Parliamentary Digest

Trade Minister Ken Valley, who was a guest in the Upper House last Tuesday, must have missed Speaker Barry Sinanan. Valley was in the Senate to present the Fair Trading Bill. His delivery was somewhat more staccato than usual, as he told Senate President Linda Baboolal about the “need to protect citizens from the unscrupulous,” assured her that “it was in the society’s interest that it be done,” and explained that “the whole purpose of this Bill is to promote competition.”

Speaker Sinanan usually listens to Valley’s hemming-and-hawing with an admirable lack of expression. Baboolal, however, made no attempt to hide her boredom with Valley’s highlights of the Bill’s main clauses. And, while Sinanan handles the conflicts in the Lower House with calm competence and humour, Baboolal gets irritable, never smiles at any jokes, and scolds the Senators. When Valley finished, various Opposition and Independent Senators rose to ask questions and make comments. However, they were apparently putting on their microphones too fast for Baboolal.

“People are putting on lights before I acknowledge you!” she snapped. When the Senate went into committee to approve the clauses of the Bill, Baboolal has further cause for vexation. On the first amendment to be voted on, the “Ayes” from the Government side were too lackadaisical for her. “Well, I doh know who I mean, everybody’s asleep. Could I have some more energy in the Senate, please,” she said. The MPs grinned. “I thought we were having too much,” one remarked. Baboolal did not crack a smile. “Members, please. Please,” she said. “Pay attention, please.”

She put the amendment proposed by Opposition Senator Wade Mark, which was defeated, then one by the Government. “All those in favour say Aye, all those against say No.” There was a murmured response. “We gone back to sleep again, eh,” Baboolal said.

The Senate went through the Bill clause by clause, until there was a pause to discuss some of the amendments. The discussion was headed mainly by Valley with the help of his Ministry technocrats, Mark, Tim Gopeesingh, Mary King, Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan, and Dana Seetahal. The talk became so animated that at one point Baboolal scolded: “I am hearing too many people talking!” One of those who wasn’t, however, was Senator Ato Boldon, who spent all his time frowning intensely at the Bill. However, he definitely wore the nicest earring amongst all the Senators. Mark spent about 15 minutes waffling about a sub-section of one clause, his contribution ending only when he asserted that he didn’t believe in the Bill generally. “Minister, I want to tell you that I am not in favour of these things,” he said to Valley.

“You becoming a capitalist,” grinned Valley.

“No, I am not a capitalist,” Mark responded.

“We believe the market will provide the discipline,” Valley said. “Very important concept, you know.”

“Could we come back to the topic?” Baboolal interrupted, thus saving Mark from further displaying his ignorance of economics, history, and politics.

Some time later, Independent Senator Ken Ramchand queried whether a market could be distorted through being opened to competition instead of being restricted. “I would have thought that a distortion could go either way.”

Attorney General John Jeremie argued that the term “distort” was negative, hence implying that it was restriction that was wrong. “I mean, I’m not an economist, but I think I’m a valid linguist.”

“The longer I stay here, the longer I lose my confidence in the language,” Ramchand responded, thus demonstrating errors in linguistics and economics at the same time.

“Could we come back to clause 14,” Baboolal said.

The Senate did so, but cross-talk soon resumed, with talk about the need for more caucuses and who should have gone to court more often to get silk. Meanwhile, Baboolal said, “Honourable Members, could we move on?”

King then raised a question about whether the Bill had one schedule or two, but Valley explained that the second one had been deleted. King wanted further clarification, with Jeremie saying, “Let’s make peace”. Mark chose this point to raise the issue of the Equal Opportunities Act - not that any UNC MP really needs an excuse to talk about discrimination - but dropped it to suggest an amendment. However, Jeremie pursued the point. “I just want to deal with the constitutionality point in relation to the Equal Opportunities Commission,” he said, “although I don’t really see the relevance.”

“Well, then don’t deal with,” said Mark.

“It is a point you made, and I respect you greatly,” said Jeremie silkily (which, if we are to believe senior counsel, Desmond Allum, is the only way Jeremie can be silky). “You are my friend.”

Jeremie spent five minutes explaining that the Equal Opportunities Act had been deemed unconstitutional, not because its intentions were unworthy, but because it had not been passed with a special majority.

“Please, could we get on with the discussion?” said Baboolal; but Jeremie ignored her and spent another two minutes finishing his argument. He also mentioned that the Government was bringing back the EOA.

Eventually, the Fair Trading Bill was passed.