and seeing the position of the chairperson of a stateenterprise who is seeking to defend the indefensible, like my colleague for St.Joseph says, would come to the conclusion or would ask in the very least, whatkind of climate prevails in that little country near Venezuela? Who are these peoplein that country who permit their state sector to be run in that way, and be treatedwith this contempt by the people who the very Government has put to run thepublic business?

I am not pooh-poohing the whole question about bad cheques. Today I toldmy friend for Couva South that I would give him “fatigue” about his hair and hisfriends; but I would never be on the side of supporting any criminal activity in thiscountry. I do not have any sympathy for criminals. When I say that the standardsdo not seem to apply in the state sector, I will demonstrate what I mean. Mr.Speaker, I am sure you read the Order Papers, and you have seen the questions inParliament and you are au courant with the situation.

In this country there is a situation where the state owns a bank dealing withmillions of dollars of people’s money, including millions of dollars put in by theCentral Bank. I was a member of the Cabinet and I had to agree to support theCentral Bank injecting millions of dollars to bail out Workers’ Bank to create FirstCitizens Bank, which is the remnant of Workers’ Bank. I can speak with authoritybecause I was a client of Workers’ Bank from the inception. I defy anybody onthat side to tell me that my conduct in Workers’ Bank was not one of support. Ibought my first and second properties at Workers’ Bank, and at the end of the day,regrettably, I had to leave because confidence was being undermined by no otherperson than the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. I am sorry about it.

When I saw the Bill, I said to myself, thank God I left that bank because if Iwere there, as the Member for Diego Martin East pointed out, given the behaviourof some of the gentlemen on the other side that have no subterranean limits, it isquite possible that I could have found myself having one of my chequesdishonoured or my account could have disappeared from the bank, and the next


771

thing I would have known is that I would have been on the way to the state hotelon Frederick Street with no recourse. This is straight jail for 10 days. I am notsaying that I oppose the measure. When this Bill is passed a number of personswho would get themselves exposed to being charged of that action would go to jailor would find themselves paying 10 times what they had put out. In a way, I amglad that I am not there because I do not want to be within grasp of the elementsthat now control the state financial sector.

I come back to this whole question of confidence and the Chairman of NationalPetroleum Marketing Company Limited. A moment ago, I asked my colleague, theMember for San Fernando East, if in his 27 years of Parliament he had theexperience of a minister of government coming to Parliament to unlie a lie. He saidhe did not know. It never happened in his presence. I am subject to correction. TheMembers for St. Augustine and Tobago West have been here a long time. If I amwrong correct me. I think it is the first time that a minister of government has hadto come to Parliament to undo what was in effect a deliberate act which couldhave been avoided.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, talking about confidence, that Minister of Finance is theCorporation Sole. He is responsible for the bank. If there is any wavering ofconfidence, to whom do we look? Even if underlings are misbehaving, one looksup there for an unshakeable commitment to that confidence. Instead, that is wherethe confidence is being undermined.

When the question was put as to whether or not the Member was aware thatthe most senior officer in the merchant bank had been terminated, he said that hewas not aware. He was not content to stay there, Mr. Speaker, he went on tointroduce an environment in which the gentleman ended up in another stateenterprise by introducing a scenario of applications in response to anadvertisement. There was no advertisement, no application. He created thatclimate with the express purpose of misdirecting the House away from the fact. Allwho in this House had eyes to see, saw, and all who had ears to hear, heard, andthat is what will undermine the confidence in the banking system in this country,and not one or two bounced cheques.

Those outside will see that the Minister of Finance of Trinidad and Tobago—itis in the news all over the world—had to come back to the Parliament with egg onhis face, forced by the Prime Minister, to correct himself. He came back hereunashamedly to undo, under duress, what he did at the last meeting. People are


772

looking at that and will be asking, not how many bounced cheques there are in thesystem in Trinidad and Tobago, with all due respect to those wrongdoings but:What kind of country is that? As Shakespeare himself would say: What manner ofman is this who is running our finances? That is what they will ask.

So, in terms of reputation and credibility overseas, I humbly submit to myfriend from St. Joseph, that it is not the small business or the smart man bouncinghis cheque around the country—he will end up in jail sooner or later—he or she isnot the one who will undermine our credibility overseas, it is his colleague, theMinister of Finance.

When he says that persons are conducting their businesses in a manner that isnot proper, he is talking about the board of the National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited. It has to be. Which enterprise in this country, private or public,today, January 16, 1998, is conducting its business in a more improper mannerthan the board of the National Petroleum Marketing Company Limited?

I will demonstrate. The Chief Executive Officer of the merchant bank was firedin September while he was on the board of the National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited. The decent expected thing would have been for the Minister,the Corporation Sole, to take steps to protect all of us in Trinidad and Tobago byensuring that he gets himself off the board. Instead, he was fired by First CitizensBank in September and the next thing, in October, he was put in charge ofNational Petroleum Marketing Company Limited’s future, which will now bespending $200 million in some programme of which he is in charge. Mr. Speaker,since I was a little boy, I knew one does not put cat to watch butter.

The mess that exists in the National Petroleum Marketing Company Limitedand the country today could have been avoided because the Oilfields Workers’Trade Union, as a responsible local institution, looking at its members’ interestinsofar as the company’s future, asked very simple questions, very early. What isthe story of this gentleman? Where did he come from? What is he doing? Not ananswer was forthcoming from the Minister, the Government or from the board ofthe company. All their tongues had pip; they could not talk. However, the minutethe heat came to Parliament and they were exposed by the media, the Chairman ofNational Petroleum Marketing Company Limited was all over the radio andtelevision providing information.

I filed a question in this House since October 2, 1997, and to date thisGovernment has not been able to answer. This is after the Attorney General gaveus the assurance, on prorogation, when they asked for time off, that they would


773

take steps to have the question answered at the first opportunity after theresumption. Instead of that, we had to refile the questions, which was done, and inthe normal scheme of things the question came up today and this Government,which is concerned about confidence and conducting business in a proper manner,tells the country that it needs more time to find out whether the partner of myfriend from Princes Town had a contract from Caroni (1975) Limited, whether ithas a value and who approved it.

While the Government is paying state funds to a number of persons on stateboards, a simple question is asked: How many persons who started off on boardsended up in executive positions or contract positions? )or four months they couldnot answer. In the meantime, in the financial sector, at First Citizens Bank, thehead of the agency is removed. He ends up in National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited to determine the company’s future, and the Minister responsiblecomes to this House as a guest and seeks to mislead us and comes back today totry to correct what, fortunately, was not accepted by his colleagues.

The Minister of Finance went further. He told us in this House, in attemptingto create a climate of acceptability for that action which could reduce theconfidence in the system, that First Citizens Bank wrote a glowingrecommendation for the gentleman which caused him to be hired. So he cametoday and gave an explanation that he misunderstood the Minister of Energy andEnergy Industries. Mr. Speaker, ask him when you see him who misled him intotelling us that First Citizens Bank wrote a glowing recommendation for thatgentleman to allow him to get the job. Who misled him?

When we see the First Citizens Bank’s letter published in the media, what doesit say? The gentleman was terminated. In this country, we speak the Englishlanguage. “Terminated from the bank” means you have been fired, but the Ministerof Finance (Corporation Sole), in charge of the bank and in charge of NationalPetroleum Marketing Company Limited, lies to this House and says that FirstCitizens Bank wrote a glowing recommendation which resulted in the man beinghired. Then the Chairman of the board goes on national television and says that thebank has shared with her no information to make her not want to hire the man.

She also has the impertinence to want to engage Members of Parliament whoare seeking to raise matters of state interest. I want to tell all of them that Irepresent the people of Diego Martin West with their consent and the damage thatis being done to this country—and I am saying this to my colleagues here this


774

afternoon; all who have been elected by people’s votes—is being done by personsfor whom nobody in this country voted.

Insofar as they sit there mum, or pole-vault on their principles to support theirbehaviour, they are guilty of betraying the confidence of those hundreds ofthousands of persons who voted for them. [Desk thumping]

5.40 p.m.

Therefore, when the Chairman of National Petroleum Marketing CompanyLimited seeks to engage Members of Parliament who are conducting their businessto protect the confidence of our financial system and the image of our country—we do not want to be known as a banana republic of South America, whereanything goes. We do not want to be known as that at all! We do not want to beknown as a country where the Minister of Finance could come to the Parliamentand say he spent $100 million on an airport and refuse, point blank, to say what hespent it on! That is South American behaviour! I do not want to read in TimeMagazine, the Newsweek or in The Economist that in Trinidad and Tobago there isthis web of corruption—bedroom tactics—where the Minister of Finance’sgirlfriend’s sister is running the National Petroleum Marketing Company Limited,his ex-brother-in-law is running the energy sector, and between them they arerunning the bank and the National Petroleum Marketing Company Limited.Because the next thing one would hear, Mr. Speaker, is that this country’s imagewill be the worst, south of the equator. [Desk thumping]

Insofar as my friend from St. Joseph is concerned about our image overseas—pull up your socks and get those bandits out of the corridors of power. He said thebuck stops with him. Last week he said that I admitted that I did not know DoleChadee’s house was on state land. I do not have to lie about that. As a Minister ofGovernment, I did not know everybody who lived on state land. The Ministerraised the matter and I said, I did not know that Dole Chadee lived on state land. Itwas only when I saw it on the newspaper I realized that Mr. Chadee was living onstate land. The Member for St. Joseph said to me: “You should have known! Thatis negligence! The buck stops here!” Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Ministerwhere does the “rice” buck stop. [Laughter] The “rice” buck seems to have passedhim and gone to the Prime Minister, who started the process in India, but sixmonths later he wants a report on the rice. I heard that the weevils big so, the ratsbig so, and the rice is soaked with rat urine. [Laughter] Those are the things thatundermine confidence and label a country.


775

The Prime Minister travelled to India, with our goodwill. We supported him.Our Prime Minister was going back to his roots. We had two weeks of realemotional—there was a build up in this country when we saw our Prime Ministermeet his family in India. I was moved, Mr. Speaker; I was moved! [Laughter]However, six months later, what is the story? Rice comes from India with all kindsof stories about bill of lading. For one month the ship is outside with rice thatcannot land in the country because its papers are not acceptable. We are hearingabout lawsuit and, of course, you know Viziers getting work. [Interruption] Nomatter what happens, no matter how bad things are, I always maintain thatsomebody will profit. If there is an epidemic and people are dying like flies, theundertakers get rich.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I am sure that you are still talking on the Bill.

Dr. K. Rowley: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, once you give me the assurance that you are still on theBill.

Dr. K. Rowley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am on the question of confidence.

While the rice rots Viziers getting rich. That is the kind of web, which willeventually end up in Time Magazine when Trinidad and Tobago is described. Wewill not be described as the land of calypso and steelband. We will not be describedas the land of the LNG plant. We will not be described as the land of Point Lisas.We will be described as the land where there is a web of nepotism, cronyism,corruption and inequity. That is how we would be portrayed. On that day, whenwe are so described, is when the damage would have been done to us.

Mr. Speaker, I will demonstrate to you how our image and this matter ofconfidence works. They hired a gentleman at National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited; he creates the job and he jumps into it. Is he a consultant or ishe not? No answer. When he is exposed by other means we are hearing that he is aconsultant, and he has to get a company car because he has to go to gas stations.When consultants are hired in this country they are paid a consultancy fee and ifthey have to walk, run or take the bus to work that is their business. However, hegot a car. Then this chairman said: “The truth will come out.” Mr. Speaker, thatimplies what has come out so far is not true. So this Member is accused of beingthe purveyor of all truths. [Interruption] I am looking as though I am the Memberfor Princes Town.


776

To compound it, Mr. Speaker, while they are trying to excuse the inexcusableconduct, how is it done? As my friend from St. Joseph would say: “haow, haow” isit done?” [Laughter] It is done by using taxpayers’ money to defend theindefensible, by paying consultants and public relation firms to put whole-pageadvertisements in the newspapers. They threaten the country with statements like:If this gentleman is not allowed to remain they will have to pay US $100,000 permonth. What are they saying? They are saying: Allow us to do as we please. Allowus to undermine confidence in the system. Allow us to disgrace the country. If thatis not done, we are going to hire someone at the cost of US $100,000 per month.What kind of job can there be at the National Petroleum Marketing CompanyLimited, which would warrant a person being paid US $100,000 per month? I donot care who is that person. My friend from Tobago East just called three names,even if any of them comes to work for the company it would not be US $100,000per month. However, they are saying: Leave us alone or we will get moreprofligate and we will hire somebody at US $100,000 per month and that it wouldbe TT $600,000 per month, as if that is the issue. The issue is not one of cost, it isone of principle.

However, how could one expect someone who does not know the differencebetween propriety and proprietary. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked—

Mr. Speaker: I do think, with the greatest deference, that the hon. Member isgoing too far off course. I think it is necessary for him to come back to the Bill.

Dr. K. Rowley: Mr. Speaker, I am responding to the concerns raised by myfriend from St. Joseph. I can go further—

Mr. Assam: You are using me as a “bobolee”. [Laughter]

Dr. K. Rowley: No. I can also respond to the submissions of my friend fromTobago East who said: “In this country it is a cultural problem we have here andwe are trying to deal with a cultural thing in this picaroon society.” He also said:“In this country we hero-worship the smart man.” Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the point Iam making is that the Chairman of the Board of the National Petroleum MarketingCompany Limited believes that. She believes this is a picaroon society and thecountry worships smart men, therefore what they do at the National PetroleumMarketing Company Limited—which is clear to all of us is wrong—they candefend. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of propriety.

If I am to be led to believe what is coming out of the National PetroleumMarketing Company Limited in the context which I have raised, I cannot be


777

swayed by a person who does not know the word impropriety. Insofar as shespeaks—the malaprop that she is—about proprietary, I am led to believe, and theoutside world would believe, that there is some Freudian kind of patterncontrolling their behaviour, where they believe that they own the NationalPetroleum Company Limited and they have proprietary rights. So when thechairman is asked to talk about impropriety she creates a new word called“improprietary”—[Laughter]

5.50 p.m.

Talking about confidence and undermining, Mr. Speaker, this has the potentialnot only to undermine the banking system, but to undermine the country anduniversity, because that was a university lecturer talking there. If a universitylecturer does not know that there is a word called impropriety, my friend fromTobago could be right in his descriptions of what goes on at the university,because they are talking about standards. Our degrees can be undermined. I havethree University of the West Indies degrees and I am proud of them.

As my friend from St. Joseph says, the manner in which people conduct theirbusiness should be proper. In that context, I would like to find out: How can webe proud of a system where a Government Minister could write to the universityand request promotion for an individual? I could now understand why the personwas not promoted, because if one does not know about impropriety, why shouldone be promoted by the university? I would seek to stave off this undermining ofour systems and institutions by filing a question in this House to ask theGovernment which Minister wrote to the university asking the university topromote people of dubious quality and principle.

Mr. Speaker, this matter is bigger than bounced cheques. This matter is widerthan small business people being affected by bounced cheques. When one sees theGovernment as the leading group of exemplars in the country, and sees what theGovernment is defending, one can only come to the conclusion that theGovernment has its priorities reversed and mixed up, and that is what the Memberfor San Fernando East was saying. He was not saying that bounced cheques shouldbe allowed and encouraged, it is a whole question of priority.

One cannot, in one breath be concerned about the actions of a few personswriting bad cheques, so concerned that one gives that top billing, but notconcerned about Ministers not speaking the truth in and out of the Parliament; notconcerned about the chairman of a state board telling us that when she received aletter about termination it could have meant that the person was fired for late


778

coming. [Laughter] Then, she is asking whether the board should resign, and sheasked who is asking for the board to resign.

In attempting to preserve what is left of our image and to preserve theconfidence of our institution’s banking and otherwise, and to give it higher prioritythan bounced cheques, I, the Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West, amcalling for the dismissal of the NP board. So, now she has an answer! I am callingfor the dismissal of that board. If the Government does not act, then we will go byway of motion here and let those on the other side who have any conscience begiven the opportunity to stand up and be counted.

You see, Mr. Speaker, when the board was asked why it did that, the responsewas that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty, but apparently thoseare new conditions, because in this country, Prevatt was guilty until proveninnocent, and the PNM cabinet was guilty until proven innocent. You, Mr. Speaker,as Minister of Works—when all of them were deemed to be thieves in the PNM

cabinet—were guilty until proven innocent without a shred of evidence. But today,when there is this kettle of rotten fish in front of the country, we are being told thatin this country people are innocent until proven guilty. It was always so, but theychoose not to practise that.

Where is the evidence? It is here. No person—and I am not persecuting anindividual—who found himself terminated in the state bank should find himself incharge of the future of NP, which is what I am saying. Because, when the outsideworld sees that, notwithstanding the impeccable character of my friend fromCaroni East, he will be labelled as part of a corrupt regime, and he has theopportunity to defend himself. The Member for Tobago East tells us that one hasto have a certain kind of character to deal with futures, to deal with forwardcontracts, to deal with bonds; we must tell the children about these things; one hasto have a kind of character. I agree with him, Mr. Speaker, but I will go furtherand say that one has to have a kind of character to retain one’s job at the bank andto carry out the instructions of NP, and if one does not have it, then one should notbe put there.

How can one be concerned about the kind of character to tell the children theymust know about these gentlemen’s work, and one is not concerned about the kindof character NP is foisting on the country, and the behaviour of NP, then come, tothe eternal disgrace of all the NP workers, and puts out this sort of advertisementwith NP's name on it. There are people in NP who are honest and hardworking, anddo not want to be associated with this advertisement, but the board is shoving it


779

down their throats. This is wrong! This is what the country’s image is going to bedestroyed by.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that Members of this Government cannot come clean? Ido not begrudge the Government for being in office and having the authority totake decisions. That is a government's job. But what I am asking the Governmentto do on its own behalf and on behalf of the individuals they put in office tomanage the state sector, in the context of my friend from St. Joseph saying, “Thebuck stops here,” is if one has done something that one has the authority to do,nothing is wrong with that. One has broken no law yet. But if one has done it,confidence can only be retained and sustained if one is man or woman enough toget up in the Parliament and say, “Yes. That is what I have done and I stand by itand that is the justification”. But instead, what we are seeing, which is causingundermining of the confidence and destruction of the country's image, is thatMembers of the Cabinet are doing things, or being responsible for things, andwhen they have to face up to the inquiry as to what is going on, they do not havethe testicular fortitude to stand up and say, “This is what I have done.”

My friend from Tobago East comes here this afternoon and says that thereason people are not paid is because of “ghost gangs”. Mr. Speaker, I have nodoubt whatsoever that there are “ghost gangs” in the URP. In fact, in the recentpast, that problem has escalated. But when the Member comes here and gives theimpression that the reason those large numbers of people have not been paid isbecause of “ghost gangs”, he is being less than honest or he is ill-informed, and Igive him the benefit of doubt and say that he is ill-informed. I will tell him now thatthere are people who are part of the monthly-paid office staff who were notworking 10 days, but in the office working week after week because they wereretained to do that work with continuity, they too have not been paid, and itcannot be because of “ghost gangs”. It is because they “buss” the vote and there isno money in the vote to pay people! Come out and say so!

There is no money to pay people because the Minister mismanaged the vote.He had a vote of $130 million. He spent almost $200 million. He accounted herethis afternoon and said he spent $158 million and he refused to tell us what theoutstanding amount was; that when you add the outstanding bills to the $158million he spent almost $200 million. That is why the people are not being paid.

6.00 p.m.

Do not come here and tell us it is because of ghost gangs! You know why?When you do that, all those innocent, hard-working people who only want a


780

decent 10 days, who have stolen nothing and who have done nothing improper,you are calling them swine and dogs breeding in garbage pans! Do not do that!Because those swine and stray dogs in the garbage bins, many of them had theirnames on those lists properly and they worked; and the Government must paythem and not come to the Parliament and try to fool the country that it is becauseof ghost gangs that they are not being paid. It is that kind of duplicity and lack ofhonesty that is labelling this Government and eventually will label this country! It isthat kind of thing that destroys a country’s image.

Mr. Speaker, he is talking about revising the facts, revisionism. He madereference to some Member of Parliament who went into the bank and took out hisbank record and made it public. I presume that he was making reference to me.But, I did not go into any bank and take out anybody's record, so it is a grossmisrepresentation and a deliberate falsehood to put that in Hansard to try to getsympathy for his embarrassment. What I did was ask the Government to tell theParliament what was the situation with respect to the student revolving loan. Thatis what I did! I was only doing my job as a Member of Parliament. I have no accessto any bank, and if, in fact, the records of any bank were brought to this Parliamentthey were not brought by me, they were brought by the Member of Governmentwho answered the question. As far as I know, he did not have to go to any bankbecause the student revolving loan programme was managed by the ChiefPersonnel Officer’s office.

So it is quite wrong and reprehensible for the Member to come here and try tobrace for himself by saying that a Member of Parliament went into a bank and tookout his record, brought it out here and took out copies of that record. That is thekind of thing that will destroy the banking image and the confidence in the bankbecause a Member of Parliament comes into the Parliament and says that anotherMember of Parliament went into a bank and took out his record, and nothing isfurther from the truth.

Mr. Hinds: Picaroon!

Dr. K. Rowley: No Member of Parliament went into any bank and took outhis record. He goes on to compound the error by saying that he took a loan with abank and he was paying.

The question I filed in the Parliament to the Government officer responsiblewas: Tell the Parliament those persons who are in arrears? So if he was in arrearsand his name came on the list, it is not my fault, it is his colleagues’ fault. He couldnot have been paying, kept his loan current and still ended up on the arrears list. It


781

is not my fault. So he came here this afternoon and like his colleagues, the Ministerof Finance, the Member for Princes Town and like the way the Governmentoperates, the minute a minister gets into some difficulty, they resort to falsehoodsand misrepresentations, and the Member for Tobago East demonstrated that thisafternoon.

What is worse, it is one thing to do that to protect your portfolio, but it is morereprehensible to do it to protect your personal business in the House. If you didnot pay your loan, it is not my fault. My job is to find out the situation with respectto the student revolving loan programme. For 20 years you paying the loan andyou are in arrears! You must have borrowed $25 million! [Laughter]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the Member for DiegoMartin West has expired.

Motion made, That the hon. Member’s speaking time be extended by 30minutes. [Mr. K. Valley]

Question put and agreed to.

Dr. K. Rowley: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you and the rest of mycolleagues in this House.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Tobago East talked about nourishing andtolerating corruption. Well, if corruption has a fertilizer, it is the action of thosewho are defending what is going on at NP; the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and theUNC Government. They are nourishing the corruption and that is why I am soaffronted by the statement from the chairman of NP, when asked to account for theagency under her control, in the face of the scandal that is ripping NP apart,labelling and tarnishing this country, she says she does not have to respond togossip on the cocktail circuit. Let me read it for you, in today’s TrinidadGuardian, front page:

“. . . and not on cocktail circuit gossip or what is alleged.”

So this matter is raised in the Parliament. Mr. Speaker, you, in your wisdomand excellence, told the Commonwealth Speakers about how parliamentarians areviewed, how we should pay some more attention to the protocol list, and howcertain amounts of deference should be given to Members of Parliament. So Iraised the misconduct, the cronyism, and the naked corruption at NP, and theChairman of NP, with her impertinence, will say she does not have to respond tothe gossip from the cocktail circuit. Who is gossiping? And is this the cocktail


782

circuit—the Parliament? For that insult alone, to all of us in this House, thechairman and the entire board of NP must go and go now! [Desk thumping]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot be saying that when people write bad cheques that weare nourishing corruption, because many of the cheques that are going to beaffected in this manner are going to be personal cheques. I do not think the state'scheques—I know of no instance where the state's cheques are dishonoured.Sometimes, again, there might be instances, but I do not think the state intends todefraud those persons but, by and large, I do not believe that the people who aregoing to be affected by this are people who are in the state sector and, to a largeextent, the large corporations in the country. It is a matter which is more prevalentamong individuals and, unfortunately, among small business people themselves,because some of the worst offenders of this cheque bouncing thing is one smallbusiness paying to another small business. I do not know the difficulty of workingin the environment, but many times I have had instances of people complaining tome about bad cheques. It has to do with a cash flow problem in some of the smallbusinesses and, unfortunately, some of those persons who find themselves in thatsituation seek to use the cheque bouncing arrangement to continue to operate or tomanage their cash flow problems.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I do not think that kind of unwanted action iswhat can be best used to demonstrate a nourishment of corruption in the country.Individual action taken by an individual, until the individual takes that action, therest of us, more often than not, had no prior knowledge, support and participation.Therefore, we are not really nourishing corruption, because those things happened.Corruption is nourished when you see blatant wrongdoing and are responsible forthe rectification or prevention, like this Government is. When you do not act, thenyou are guilty of nourishing corruption.

When a junior research officer who is well connected with the ruling party orelements in the ruling party, leaves the Ministry of Planning and Development andends up somewhere else, in a job that was not advertised, at a salary of $15,000 amonth, that is nourishing corruption; not the cheques that are bouncing from onesmall business to some individual and so forth, bad as that may be. When aMember comes into the Parliament and in the face of incontrovertible evidence,misleads the House and is shown to be a purveyor of untruth and the PrimeMinister does not act, that is nourishing corruption.


783

If the Prime Minister had acted on the Member for Princes Town then maybethe Minister of Finance would not have had to come here today to undo hiscontribution to the mountain of falsehood. [Desk thumping] Had the PrimeMinister acted to deal with that infraction, the Minister of Finance and his cronieswould have known that we have in Trinidad and Tobago a Cabinet led by a PrimeMinister who would not tolerate this and, therefore, they would have chosenanother way to behave.

Instead, what happens? The Prime Minister became the biggest defender of thenefarious activity of the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources.What that has done is embolden others—like the Minister of Finance—to come tothis House and seek to mislead and direct us away from the facts which cannotstand the glare and scrutiny of Parliament and the country. That is why questionsbeing filed on October 2, 1998 are not being answered because the answers mightbe too embarrassing for the Government at this time. Thus, the whole system isbeing undermined, and why, to protect individuals who are not worthy of protection.

Mr. Speaker, that is nourishing and tolerating corruption. We are putting thecart before the horse and looking for the fleas when the danger is the barking,biting, dog of corruption. When we support this thing, "how it go look?"[Laughter] It would seem as if we all subscribe to the pattern of behaviourhighlighted by a few and we would all be labelled as belonging to that "bananaRepublic" spinning out of orbit on the road to self-destruction.

I am being told that if we do not stop this thing, "bottom in de road".

We want to ensure that the Government—[Interruption] Mr. Speaker, I amtalking to you, therefore, I would ignore the comments of my friend from CouvaSouth. Once is an accident, twice is purpose, third time is a habit. The Governmenthad many opportunities to demonstrate that it has some principle and stands forsomething that is right. The Government would not do that by only targeting thosepersons who bounced cheques to their friends and associates. It has a responsibilityto deal with its own infractions. If the Government cannot and will not deal withits own infractions, what confidence do we have that it will be able to deal with theinfractions of others who are largely outside of the control, as directly as theGovernment is in control, of the state enterprises, Cabinet and so forth?

I think I have said enough to demonstrate that we support the principle of thisBill.

Mr. Sudama: You have not said anything.


784

Dr. K. Rowley: We want to ensure that people who seek to use funds whichthey do not have access to and knowingly seek to defraud others or obtain goodsand services without paying for them in a timely manner, that something should bedone to bring greater control over those persons, who are ne'er do wells. We areconcerned that in trying to do that, we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and not criminalize people who, through some accidental development ofwhatever kind, where there is no intention to defraud, find themselves facing thekinds of penalties of this Bill.

Therefore, as parliamentarians who are called upon to draft and pass this Billinto law, we must discuss it—I hope the Attorney General would be as opened-minded as possible; we do not have to defend anything that is indefensible. We aregoing to make some suggestions to improve the piece of legislation to protectpersons while we deal with the criminal activity. We hope as we make thoseamendments they would be taken in the spirit in which they are being offered. Aswe do that we can then pass legislation to deal with the problem, as well asensuring that there is some measure of protection for would-be innocent people.

Mr. Speaker, I have said enough to demonstrate that this Government has a duty to gobeyond this Bill. It has a duty to protect the country's image from the misconduct ofindividuals who will disgrace us at home and abroad. On that score I hope this is the lasttime I have the occasion to have to demonstrate that a Member of the Cabinet has come toParliament and spoken untruths in an attempt to recreate the facts to protect himself or theGovernment. I hope it is the last time because I do not want to be known as a Member ofthe Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago during that era when all the Ministers were knownto be liars. I want to be able to say that I served with the people on the other side and eventhough we were in different political parties we all were parliamentarians working to thehighest standards for the betterment of the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

Thank you. [Desk thumping]

ADJOURNMENT

The Attorney General (Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj): Mr. Speaker, Ibeg to move that this House now stands adjourned to Friday, January 23, 1998 at1.30 p.m. On that date we propose to complete this Bill and two others: theSupreme Court (Amdt.) Bill and the Petty Civil Court (Amdt.) Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned accordingly.

Adjourned at 6.20 p.m.

Written Answer to Question Friday, January 16, 1998

785

WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION

Police Record Statistics

(Serious Crime Categories)

Pursuant to his reply to question No. 4 earlier in the proceedings the Ministerof National Security (Sen. Brig. The Hon. Joseph Theodore) caused to becirculated to Members of the House the following statistics:-

MURDER

CONSPIRACY TO MURDER

MANSLAUGHTER

INFANTICIDE

ATTEMPT TO MURDER

SUICIDE AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE

LETTER THREATENING TO MURDER

WOUNDINGS AND SHOOTINGS

ACTS CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE

RAPE, INCEST, ETC.

ABDUCTION, DEFILEMENT, ETC.

CHILD STEALING, ABANDONMENT

BIGAMY

ABORTION AND CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH

UNNATURAL OFFENCES AND SERIOUS INDECENCY

KIDNAPPING AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION

BURGLARY AND BREAKING

ROBBERY

EMBEZZLEMENT

FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS

FALSE PRETENCES


786

FRAUDLARCENY

RECEIVING STOLEN ARTICLES

LARCENY OF POSTAL PACKETS

POST OFFICES FELONIES

LARCENY DWELLING HOUSE, ENTERING DWELLING HOUSE

ARSON

MALICIOUS DAMAGE

CATTLE MAIMING

FORGERY

COINAGE OFFENCES

FORGERY OF CURRENCY NOTES

OFFENCES UNDER CENTRAL BANK EXCHANGE CONTROL ACTS

TREASON

SEDITION

PERJURY

RIOT

CRIMINAL LIBEL

PERSONATION

CORRUPTION

FIREARM OFFENCES

NARCOTICS OFFENCES

OTHER OFFENCES UNDER OTHER ACTS WHERE THE PENALTY IS 5 YEARS ANDOVER.


787

APPENDIX II

SERIOUS CRIME OFFENCES REPORTED AND DETECTED 1994—1996

1994 1995 1996CATEGORY OFCRIME

NO. REPORTED NO. DETECTEDTO POLICE BY POLICE



MURDER 139 71 121 80 107 60

CONSPIRACY TOMURDER

1 1 0 0 0

MANSLAUGHTER 17 17 16 11 11

INFANTICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTEMPT TOMURDER

23 18 33 27 36 34

SUICIDEATTEMPTEDSUICIDE

81 81 104 104 96 96

LETTERTHREATENINGTO MURDER

0 0 0 0 0 0

WOUNDING ANDSHOOTING

533 261 501 266 505 259

ACTS CAUSINGDANGER TO LIFE

219 202 179 158 200 186

RAPES/INCESTSAND OTHERSEXUALOFFENCES

254 152 309 226 295 203

ABDUCTION,DEFILEMENTETC.

1 1 2 1 0 0

CHILD STEALINGANDABANDONMENT

0 0 0 0 1 0

BIGAMY 0 0 1 1 3 3

ABORTION ANDCONCEALMENTOF BIRTH

0 0 0 0 0 0

UNNATURALOFFENCES/SERIOUSINDECENCY

70 44 99 78 116 67

KIDNAPPINGAND FALSEIMPRISONMENT

46 30 56 42 81 46


788





BLACKMAIL ANDEXTORTION

5 5 6 6 13 12

BURGLARY,BREAKING &BREAKING WITHINTENT

7635 1150 6542 926 6835 1015

ROBBERY WITHAGGRAVATION,VIOLENCE,ASSAULT WITHINTENT TO ROB

4490 777 3858 706 4075 839

EMBEZZLEMENT 43 42 15 14 16 15

FALSIFICTION OFACCOUNTS

24 24 4 4 60 60

FALSEPRETENCES(OVER $2,000.00)

78 72 98 75 155 94

FRAUD,FRAUDULENTCONVERSIONAND OTHERFRAUD OFFENCE(OVER $2,000.00)

23 21 17 15 23 20

LARCENY (OVER$2,000.00) ANDLARCENY OFMOTOR VEHICLE

2834 324 2781 309 3196 375

RECEIVING(OVER $2,000.00)

46 46 35 33 47 46

LARCENYPOSTAL PACKET

1 1 4 2 0 0

POST OFFICEFELONIES

0 0 0 0 0 0

LARCENY,DWELLINGHOUSE (OVER$2000.00)

367 79 326 53 352 66

ARSON 40 19 48 13 40 13

MALICIOUSDAMAGE (OVER$42000.00)

263 104 230 93 263 112

CATTLEMAIMING

5 1 12 4 10 3


789





FORGERY(OTHER THANCURRENCYNOTES)

237 213 236 161 243 78

COINAGEOFFENSES)

0 0 0 0 0 0

FORGERY OFCURRENCYNOTE

38 35 19 17 39 38

OFFENCESUNDER THECENTRAL BANKACT

4 4 8 7 1 1

TREASON 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEDITION 1 1 1 0 0 0

PERJURY 1 1 1 1 4 4

RIOT 0 0 0 0 0 0

CRIMINAL LIBEL 0 0 0 0 0 0

PERSONATION 0 0 0 0 0 0

CORRUPTION 0 0 2 2 9 8

FIREARMOFFENCES

2 2 1 1 1 1

TRAFFICKINGNARCOTIC

3 3 8 8 24 24

NARCOTICOFFENCES

1095 1091 1110 1109 1235 1235

OTHER OFFENCESUNDER OTHERACTS WHERETHE PENALTY IS5 YRS. AND OVER

1 1 1 1

TOTAL 186204894 16783 4559 18093 5025


790

Serious Crime Offences Reported and Detected

CATEGORY OF CRIME NO. REPORTED TO POLICE NO. DETECTED BY POLICE

Murder

Wounding

Rape etc.

Serious Indecency

Breaking

Robbery

Fraud

Larceny

Larceny D/H

Narcotic Offences

Other Serious Crimes

99

356

506

148

6717

3359

579

2606

411

1222

809

69

189

352

110

831

542

395

287

56

1222

536

TOTAL 16812 4589

19980116, house debates - friday january 16, 1998 · oral answers to questions friday, january 16,...

Documents