Strangers in the House

Government Senator Danny Montano projects himself as a reasonable and polished man. But, guesting in the House of Representatives on Friday to present a Bill from the Senate, Montano demonstrated a lack of reason and a stubbornness that is usually the purview of elected members. Not that the MPs were backward either last Friday. The session began at 1.28 precisely with the advent of Speaker Barry Sinanan. Sinanan usually enters the Chamber on the dot, which makes him far more prompt than his three predecessors in the Chair. After the prayer — which entreats God to help the Members in their deliberations — Sinanan announced which MPs would be absent.

Although it was Private Members Day and it was his motion against discrimination down for debate, St Joseph MP Gerald Yetming had asked for a leave of absence. So too had Point Fortin MP Larry Achong, as he has been doing every week since resigning as Labour Minister. The other stranger in the Lower House was Education Minister Hazel Manning, who was present to answer questions posed by her predecessor in the Ministry, Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Hazel seemed to have learned from past errors, and was less long-winded than her wont. Even so, she still began by reading out the first question — about the de-shifting of junior secondary schools — word for word and then beginning her answer by saying, “Mr Speaker, the matter requires” and again reading out the question word for word.

Nor were the Opposition members willing to let the Education Minister get away with the slightest error. When Hazel finished answering all the questions and said, “I beg to move,” Persad-Bissessar immediately told her that you don’t beg to move on questions. The next question went to Public Utilities and Environment Minister Pennelope Beckles. Posed by Tabaquite MP Adesh Nanan, it asked whether Certificates of Environmental Clearance had been issued for the construction of houses in 16 particular areas. For most of these, Beckes answered No, explaining that the land in question was under five acres and so exempt from CEC. This did not stop the Opposition from shouting, “So all-yuh breaking the law!”

These outbursts may have made Beckles’ hackles rise, or it may have been that she just couldn’t justify the Government’s housing plans. At any rate, when at the end Nanan asked her whether houses can be constructed without the permission of the Environmental Management Authority, she replied curtly, “You asking me a legal question,” and, when the question was repeated, didn’t get up till the Speaker signaled her and then said, even more curtly, “I have already answered that question.” The Opposition then raised two urgent matters of public importance: one, the previous day’s destruction of squatters’ houses by the NHA at Union Hall; and, two, the controversy over Nelson Mandela’s visit to Trinidad and Tobago. Both were denied by the Speaker. On the latter issue, Prime Minister Patrick Manning then rose to announce that the matter of Mandela (whom Manning called “Man-day-la”) had been resolved.

Then it was Montano’s turn. The Bill was titled “An Act to amend the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 1997,” and Montano was there as Acting Foreign Affairs Minister to present it for a second reading. The Bill sought to facilitate courts in other countries who wanted citizens to appear in their jurisdictions. Despite reading from a prepared text, Montano was convoluted and abstract and held no one’s attention. Indeed, if he could bottle his delivery, he would make a fortune in anaesthesia. When he sat down after 25 minutes, Opposition MP Roodal Moonilal called across, “You sure you finish?”

Point-a-Pierre MP Gillian Lucky then rose to reply and went into attack mode at once. Montano, she said, had presented “an abridged version which he does not understand” of a Bill which was not as innocuous as it seemed. “What you are seeking to do is deny people their fundamental rights and freedoms,” she asserted. Continually stressing on the “Acting” in using Montano’s Ministerial title, Lucky took issue on two main points. First was what she called “nebulous phrasing” in the Bill. Terms like “best endeavours” and “in accordance with arrangements,” Lucky argued, would allow those charged with enforcing the Bill to pick and choose who they enforced it on. Secondly, she advised that a clause which allowed official documents to be served through the post be amended so that the documents could only be served by hand.

But Montano apparently did not take too kindly to Lucky’s repeated statements that he did not understand the Bill he had presented. “I understand this legislation,” he said. “I think everyone in the Chamber understands this legislation.” When the House went into committee to discuss the Bill, Montano adamantly refused to make even the small changes in wording suggested by Lucky. “We are quite satisfied that it could work as it stands,” he said, but it seemed as if his real satisfaction had to do with getting back at Lucky. The House adjourned at 3.45 p.m. and will have its next sitting on May 7.