20181114, unrevised house debate - parliament of …that a bill to vest certain assets of petroleum...

1

Leave of Absence 2018.11.14

UNREVISED

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

The House met at 1.30 p.m.

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie, MP, Member for

Caroni Central; Dr. Fuad Khan, MP, Member for Barataria/San Juan; and Mr.

Prakash Ramadhar, MP, Member for St. Augustine, have requested leave of

absence from today’s sitting of the House. The leave which the Members seek is

granted.

PAPER LAID

Annual Administrative Report of the Trinidad and Tobago Tourism Business

Development Limited for the year ended December 31, 2016. [The Minister

of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert)]

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (HERITAGE PETROLEUM, PARIA

FUEL TRADING AND GUARACARA REFINING VESTING) BILL, 2018

Order for second reading read.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): [Desk thumping] Madam

Speaker, I beg to move:

That a Bill to vest certain assets of Petroleum Company of Trinidad and

Tobago Limited, in Heritage Petroleum Company Limited, Paria Fuel

Trading Company Limited, and the Guaracara Refining Company Limited;

to vest certain assets of Trinidad and Tobago Oil Company Limited and

Trinidad and Tobago Petroleum Company Limited in the Guaracara

Refining Company Limited; and to vest Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises

Parliament Webmaster

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER Unofficial Hansard This transcript of parliamentary proceedings is an unofficial version of the Hansard and may contain inaccuracies. It is hereby published for general reference purposes only. The final edited version of the Hansard will be published when available.

2

Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage Petroleum, 2018.11.14

Paria Fuel Trading and Guaraca Refinig Vesting) Bill, 2018

Hon. C. Imbert

UNREVISED

Limited Lands in Heritage Petroleum Company Limited, be now read a

second time.

Before you this afternoon, Madam Speaker, is the Miscellaneous Provisions

(Heritage Petroleum, Paria Fuel Trading and Guaracara Refining Vesting) Bill,

2018. The objective of this Bill is to vest certain assets, undertakings and

obligations—currently held by the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago

Limited or Petrotrin for short; the Trinidad and Tobago Oil Company Limited,

Trintoc; and the Trinidad and Tobago Petroleum Company Limited, Trintopec; as

well as the Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited, PSAEL—into three newly

incorporated companies, namely, Heritage Petroleum Company Limited, Paria

Fuel Trading Company Limited and Guaracara Refining Company Limited.

As you may be aware, Madam Speaker, a decision has been taken to

discontinue the major refining operations of Petrotrin as at November 30, 2018 and

to establish new businesses for exploration and production, terminalling and

refining, which will take place on December 01, 2018, less than three weeks from

today. The decision to repurpose Petrotrin or “restructure” Petrotrin, a better word,

and to establish a new business model, was informed by a comprehensive

assessment of the existing operations of Petrotrin, undertaken by its current board

of directors and backed by high-quality analytical reports generated by

international and local consultants. All previous efforts to redesign the existing

business model at Petrotrin had failed.

The purchase of the refinery in 1985 by the Government of Trinidad and

Tobago took place in the context of refinery economics which was deteriorating, as

the changing fuel environment demanded cleaner standards for fuel technologies in

local and foreign markets. Madam Speaker, all of the plant upgrades failed to

3


Paria Fuel Trading and Guaraca Refinig Vesting) Bill, 2018 (cont’d)

Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

UNREVISED

improve the efficiency of the refinery, to meet the standards for the internationally

marketable products. The cost of these upgrades loaded the company with debt of

approximately $12 billion, of which $5.8 billion is due in August 2019.

More recently, the Government has been guaranteeing the loans of Petrotrin

which as at October 31, 2018, amount to $2.7 billion in loan guarantees. By way

of further example, the Gasoline Optimization Programme was completed in 2013

at a cost of $12.6 billion, up from an initial cost of $2.45 billion. The gas-to-

liquids plant remained incomplete and its cost rose from $1.55 billion to $3.15

billion. The Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Complex cannot be operated although its

cost rose from $791 million to $2.9 billion and we are told it would take a further

two and a half billion to rectify the defects in its structural specifications.

Madam Speaker, this debt was and is unsustainable especially in the context

of an employee base of approximately 3,400 permanent employees and 1,500

temporary employees, which required a monthly wage bill of $183 million, or $2.2

billion on an annual basis. Coupled with this wage bill was the medical plan which

was and is costing Petrotrin approximately $245 million per year. The survival of

Petrotrin was now based on the non-payment of taxes and royalties to the

Government and procuring of government loan guarantees. The latest financials

for the company provide the evidence that the company cannot generate a profit

without restructuring and the establishment of a viable business model.

In fact, there is deficient working capital of $6.6 billion; there was a nine-

month loss in the refinery and marketing business units of $1.04 billion, recently;

$3.5 billion is owed in taxes; $5 billion represents short-term loans, taken out by

Petrotrin; $7 billion is required to upgrade the ageing plant and equipment at La

Brea—if not, major oil spills will continue unabated—and 50 per cent of recurrent

4




UNREVISED

expenditure was accounted for by manpower costs.

What happened, Madam Speaker, because of this situation, the Exploration

and Production Division of Petrotrin has been transferring its own requirements for

investment resources. In other words, money that should have been spent on

drilling and upgrading of plant and equipment was transferred to the refinery

operations where 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day were being purchased, the

refining of which resulted in a loss of $3 million per day. This is equivalent,

Madam Speaker, to a loss in refining of the imported crude of $1 billion per year.

This business model had become obsolete and uncompetitive. Petrotrin could not

continue in this condition. It required an immediate cash injection of $25 billion

and despite this it is forecast that it will continue to accumulate losses at

approximately $2 billion per annum.

Moreover, land and marine oil productions, starved for investment resources

which are being diverted to deal with the losses or were being diverted to deal with

the losses in the refinery, will continue to decline. It was these and other

considerations which led the Government to adopt a new and viable business

model for Petrotrin. It is expected the new company will become profitable,

internationally competitive and would seek to reverse the decline in land and

marine production for crude oil. It is expected it would become a leader in the

local energy sector. It is expected it would be an employer of choice and a source

of national pride.

To facilitate this shift, three new companies were incorporated on October

05, 2018, to manage the new businesses as follows: Heritage Petroleum Company

will manage exploration and production. Heritage Petroleum is located in Santa

Flora and Point Fortin and will have responsibility for all exploration and

5




UNREVISED

production assets, including exploration and production contracts with revenue

generated through crude sales and crude oil storage.

Fuel trading and product supply activities will be undertaken by the Paria

Fuel Trading Company Limited which is located in Pointe-a-Pierre. In addition to

trading and product supply, Paria Fuel Trading will be responsible for logistics,

terminalling and product handling and is expected to work closely with Heritage

Petroleum. The Guaracara Refining Company Limited will be responsible for

preservation of the refinery assets in addition to providing utility services to Paria

Fuel Trading and Petrotrin.

It should be noted that although the major operations undertaken by Petrotrin

will cease as of November 30, 2018, Petrotrin itself as a company will remain in

existence and continue to operate. All of the issued and outstanding shares of

Petrotrin, as well as the shares in Heritage Petroleum, Paria Fuel Trading and

Guaracara Refining have been transferred to a new holding company, Trinidad

Petroleum Holdings Limited.

Petrotrin will remain operational as a member of the group of subsidiaries

held by Trinidad Petroleum Holdings. This would allow Petrotrin to meet all of its

outstanding contractual liabilities unhindered and will elude the possibility of

Petrotrin bondholders imposing a requirement that they approve the new structure

for the company. Petrotrin will also continue to hold certain assets, specifically the

assets that are not the subject of this vesting Bill. Therefore, Madam Speaker,

Heritage Petroleum, Paria Fuel Trading and Guaracara Refining together with

Petrotrin will form a new corporate structure under the umbrella of the new

holding company. Trinidad Petroleum Holdings holds the entire shareholding of

the subsidiary companies and the shares of Trinidad Petroleum Holdings are in

6




UNREVISED

turn held by the Corporation Sole.

Now, Madam Speaker, let me deal with some pertinent issues. With respect

to refinancing its US $850 million bond due in August 2019, Petrotrin approached

the financial markets in October 2018 for a firm or consortium to refinance its

long- term bonds. Four respondents were shortlisted and were invited to present

their proposals on the 15th of October 2018. After several days of deliberation it

was decided that two of the consortiums would work together to execute what was

essentially the financing of a combination of the Petrotrin exit costs as well as the

two bonds, the 2019 bond and the 2022 bond.

The consortium is made up of Credit Suisse, Bladex and FCB, as well as the

team of Morgan Stanley and ANSA Merchant Bank. Over the last few weeks,

progress has been made with the refinancing and they are working towards having

the first tranche of the exit costs settled by the 30th of November and the bonds

refinanced soon afterwards, well in advance of the August 2019 terminal date.

Petrotrin has also been dealing with the rating agencies with the assistance of the

Ministry of Finance on the restructuring to ensure that the risk and debt profiles are

properly articulated, communicated and received in the international market.

With respect to the refinery, I am advised, Madam Speaker, there has been a

safe and incident-free shutdown of all refinery operations. I am told that the last

imported crude cargo was discharged on the 10th of October, 2018, and that crude

oil processing at the refinery ceased on the 19th of October, 2018. I am also

advised that the last process unit at the refinery, FCCU, was shut down on the 3rd

of November and that refinery preservation and mothballing is currently in

progress.

I am also told that the sulphuric acid regeneration is still in service to

7




UNREVISED

convert all spent acid to fresh acid in the system as part of the preservation

exercise. The fresh acid will be sold locally for use in water treatment facilities. I

am also told, Madam Speaker—and this is a signal achievement of the current

board of Petrotrin, management and board—that the first cargo of local crude was

successfully exported on the 1st of November, 2018. The third issue, the

importation by Petrotrin of fuel—and that is to deal with the belief that our local

crude is not marketable. Let me repeat. The first cargo of Trinidad and Tobago

crude was successfully exported on the 1st of November, 2018—[Desk

thumping]—at a good price.

Importation by Petrotrin of fuel. Through a competitive bidding process in

which reputable international suppliers were invited, Petrotrin has so far secured

four cargoes of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel which have already been discharged at

Pointe-a-Pierre during the period October to November. As part of its strategy to

maintain security of supply, Petrotrin has maintained approximately 14 days of

supply, ex-refinery production, thus affording a seamless supply of fuel to the local

and regional markets. A total of 16 cargoes, future cargoes, have been contracted

to cover supply until early January 2019, and this process will continue.

I now look at the rationale for this vesting Bill. As the refinery operations of

Petrotrin are being wound down, start-up operations of the new corporate structure

must be put in place. In order to ensure a smooth transition to full operation of the

new companies by the 1st of December, 2018, these companies must be vested with

all necessary assets, undertakings and obligations that will enable their seamless

operations in accordance with their purpose. The assets currently held by Petrotrin

are vast and varied and include land holdings, contracts, licences, leases, oilfields,

gas pipelines, as well as the Pointe-a-Pierre Refinery assets that together facilitate

8




UNREVISED

the business operations of the company.

Consequently, the most efficient and cost-effective method for the transfer

of the Petrotrin assets to the new companies is through the vesting Bill that we are

debating today. Seeking to achieve a transfer of assets by traditional conveyancing

mechanisms would not only have been extremely costly and very complicated but

would also have resulted in an inordinate delay in months, possibly as long as a

year, in the start-up of the new companies.

Additionally, transfer of all the land holdings, contractual obligations and

liabilities and business operations simultaneously to three separate entities would

have necessitated a myriad of legal activities that in the current context are wholly

impractical. These include surveying every individual parcel of land, preparing a

detailed checklist of all chattels held, drafting and preparation of various title

transfer documents and assignment instruments and compliance with existing

contractual requirements for assignment, just to name a few. As such, Madam

Speaker, the only viable option available is simultaneous transfer of all the assets,

undertakings and obligations required to all the entities necessary and that is the

vesting of such assets by Act of Parliament.

Members of this House will recall that vesting of assets by Act of Parliament

is not new. It is the very method by which Petrotrin became seised and possessed

of some of the property assets and rights it currently holds. Petrotrin was

incorporated in 1993 to consolidate the interests of the Trinidad and Tobago Oil

Company Limited, Trintoc, and the Trinidad and Tobago Petroleum Company

Limited, Trintopec. In order to simplify the merger of those assets, the assets of

Trintoc and Trintopec were vested in Petrotrin through the enactment of the

Petrotrin Vesting Act, Chap. 62:07. Trintoc and Trintopec are wholly owned state

9




UNREVISED

companies incorporated in 1974 and 1985 respectively.

In fact, Trintoc was also vested with its assets by Act of Parliament, the

Trinidad and Tobago Oil Company Limited Vesting Act, Chap. 62:05, which was

enacted in 1981 and it provided for the vesting of all of the assets, liabilities and

obligations of the Trinidad and Tobago Oil Company Limited, a company

incorporated in the United Kingdom and in Trintoc, a company incorporated in

Trinidad and Tobago. The appointed day of that vesting was January 01, 1981.

Looking at the Bill before us, Madam Speaker, by section 4 of the Act the

vesting of the undertakings allowed all contracts, to which Trintoc and Trintopec

were previously a party, to be transferred to Petrotrin, and all of the collective

agreements within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act to be construed as if

Petrotrin was a party and further that Petrotrin would be deemed to be the

successor to Trintoc and Trintopec.

Section 4 also allowed for certain other rights, this is the Petrotrin Vesting

Act—sorry, Madam Speaker, not the Bill before us today. Section 4 of that Act

also allowed for certain other rights, obligations and liabilities of Trintoc and

Trintopec to be transferred to Petrotrin. These included an approved fund, plan or

scheme under the Income Tax Act; all financial accounts; all power of attorney

instruments; any negotiable instrument or order for payment of money; any

security held for the payment or discharge of a debt, liability or obligation; any

judgment or award obtained by or against Trintoc and Trintopec; and all contracts

of employment.

In short, Madam Speaker—and let me make it clear, I am speaking about the

Petrotrin Vesting Act of the 1990s—the effect of the Petrotrin Vesting Act was to

permit the business operations of both Trintoc and Trintopec to not only be merged

10




UNREVISED

but continue uninterrupted under the management of Petrotrin. The assets that are

the subject of the Petrotrin Vesting Act are listed in two Schedules to the Act.

The first Schedule details the property and rights automatically transferred to

Petrotrin upon the operation of the Act. The second Schedule sets out exceptions;

that is, the property that was not automatically transferred to Petrotrin and

remained vested in Trintoc and Trintopec. Section 6 of the Petrotrin Vesting Act

provides for the Minister of Finance by Order to transfer the assets listed in the

second Schedule to Petrotrin. Any such Order may or may not be subject to

conditions. In March 2008, Cabinet agreed to the transfer of the non-core assets of

Trintoc and Trintopec to Petrotrin, in accordance with section 6 of the Petrotrin

Vesting Act. As such, the requisite order was prepared. I am giving this history,

Madam Speaker, to show that what we are doing today is not unique and it is not

new. It has been done at least twice before. I am advised that while in the process

of finalizing the Order to be executed by the then Minister of Finance in 2008, the

Office of the Attorney General indicated that the list of assets set out in the Order

omitted some of the assets that were intended to be transferred.

The process of finalizing the Order to effect the transfer was therefore

aborted at that time. Against the backdrop, Madam Speaker, I wish to advise that

an Order pursuant to section 6 of the Petrotrin Vesting Act has been prepared.

This Order contains a complete listing of the non-core assets of Trintoc and

Trintopec that are to be transferred to Petrotrin and will be executed and come into

effect simultaneously with the coming into operation of the instant vesting Bill.

That date is December 01, 2018. Trintoc and Trintopec possess certain additional

assets that were not accounted for in that older Petrotrin Vesting Act.

It is proposed that these assets be transferred to Guaracara Refining since

11




UNREVISED

they consist of reservoirs, a water treatment plant and associated water

infrastructure. Consequently, the vesting Bill being debated today also provides

for the transfer of those additional assets directly from Trintoc and Trintopec to

Guaracara Refining without the need to go to Petrotrin and then come to Guaracara

Refining. In addition to Trintoc and Trintopec, another company that is integral to

the existing corporate structure of Petrotrin, is Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises

Limited, PSAEL.

PSAEL, a former subsidiary of Trintopec was incorporated in 1986. From

inception to the mid-90s, the main focus of this company was agriculture.

However, with the advent of Petrotrin in 1993, and the merger and vesting of the

oil- related assets of Trintoc and Trintopec in Petrotrin, PSAEL’s core function

shifted to the provision of project management services to Petrotrin. PSAEL was

thus made a wholly owned state enterprise in 2007 and continues to provide project

management services to this date. PSAEL holds 3,725 acres of land on which

Petrotrin currently undertakes exploration and production operations. Those lands

are in Coora and Quarry and Palo Seco.

In order to expedite the transfer of all of the exploration and production

operations from Petrotrin to Heritage Petroleum, it is further proposed that those

lands be directly vested in Heritage Petroleum from PSAEL through the vesting

Bill rather than being transferred to Petrotrin and then back to the new Heritage

Petroleum Company.

I now come to the Bill before us. It is in the context of all of this that we

need to look at the clauses of the Bill before the House. The Bill has just eight

clauses, six Schedules and is organized in parts relating to Heritage Petroleum,

Paria Fuel Trading and Guaracara Refining respectively. Clause 1 is the short title,

12




UNREVISED

and provides for the Act to be referred to as the Miscellaneous Provisions


2018. Clause 2 provides for the interpretation of certain words and phrases,

including definitions for the terms: “appointed day”, “E&P Contracts”, “Minister”

and “Pointe-a-Pierre Refinery Site”. Clauses 1 and 2 together comprise Part I of

the Bill and address preliminary matters in the usual way. Part II of the Bill is

comprised of clauses 3 and 4 and provides for the transfer to and vesting of assets

in the Heritage Petroleum Company Limited. Clause 3 subclause (1) of the Bill,

provides for all of the assets of Petrotrin relative to the exploration and production

operations described in Schedule 1 to be transferred to and invested in Heritage

Petroleum.

Clause 3, subclause (2), will transfer and vest in Heritage Petroleum, 3,725

acres of land consisting of two separate parcels, 1,829 acres in Coora and Quarry

and 1,896 acres in Palo Seco, more particularly described in Schedule 2 and now

held by PSAEL. As mentioned, this transfer will allow Heritage Petroleum to

continue the exploration and production operations currently undertaken by

Petrotrin on the PSAEL lands.

Clause 4 of the Bill sets out the effect of the vesting of the assets in Heritage

Petroleum and provides for Petrotrin’s existing exploration and production

contracts as well as the contracts described in Schedule 3 of the Bill to be

continued with Heritage Petroleum as a party, instead and in place of Petrotrin.

And further, for Heritage Petroleum in all instances to be substituted for any

reference in those contracts to Petrotrin.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, clauses 3 and 4 will facilitate Heritage

Petroleum on the appointed day immediately carrying on with the exploration and

13




UNREVISED

production operations at present undertaken by Petrotrin, as it will become not only

seised and possessed of all lands and oilfields used for exploration and production

activities but also Heritage Petroleum will become a party to all of the contracts,

leases, licences, and operatorships under which those exploration and production

activities are now undertaken.

2.00 p.m.

Clause 5 is also in Part III of the Bill and provides for the vesting of assets

for the terminalling operations of Paria Fuel Trading. By virtue of clause 5, all of

the assets of Petrotrin relative to the terminalling operations described in Schedule

4 will be transferred to, and vested in, Paria Fuel Trading. Terminalling operations,

for your information, refer to the midstream natural gas gathering, crude oil

gathering, pipeline operations, transportation and storage facilities, and relate to

certain activities undertaken at the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery.

Schedule 4, which I will deal with in due course, sets out in greater detail the

right, title, claim or interest of Petrotrin in terminalling at the Pointe-a-Pierre

refinery site that will now be taken over by Paria Fuel Trading Company. Part IV

of the Bill which provides for the vesting of certain assets essential to the intended

business operations of Guaracara Refining, is comprised of clause 6. Pursuant to

clause 6(1):

“All of the assets of Petrotrin relative to the refinery operations described in

Schedule 5”—will be—“transferred to and vested in Guaracara Refining.”

Clause 6(2) will provide for:

“The assets of Trintoc and Trintopec described in Schedule 6”—to be—

“transferred to and vested in Guaracara Refining.”

14




UNREVISED

Those assets are the additional assets of Trintoc and Trintopec discussed earlier,

namely, reservoirs, a water treatment plant and associated water infrastructure,

which will now be transferred to Guaracara Refinery. As I indicated earlier, the

refining company will not only hold the assets of the refinery but will also provide

utility services: electricity, water and so on, to the other companies.

The final part of the Bill, Part V, consists of clauses 7 and 8, and addresses

miscellaneous matters. Clause 7, the penultimate clause of the Bill, provides for a

waiver of stamp duty payable under the Stamp Duty Act, Chap. 76:01, upon the

transfer and vesting of the undertakings of Petrotrin, PSAEL, Trintoc and

Trintopec. It should be noted, Madam Speaker, that a similar waiver of stamp duty

was also a feature of both the Petrotrin Vesting Act of the 1990s and the Trinidad

and Tobago Oil Company Limited Vesting Act of the 1980s.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the commencement of the Act on the first

day of December 2018. Each of the six Schedules to the Bill groups assets of

similar classification corresponding with the company which is to be vested with

those assets. As such, Schedules 1, 2 and 3 detail the assets to be vested in

Heritage Petroleum. Schedule 1 sets out the property and rights comprising all of

the assets of the exploration and production operations of Petrotrin. For example,

Madam Speaker, it includes oil mining leases, production-sharing contracts,

pipeline and other licences, onshore and offshore oilfields, the crude oil pipeline at

the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery site and shares in subsidiary companies that engage in

exploration and production activities.

So, Schedule 1 details all of the assets required for exploration and

production which would now be vested in the Heritage Petroleum Company.

Schedule 2 describes the PSAEL Lands, located in Coora and Quarry, shown

15




UNREVISED

shaded on a map marked “Map A-1” and Palo Seco, shown and shaded on a map

marked “Map A-2.” Schedule 3 lists two contracts related to water treatment in

which Heritage Petroleum is to be substituted as a party instead of Petrotrin.

Schedule 4 lists all of the assets, rights and property to be transferred to Paria Fuel

Trading from Petrotrin, specifically assets related to the terminalling operations of

Petrotrin and includes a portion of the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery shown unshaded on

a map marked “Map B”.

The remaining Schedules 5 and 6 both relate to the assets to be transferred to

Guaracara Refining. Schedule 5 sets out the particulars of the Pointe-a-Pierre

refinery assets to be transferred to Guaracara Refining, shown unshaded on a map

marked, “Map C.” Finally, Schedule 6 refers to the non-core assets of Trintoc and

Trintopec, also to be transferred to Guaracara Refining.

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion in the public domain

about guarantees given by the Government with respect to financing undertaken by

Petrotrin. I have in my possession a list of all of the details of all of these letters of

guarantee. I will give an example. In July 2018, the Government issued a letter of

guarantee on behalf of Petrotrin to Republic Bank in the amount of US $50

million, together with First Caribbean. Again, in March 2018, the Government

issued a letter of guarantee to—sorry, First Caribbean is US $50 million and

Republic Bank is US $50 million, first in July, second in March of 2018. In

August of 2018, the Government issued—the Minister of Finance signed a letter of

guarantee for Petrotrin—without which it would not have been able to function—

in favour of Scotia Bank, in the amount of US $50 million.

Again, in November 2018, just a few days ago, on the 9th—today is the 14th,

so that is five days ago—the Government issued a letter of guarantee—the

16




UNREVISED

Minister of Finance—in favour of Scotia Bank in the amount of US $50 million.

On the 27th of September, 2018, the Minister of Finance issued a guarantee on

behalf of Petrotrin in the amount of US $55 million to First Citizens Bank. On the

26th of October, 2018—these are all very current dates, Madam Speaker—the

Minister of Finance issued a guarantee in favour of Petrotrin to FCB in the amount

of US $25 million. I say all of this, Madam Speaker, because the total guarantees

issued just this year alone, US $400 million—US $402 million. What I had not

listed was a guarantee given to FCB on the 5th of November, US $100 million, and

a guarantee given to Republic Bank on the 12th of October, US $22 million—US

$402 million. Over 2.5 billion Trinidad and Tobago dollars, are the letters of

guarantee signed by this Minister of Finance in this year, 2018, alone—because we

did it to others before—in favour of Petrotrin.

And, Madam Speaker, US $402 million we have had to guarantee—$2.6

billion, actually, between March 2018 and now, six months. In six months we

have had to issue guarantees in excess of TT $2.5 billion. And every time we do

this, it increases the public debt because the public debt is comprised of direct debt

and contingent liabilities, and a letter of guarantee for a state enterprise is a

contingent liability. And this US $402 million became contingent liabilities;

increased our public debt by over $2.5 billion in just six months, just to deal with

this problem here. As the Attorney General is saying, it is more than 1 per cent.

The public debt is around 80. This is more than 1 per cent. This is more like 3 per

cent. In one day we had to approve US $170 million increase in loan guarantees

for Petrotrin otherwise they could not survive. And that is just a short while ago.

I am not talking before, you know, I am talking this year, 2018, just a month

ago. In one day we had to increase the public debt and increase our debt-to-GDP

17




UNREVISED

ratio by 1 per cent in one day because of the requirement to bail out Petrotrin,

because it simply did not have the cash to function. And I say these things because

I have heard stories outside there, that the Government, the Treasury, is not

required to support Petrotrin, that Petrotrin is a financially viable company, that it

is profitable, that it makes profit and that it requires no assistance from the State.

And I have read out all of this because it is very important that the public is aware

of the true facts. The public needs to be aware of the true facts. At this point in

time, the loans that Petrotrin is exposed to in terms of short-term loans, the original

amounts—the outstanding balance, let me use that—the outstanding balance to

date in terms of short-term loans locally, $109 million. In terms of foreign loans,

short-term loans, $644 million. In terms of the gasoline optimization project, long-

term loans, $1.48 billion. In terms of the Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel Project and the

Gas Optimization Project, a further $5.76 billion.

This is just part of the loan situation with Petrotrin. Petrotrin is also

indebted to the Government, or Petrotrin owes the Government, or Petrotrin is just

not paying the Government, over $3 billion, close to $4 billion in supplementary

petroleum tax, other petroleum taxes and royalties, almost TT $4 billion. And you

can understand, Madam Speaker, “the company just cyar pay”. “Dey just cyar

pay.” Because if we have to guarantee two and a half billion dollars, or close to $3

billion in financing just for the last six months, without—if we had not done those

guarantees, the company would have collapsed.

So you could imagine they are in a situation where, from day to day they are

struggling to pay bills, and the banks require the Government to guarantee the

loans, otherwise Petrotrin would not have been given facilities in terms of paying

its wage bill, for example. That was the crisis that came at us just a month ago,

18




UNREVISED

that if we did not guarantee that US $170 million, $1 billion, that they would not

have been able to pay their wage bill for October/November.

So these are the facts. This is the reality outside there. And while it is true

that the Government owes Petrotrin money for the fuel subsidy, the Government

has been required within the last week to make an arrangement as part of the

restructuring of Petrotrin, to pay US $200 million, almost $1.4 billion—to agree to

pay $1.4 billion to assist Petrotrin in securing financing as part payment for the

fuel subsidy. You have to understand, Petrotrin owes the Government almost $4

billion in unpaid taxes. The Government owes Petrotrin over $1 billion. I think

$1.7 billion is the number that I have heard in terms of the fuel subsidy.

So the net owed to the Government is in excess of $2 billion. But the

Government has agreed, as part of the financing—because this is necessary—to

give the payments totalling US $200 million to deal with the restructuring and

refinancing of Petrotrin’s debt. So that is another $1.4 billion on top of the $2.5

billion, otherwise that would be the end of it. If this Government had not agreed to

provide that US $200 million last week, that would be the end of it. The foreign

financiers would refuse to finance Petrotrin. The entire process would simply

collapse.

So, Madam Speaker, to recap. What we are doing today is almost identical

to what was done in the early 1990s when the assets of Trintoc and Trintopec were

vested in the newly created Petrotrin. It is identical. When you look at the

Petrotrin Vesting Act and you look at the Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage

Petroleum, Paria Fuel Trading and Guaracara Refining Vesting) Bill, it is the exact

same approach; it is the exact same terminology. So we are doing what has been

19




UNREVISED

done in this country. We are doing what was done in this country over 35 years

ago. There is nothing new about this. This is standard practice.

So I hope, Madam Speaker, I have explained what we are about and I will

answer any questions that Members pose to me that require an explanation in my

winding up.

I beg to move, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Question proposed.

Madam Speaker: Member for Pointe-a-Pierre. [Desk thumping]

Mr. David Lee (Pointe-a-Pierre): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to say

before I start, welcome back. Madam Speaker, after listening to the Minister of

Finance for 45 minutes on the issue about this Bill that is before us, and giving us a

history about Petrotrin, I want to say this presentation by the Minister of Finance

on this Bill, represents another chapter in the deception, manipulation and secrecy

that this Government has perpetrated [Desk thumping] upon the people of our

country with respect to what was the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago.

Madam Speaker, when I was coming into Parliament just after lunch, it was

bleak outside, raining, and I am sure, presently, right now, there are thousands of

employees of Petrotrin who would be going home in the next couple of days,

watching this debate here this afternoon, Madam Speaker, along with businesses

and staff of those businesses that depended on Petrotrin, and their life and their

families. I am sure some of those workers that are looking on are crying; some are

feeling depressed after listening to the Minister of Finance. Some are feeling

hopelessness. But there are some individuals listening to the Minister of Finance,

who are smiling, based on what he presented here today. Names like Espinet, the

chairman of Petrotrin, he is smiling; Robert Riley; Ajodhasingh and Wiley and

20



Mr. D. Lee (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Riley. But I am sure, because—why are they smiling? They are smiling because

they are seeing the execution of their plan in the destruction of Petrotrin coming to

the forefront by the Minister of Finance.

Madam Speaker, I am sure MPs like Point Fortin, MPs like La Brea, are not

smiling, because their communities, their constituents, are being affected as we

speak, presently, along with San Fernando West and San Fernando East, and

Pointe-a-Pierre. We are fence-line communities—Tabaquite, Gasparillo. There

are people looking on at this debate in awe, based on what the Minister of Finance

has presented here this afternoon, and it is really a deception that he has done here

this afternoon. He is trying to create a deception that this is nothing new, Madam

Speaker, that the Petrotrin Vesting Act that he refers to, is what he is doing here by

this Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage Petroleum, Paria Fuel Trading and

Guaracara Refining Vesting) Bill, 2018.

Madam Speaker, it is also—I would use the word, disingenuous, by the

Minister of Finance, how he talked about Petrotrin, and it appears that Petrotrin is

useless; it never developed Trinidad and Tobago. Madam Speaker, I want read in

his budget statement, the Minister of Finance, 2018, on October the 2nd, 2017,

presented by the Minister of Finance, on page 27. The category is Petroleum

Company of Trinidad and Tobago, better known as Petrotrin, and I quote:

“Madam Speaker, the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago

(Petrotrin) has been instrumental not only in generating resources for

financing the growth and development of Trinidad and Tobago, but also in

building for the country a capability in energy affairs which was so critical

during the transformation of our oil economy into a gas-based economy.”

This is what the Minister of Finance said in his budget statement.

21




UNREVISED

Mr. Charles: “Nah, he couldn’t say dat.”

Mr. D. Lee: Madam Speaker, he goes on, on page 27, and I quote:

“Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that Petrotrin still has great potential,

including an excellent portfolio of land and marine acreage.”

The gentleman said so, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance. What happened

one year later—one year later, approximately? And I sat with the Minister of

Finance on an energy committee and he always said glowing things about

Petrotrin, Madam Speaker. So what has happened? There are over 5,000

employees about to go home in two weeks’ time. He talked about also, in his

presentation, Government guarantees. But you know what the ironic thing is,

Madam Speaker? For the last six months of 2018, he talked about the present

Government—this Government—guaranteeing loans for Petrotrin. Prior to that,

Petrotrin was able to secure their own loans based on the ability of Petrotrin as a

viable operation. [Desk thumping]

What has happened in the six months that the Government of Trinidad and

Tobago now has to guarantee Petrotrin loans? You know what has happened,

Madam Speaker? What has happened is that that board of directors and this

Government perpetrated a narrative that Petrotrin was no longer viable; they were

shutting it down; they were sending home the workers; destroying the union, and

that created an issue—a financing issue—for Petrotrin to survive in the last six

months. So it is not because of Petrotrin as a viable concern, a growing company,

it is what the board of directors of Petrotrin, in the last 12 months, led by Chairman

Espinet and this Government, has done to Petrotrin and this country, Madam

Speaker.

Listening to the Minister of Finance, you know, I want to refer to an article

22




UNREVISED

by one Mariano Browne, that was carried by a news reporter, Rosemarie Sant.

Now, Mariano Browne was a member, or still is a member of the PNM. And in his

interview—and I quote, Madam Speaker, on the 10th of September, on the Morning

Brew, he talked about Petrotrin:

“This is a company with many moving parts.”—Mariano—“Browne is

forecasting that ‘a lot of mistakes will be made’”—by this Vesting Bill—

“and while some may not be apparent to the public, the ‘spillover effect of

the mistakes’”—that will be made, will last for a few years, and this is

like—“‘a rollercoaster.’”

So, Madam Speaker, Mariano Browne had issues with this vesting Bill just like

how we have issues with this vesting Bill. [Crosstalk] So, it is not like for like,

Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. Lee: Madam Speaker, I sat in quiet. I did not disturb anyone.

Madam Speaker, as the saying goes, it was like “a thief in the night” we

come into this Parliament, and this Government has thrust upon us this Bill that

seeks to vest certain assets of Petrotrin into three companies: the Heritage

Petroleum, the Paria Fuel Trading and the Guaracara Refining Company. And

they have now come today and said, well, there is a holding company, according to

the Minister of Finance: Trinidad Petroleum Holdings. So the holding company,

Trinidad Petroleum, and you have these four subsidiaries to date: Petrotrin old, or

as they would have said, Petrotrin legacy; you have the Heritage, you have the

Paria and you have the Guaracara Refining. So that Petrotrin now is a subsidiary

of Trinidad Petroleum Limited.

Madam Speaker, my time today in my short debate will be spent exposing to

23




UNREVISED

the people of our country the lack of vision by this administration, [Desk

thumping] led by the hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I will show

how months after the announcement by Chairman Espinet, that this refinery will be

closed, how this Government has no idea what to do in this country with the

valuable assets of Petrotrin. They want to take the most valuable asset, in my

view, of Petrotrin, of this country, that belong to you and I, Madam Speaker, the

taxpayers, the workers that are being sent home, and transfer them into these three

companies. So they are vesting the assets out of Petrotrin—just the assets—into

these three companies. We are now told by the Minister of Finance who the

shareholding would be and it will roll up to the Trinidad Petroleum Holdings

Limited.

Madam Speaker, let me also say to the people of this country, the trade

unions, that under a UNC administration, we would never have shut down this

refinery of Petrotrin. We would have worked with the employees, which we had

started to do, with the union in trying to make Petrotrin viable once again. Madam

Speaker, my heart hurts, as the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, because on a daily

basis people come to my office seeking solace, seeking comfort, of what to do.

The decision to close this refinery will be seen for what it really is. I call it a

cowardly and perpetrated act upon this country of our people.

Hon. Member: “Yuh have to read that?”

Mr. D. Lee: “Doh” worry about if I have to read it.

Dr. Moonilal: Madam Speaker, we listened attentively to them.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, you all might not be aware of it, but the

volume of the crosstalk is becoming a bit difficult for me to follow the contribution

from the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre. So please, check your volumes. Member

24




UNREVISED

for Pointe-a-Pierre.

Mr. D. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a few months ago the

Prime Minister came into Marabella to have a meeting, and he talked about the

closure of the refinery, and he talked about, it was a brave and courageous act that

he is taking in closing the refinery. And he also said that history will vindicate

him. But as I say to the people of this country, this country will never forgive the

Prime Minister for closing down Petrotrin. [Desk thumping]

So let me get into the crux of my contribution here. This Bill here has eight

clauses, six Schedules. And you know, I listened, since I have been here, to the

Attorney General when he is piloting a Bill and he starts off with the short title.

The short title in this Bill is:

“This Act may be cited as the Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage

Petroleum, Paria Fuel Trading and Guaracara Refining Vesting) Act, 2018.”

One sentence, but it is a powerful sentence. By these three companies—by this

clause 1, Madam Speaker, it is changing the whole shape of this country when it

comes to Petrotrin. When you go down into the different clauses—because you

know what is—and I just want to lay it in my contribution at the offset. When you

look at the Preamble, and which, I think, the Minister of Finance did not really get

into the Preamble—

Mr. Al-Rawi: It is not part of the Bill.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. D. Lee: And when you read the preamble, Madam Speaker—I think it is

paragraph 9, and I will read:

“AND WHEREAS pursuant to section 6 of the Petrotrin Vesting Act, Chap.

62:07, the Minister may by Order transfer and vest in PETROTRIN the

25




UNREVISED

assets or any of them which were set out in the Second Schedule of the

Petrotrin Vesting Act, Chap. 62:07 (the ‘Second Schedule Assets’):”

And the next paragraph is:

“AND WHEREAS such Order has not been completed:

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to vest certain of the Second Schedule

Assets in Guaracara Refining in the manner hereinafter set forth.”

I will come back to those three preamble paragraphs as I go on because it really

relates to the Petrotrin Vesting Act, and I will make note of that.

So who this Bill is really trying to satisfy in passing this Bill? When this

Government came into power they talked about fixing Petrotrin. They referred

Petrotrin to a committee called the Lashley Committee—a Petrotrin committee—

and out of that committee this present board took certain decisions coming out of

that Lashley Committee Report and other reports—as the Minister of Finance said

experts. So you had the Solomon and you had the Mc Kenzie report—and when

you look at the Lashley report that was one of the documents—there were several

documents—that triggered the decision by the board of directors and to the

Government in restructuring Petrotrin in these new entities. When you look on

page 42 of the Lashley report, Appendix VIII, the matrix is Petrotrin’s strengths,

opportunities, critical issues and weaknesses.

When you look at the strengths under the Lashley report of Petrotrin, the

opportunities of Petrotrin, and then we have the critical issues and weaknesses of

Petrotrin, Madam Speaker, the strengths and the opportunities together outweighed

the critical issues and weaknesses. So it is great concern that this Government is

taking the decision of closing down Petrotrin, mothballing Petrotrin, sending home

all workers and creating all these new entities free of liability, free of debt,

26




UNREVISED

employing new employees and not taking into account the real strengths and

opportunities under the Lashley report, because the Lashley report, once again,

never talked about the closure of Petrotrin.

So, Madam Speaker, even in the critical issues in this report, what would

change with these new entities? What would change in respect to corporate

governance and poor decision making? Is it because they now hire a fella called

Wiley, that he will make better decisions? They talked about critical issues,

transparency and accountability, are we getting better transparency and

accountability in these new three entities I ask? They talked about procurement

issues, are we getting better procurement issues under these three new companies?

The strengths under this report, as Petrotrin, large land and marine acreage, who is

getting that? The strengths of Petrotrin, regional market share, they talked about

that. Integrated upstream and downstream operations as a strength, Madam

Speaker. Petrotrin as a strength. Workforce, skills, expertise and opportunity for

continuous improvement— that was a strength of Petrotrin. Their workforce, what

they are doing, they send home everybody. This is not the Opposition saying that.

This is people that they got involved, they hired.

Another strength for Petrotrin under the Lashley Committee, which Espinet

was part of, capability to address and resolve production incidents, and that is

because of the skilled workforce. What is now becoming of that? Opportunities

under Petrotrin. Opportunities, Madam Speaker. They talked about increased

exploration, extraction hydrocarbon oil production as an opportunity; an

opportunity to acquire competencies through equity partner in new generation

techniques; to explore existing acreage in deep waters. Opportunity again,

stabilize governance and management. Another opportunity, improve refinery

27




UNREVISED

performance. Another opportunity, improve operational efficiency and reduce

cost. So, Madam Speaker, when you look at all these strengths and opportunities

that Petrotrin had in the last eight months, what happened eight months later?

What happened? What happened is that this Government wanted to close down

Petrotrin just like that. They wanted to destroy the unions [Desk thumping] and

they are building it for somebody to get.

Madam Speaker, we are seeing three new companies that are formed,

valuable assets are being transferred out of Petrotrin, and no liabilities are coming

with these companies. Now, when the Minister of Finance referred to the Petrotrin

Vesting Act, in the Petrotrin Vesting Act—you know the Minister of Finance is not

like for like. Page 9 of the Petrotrin Vesting Act, Part II, “Liabilities and”—this is

the assets of the Trintoc and Trintopec coming into Petrotrin back then in 1993.

Part II of that Vesting Act, heading, “Liabilities and Obligations Assumed”.

“All liabilities, except the tax liabilities of TRINTOC and TRINTOPEC,

obligations, debts and encumbrances incurred, undertaken, assumed or

accepted by TRINTOC and TRINTOPEC to the extent outstanding

immediately prior to the appointed day and recorded in the books as at the

appointed day.”

What that meant, Madam Speaker, from reading this, is that in Petrotrin Vesting

Act all the liabilities and the assets under Trintoc and Trintopec came under this

new Petrotrin Vesting Act.

What this Government is doing, the Minister of Finance, is hiving off just

critical assets of Petrotrin, placing it in these three companies and the debt of

Petrotrin, the liabilities, stays with the old Petrotrin. So who becomes responsible

for that debt? What are the issues in respect to even the guarantees of Petrotrin

28




UNREVISED

when these debts were incurred? They might have incurred based on the assets of

Petrotrin. So now you hive off the assets alone, put it in these three new

companies with no liabilities, but the liability stays within Petrotrin. So, for

example, Madam Speaker, contractors who have receivables with Petrotrin would

they get pay; would they be paid; or when will they be paid? What is their

recourse? Vendors, what is the recourse to them? There are businesses that are

dependent on Petrotrin and they are in jeopardy of closure because Petrotrin might

still owe them money.

I want to refer to an article in the Energy Chamber website where a survey

was done to the businesses within the Energy Chamber. A survey was done,

businesses that depended on Petrotrin and what percentage of their businesses

depended on Petrotrin. At the end of it, Madam Speaker, what came out of that

survey was that there are certain businesses that are dependent—25 to 30 per cent

of their business depends on Petrotrin and they would be in jeopardy of closure,

sending home employees, and also their concern is they do not know if the debts

would be paid to the association members. So we ask about these outstanding

debts.

Madam Speaker, we talked about the guarantee of the outstanding bonds.

These bullet payments of 2019 and 2022. In the original bond issue, I am sure it

would have been guaranteed by Petrotrin, now you have stripped away Petrotrin’s

assets and put them into three different companies. What is the issue? What

becomes of that guarantee now? I heard the Minister of Finance talked about they

are working with a consortium to refinance these bonds and so on, the jury is still

out on that. What about the retrenchment? He talked about the closure and the

shutdown of Petrotrin, the retrenchment and the remuneration package of these

29




UNREVISED

thousands of workers.

Right now I have some letters where I have an individual, an employee who

is going home in two weeks’ time. He gave 25-odd years to Petrotrin. In the last

six years or so, he became permanent. So prior to the 19 years, he was considered

temporary. He got a letter of a severance package for only taking into

consideration his last six years. I have another letter where a temporary worker has

gotten a letter from Petrotrin saying he has only been working there for four years

but he will be paid some severance. The question I have to ask: Are all workers

whether temporary, permanent, are they getting a severance package to go home?

Because earlier on, in a few weeks running up to today, we heard about enhanced

severance packages for workers. We heard—I think my colleague, in another

place, had asked a question directly to the Minister of Energy and Energy

Industries, and the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries said that all workers,

whether temporary or permanent, would have been going home with a severance

package. So I ask the Minister of Finance to give some clarity to the workers of

Petrotrin.

Madam Speaker, money owed to Petrotrin. You see, this vesting Bill that is

before us today, with these eight clauses, really needs a lot of clarity, further

clarity, and it is not something as very simple as the Minister of Finance is trying

to make it out to be that we have done this before with the Petrotrin Vesting Bill.

You see, the confusion that is created by a lot of these companies—and this

Government likes to open companies. They love companies. So they have opened

these new companies and I ask a question: money that might be owed to Petrotrin,

given the confusion that is being created by this Government with these different

companies, would Petrotrin be able to collect these outstanding funds owed to

30




UNREVISED

Petrotrin? These are questions I ask because the Minister asked, ask him

questions. So I am asking him questions.

Madam Speaker, I want to refer to something with Petrotrin and the closure

of Petrotrin, the NiQuan plant. Because a few months ago we were here in

Parliament and we were told that the NiQuan plant, or the WGTL, was sold to

NiQuan, and coming out of that deal—and Petrotrin was still there—certain

products that would be produced— Well, first of all, NiQuan was sold for $35

million by this Government, WGTL was sold for US $35 million by this

Government, an initial payment of US $10 million, and preference shares valued at

US $25 million to be paid in two tranches. I ask what will become of that? Is

Petrotrin going to collect that? Is the Government or the taxpayers going to collect

that? The other aspect of the WGTL to NiQuan deal is that the agreement was for

the purchase of the diesel produced from the plant by Petrotrin. Will this deal still

exist? There was also an aspect of preferential gas coming to the NiQuan plant, a

preferential gas contract via Petrotrin. I ask what is becoming of that? The

Minister mentioned in his debate about the ultra-low sulphur diesel plant, is this

plant now mothball and it is going to be sold out for pennies on the dollar just like

the NiQuan, like WGTL? I ask these questions.

Madam Speaker, we are four new companies that are mentioned today. I do

not know if the holding company has been formed and registered on October 5th. I

want to ask: Who are the directors of these companies? What are the remuneration

packages of those directors? Are we now going to see three CEOs like Mr. Wiley

who is hired for Heritage and he is getting over $245,000 a month?

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, your original speaking time

is now spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes if you wish to complete your

31




UNREVISED

contribution.

Mr. D. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: You may proceed.

Mr. D. Lee: Yes, Madam Speaker, so I ask about these three new companies, four

companies, because the holding company must have a CEO, must have somebody

to report to. So you have four companies so far. Four CEOs, four sets of

administration, four sets of management, four sets of employees at what price? So

when they talked about trying to be cost benefit analysis of shutting down

Petrotrin, you have now created four companies with four separate entities that

require four sets of employees to make those companies viable, profitable and

efficient according to the Minister of Finance. So I ask this question: What is the

price of the taxpayer? [Desk thumping]

Even the employment procedure, it is the secrecy. I asked the hon. Prime

Minister here last week Friday about a CEO who was hired. The Prime Minister

mentioned Mr. Wiley was hired in August for the Heritage Petroleum Company,

but the Heritage Company was not formed until October the 5th. So I do not know

which company Mr. Wiley was employed by. Was he employed by Petrotrin for a

temporary two months or three months until the Heritage Company was formed in

October? So, Madam Speaker, you will tell us. So is there another Wiley number

two coming on for the Paria at 245 and also the Guaracara refinery. I do not know.

I ask because the Minister of Finance said ask him questions.

We just had a new US Ambassador, a United States Ambassador Mr. Joseph

Mondello, and one of his concerns he talked about and I want to quote Mr.

Mondello. At a meeting at the HYATT on October 25th, an Amcham TT Meeting,

he talked about his point when he was giving his discussion about investors

32




UNREVISED

coming into Trinidad and what they are looking for. They are looking for

transparency, stability and predictability. This is the new US Ambassador. And I

am asking the way this Government is going ahead with Petrotrin and these new

companies, it goes against transparency, it goes against lack of stability and

predictability because it all shrouded in secrecy. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, I know I do not have much more time but I want to go back

to the Preamble, and the Preamble in paragraph of the Bill, in paragraph 9 where

we talked about the Petrotrin Vesting Act, and the next paragraph:

“AND WHEREAS such Order has not been completed:

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to vest certain of the Second Schedule

Assets in Guaracara Refining in the manner hereinafter set forth.”

Madam Speaker, let me go to the Petrotrin Vesting Bill, Second Schedule, where

the assets of Trintoc and Trintopec, and I asked for an explanation with the

Preamble:

“WHEREAS such Order has not been completed:”

In the Second Schedule, exception, the real estate holdings of Trintoc and

Trintopec—you know I want to list some of these real estate holdings:

“(a) Pointe-e-Pierre Residential Area and Buildings;”

Pointe-a-Pierre refinery has prime real estate, prime residential houses and

buildings.

“(b) All Clubs and Recreational Facilities;

(c) Brighton Residential Area and Buildings;”

Brighton has residential houses. It is interesting. I did not even know that.

“(d) Residences at Nos. 22 and 24 Collens Road, Maraval, Port of Spain;”

That is a prime affluent residential area in Maraval. This is part of their Schedule.

33




UNREVISED

“(e) Beach Camp, Palo Seco Residential Area and Buildings;

(f) Forest Reserve Residential Area and Buildings;

(g) Point Fortin Residential Area and Buildings;”

I think Point Fortin residential—we had a Member on that side, I think a Minister

of Trade and Industry, we had to try and get her out from the Point Fortin

residential area. She is still there.

Also in that Schedule, Madam Speaker, it talked about shares of Lake

Asphalt of Trinidad and Tobago (1978) Limited and:

“(4) Urea Formaldehyde Concentrate Plant, Point Lisas.”

I ask: what is this?

“(5) O2 N2 Plant, Point Lisas.”

Now, Madam Speaker, the Preamble says:

“WHEREAS such Order has not been completed:”

From my information talking to a lawyer, that the Minister of Finance could come

at any time and vest these same assets that I called out here in Guaracara, pass a

legal notice, and we would be none the wiser. I want to carry it further. I do not

know if these things could be sold to whoever, John Public, without the Parliament

knowing about these assets being sold. I ask.

Madam Speaker, clause 4 of this Bill talks about:

“Subject to section 3, the effect of vesting of assets shall be from the

appointed date, the E&P contracts.”

It talks about the effect of vesting assets into the Heritage Petroleum based on

Schedule 3. Now, I do not understand why the Minister of Finance only listed

contracts for E&P, one is a water treatment plant agreement between Petrotrin and

T.N. Ramnath and (b) a deed of lease dated 12th of October and a Deed of

34




UNREVISED

Variation. Why he took that opportunity to only list those two contracts, but it also

talked about all E&P contracts coming to Heritage? Madam Speaker, I am being

disturbed.

Madam Speaker: It appears you are being disturbed from your own side. Please

continue, Member for Pointe-a-Pierre.

Mr. D. Lee: Madam Speaker, so I am asking that the Minister of Finance could

please give us an entire listing of the contracts that are coming over, E&P, to the

Heritage please for clarity [Desk thumping] because we do not trust them. You

could put it in writing and send it.

Madam Speaker, what is the role of National Petroleum now that we have a

Paria Fuel Trading? What will become of National Petroleum? Because National

Petroleum presently, Petrotrin used to refinery the products, they sell it to National

Petroleum, and they will distribute and market it. Is that going to be maintained, or

is it going to be a duplication? Because I ask is NP now on the chopping block for

closure and the staff? I ask.

Madam Speaker, I talked about local talent versus international personnel.

We see the Government has recruited an international Mr. Wiley. I do not know if

any more international employees will be coming on board, expats as we call them.

Because there are so many locals that are part of the energy sector, internationally,

why do we not reach out to them and try to bring them back home, that pool of

talent, to help this country? That is true patriotism, that we are hiring and

recruiting foreign players to come and make our local companies, our home grown

companies, viable and profitable. We are asking them to do that, and I am saying

there is enough local talent internationally. I mean, my colleague, Mr. Charles’

son is out there internationally. Give the local people a chance to come back home

35




UNREVISED

and produce for the country. That is true patriotism. But what is interesting—

Madam Speaker, how much more time I have?

Madam Speaker: Your time expires at 3.01.35.

Mr. D. Lee: Thank you. Madam Speaker—the Member for Arouca/Maloney is

playing with me here this evening. You know, Madam Speaker, there is a song by

Bon Jovi—I know you will know it—there is a line in it, “The more things change

the more they”—remain—“the same”, and this is what is happening here today.

You know nothing has changed with this. It is just—I call it lipstick and rouge—

lipstick and rouge. Why is Arouca/Maloney—I must be doing good work here

today you know, Madam Speaker. I am really doing good work.

Madam Speaker, you know Petrotrin—this Government always likes to talk

about us on this side doing something wrong. Petrotrin is a company—there is a

company called Petrotrin Employee Assistance Programme Services Limited. The

CEO of that company hired by this Government in June is Neil Parsanlal. Neil

Parsanlal used to be a Member of Parliament for the Government under the

Manning administration. I am not saying that he cannot work you know. I am

saying it is about friends and family because—no. No, where am I going with this?

Where am I going with this is that Petrotrin is an energy company. Petrotrin has

set up a company called Petrotrin Employees Assistance Programme Services

Limited, an EAP programme, a company that in theory is supposed to assist the

welfare and well-being of the Petrotrin employees. So I am asking, that same

company headed by Neil Parsanlal, what is he doing, that company if it is still in

existence, how are they assisting the workers that they have terminated and going

home? [Desk thumping] What counselling are they giving to these workers? That

company itself was set up to be a profit company so that this company has to go

36




UNREVISED

out on the market and be an Employee Assistance Programme Company. That has

nothing to do with the business of the energy of Petrotrin. It is about friends and

family. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, you know I did something as part of this debate on my

social media. I asked and I solicited comments from my constituents out there and

it has been interesting to hear the kind of comments, and one of the majority

comment is saying to the Opposition, to me, do not support this Bill. It is

detrimental to the people and the workers of Petrotrin. [Interruption] “Nah, I

don’t do those things.” I would not bother to read it out, but it is about that.

So, Madam Speaker, with the remaining time that I have, I have my closing

remarks.

3.00 p.m.

Madam Speaker, as I close, I wonder if the hon. Prime Minister and the

Minister of Finance have spared a thought for the families that will have no income

or their income taken away one month from Christmas. I wonder if this Minister

of Finance and the Prime Minister could understand families who would be on the

breadline, not able to send their children to school and university, to be able to pay

their loans, Madam Speaker, to buy food. Madam Speaker, this has demonstrated

that this Government, led by the hon. Prime Minister, is truly—“ah doh wanna use

these words, right” but uncaring, heartless administration. Some people might say

even wicked, Madam Speaker. I call on this Government to really hold your hand

and do the right thing for the people of Trinidad and Tobago with Petrotrin and the

employees. Madam Speaker, I call on them to rethink what they are doing.

Madam Speaker, as I close, you know what I would say? When they are

done with Petrotrin, it would not be a legacy company, it would not be what we

37




UNREVISED

understood Petrotrin to be. It will be simply a part of our history and the

destruction of the citizenry of Trinidad and Tobago.

Madam Speaker, with those few words, I thank you. [Desk thumping]

The Minister of National Security, Minister of Communications and Minister

in the Office of the Prime Minister (Hon. Stuart Young): Thank you very

much, Madam Speaker. I join this debate here today and start by assuring the

people of Trinidad and Tobago that what they are seeing here today is one of the

results of over two years of meticulous, strategic work, planning the end product of

expert advice, and a Government that at no point in time did it advise itself, but

rather a Government that at all points in time went for best-in-class advice, and it is

precisely to save the people of Trinidad and Tobago and to ensure that the future

economic realities of Trinidad and Tobago remain as they should be.

Madam Speaker, we have heard in the public domain quite a lot of talk about

union busting and about attacks on the union by this administration, and I would

like to start, Madam Speaker, if you would permit me, to say that as part of this

administration, I can say without any hesitation or any fear of being contradicted

that at no point in time has this administration engaged in any union busting, and in

particular, any victimization or any attack on the OWTU.

You see, Madam Speaker, what persons may not know is that prior to

getting into politics and coming into this House and being elected by the people,

for which I am grateful, I was one of the main advocate attorneys for the unions

including OWTU, and I would like to take this opportunity to take persons back to

late 2014, the beginning of 2015, when the PG, Comrade Roget, came to me at that

stage and informed me of a plot, a plot by the then Government to fire him from

Trinmar, completely in breach of all the industrial relations practices, and that

38



Hon. S. Young (cont’d)

UNREVISED

attack was being led by the top of the then administration. And that is what union

busting is. Immediately, Madam Speaker, as his advocate attorney, we managed to

prevent him from being fired from Trinmar.

What then happened in this very House, with someone very different sitting

in the Chair that you now sit in, Madam Speaker, was a personal attack on

Comrade Roget by the hon. Member for Siparia, coming one Friday afternoon and

attacking him. [Desk thumping and crosstalk] You remember that? [Crosstalk]

Coming one Friday afternoon and saying that someone had lost his life due to the

gross negligence of Comrade Roget. Again, as the advocate attorney, we wrote to

the then Speaker asking that the record be corrected, providing the documentation

and unfortunately the public never, never heard what was said by Comrade Roget

in this House. It was never read, it was never accepted. And I take this

opportunity now to tell the people two things. That is union busting because it is

an attack on the head of one of the major trade unions personally. [Desk thumping]

And what I can stand and say now is Ancil Roget was not fired from Trinmar nor

was that personal attack on him there any veracity or any truth in it whatsoever and

today I correct the record on his behalf. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, Petrotrin. When we came in as an administration, one of

the first things that was done was the setting up and the populating of the Energy

Standing Committee, a sub-committee to deal with energy-related issues. And

recognizing early o’clock as an administration that there were two entities in the

energy industry—state entities—that required immediate attention, the National

Gas Company and the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago, those boards

were appointed early in this administration’s term. I believe by October 2015.

We then requested at the Energy Standing Committee that Petrotrin’s

39




UNREVISED

management and board come and do a presentation to that Committee on the state

of that company because by then, the population knew that there were two very

large bonds that would become due in a short period of time. The first bond of

$850 million becoming due by a bullet payment in 2019 and the second in 2022, a

bullet payment of US $750 million. What happened at that standing committee

meeting was nothing short of shocking and I can tell the people of Trinidad and

Tobago here today, Madam Speaker, that when the presentation was done by the

management of Petrotrin to the Committee and they told us the shocking state of

the company—how indebted it was, over $12 billion in debt, how its revenue had

dropped, the amount of workers that were there, the drop in production, the state of

the refinery and the assets—it was a very, very frightening picture that was painted

to us.

And then the room fell into dead silence at the end of the presentation

because we, the members of the Committee, were waiting on the Petrotrin

management to then move to part two of presentation and to tell us what were the

proposed solutions and I will never forget as a member of that Committee the

deafening silence that fell. And then the Chairman of the Committee, the hon.

Prime Minister, asking Petrotrin, okay, we understand the state of the company, the

effects it can have on our economy as Trinidad and Tobago, what next? Just like

this, deafening silence. Not a single proposal, not a single plan as to how Petrotrin

could be turned around but we, as an administration, did not have the luxury of

time. We, as an administration, doing a quick assessment, knew how detrimental

the state of Petrotrin was and the effects it would have on the whole economy of

Trinidad and Tobago. Because you see, Madam Speaker, as a state entity, it

carried the single largest debt portfolio in the whole state sector and enterprise and

40




UNREVISED

there was no hope on the horizon of it turning itself around.

So all of the figments of imagination, all of the untruths being spoken out

there, Madam Speaker, about what Petrotrin means and what Petrotrin could have

done, separate the emotion. What the analysis said at that state in time is if

something drastic was not done to turn Petrotrin around, including dealing with the

integrity of its assets which, at any moment, could have led to the most horrific of

environmental explosions, et cetera, something drastic was going to happen to

Trinidad and Tobago, including the economy of Trinidad and Tobago. That was in

2016, Madam Speaker. Immediately, $12 billion in debt, they told us—we then

faced the next big issue with Petrotrin. They came to write off $4 billion in

accrued losses.

So over a period of time they had accumulated over $4 billion in losses and

as we began to examine Petrotrin, the auditors came forward and said you have to

write off $4 billion in debt without the Government being in a position to inject on

the opposite side as capital equity $4 billion to prop it up. So immediately a

disappearance from the books of Petrotrin, a $4 billion in their asset and liability

base. That, Madam Speaker, is the crisis that this country was facing at the time.

What then happens—and they talk about union busting, they talk about the

attack on the union. I would like to remind the country and the workers that in the

period prior to 2015, in the middle of negotiations when that administration was

settling and burdening and saddling the country with further debt negotiations, they

told the workers of Petrotrin and all workers who were represented by the OWTU,

at a time when the country could have afforded it arguably, others getting 14 per

cent cumulatively over a period of time, Petrotrin workers were offered by that

administration, those on the other side, 0-0-0; 0-0-0 is what those on the other side

41




UNREVISED

offered the Petrotrin workers at a time when they had revenue, at a time when they

had money. That is what they left them with.

Put it in the Industrial Court. Immediately what happens—and it culminated

in December 2016—is the threat of a strike. And when we did the analysis—

initially the board of Petrotrin and the management came us to say they could not

afford any increase in wages for the workers of Petrotrin at that time. And I recall

it vividly, Madam Speaker, because at the time, at all hours of the day and night,

there were conversations taking place with the hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of

Finance and myself because I had a relationship, and have a relationship, with the

OWTU at that time. So in speaking to them and trying to do what was necessary,

not for Petrotrin alone, but for the country, there were discussions taking place

with a looming strike and the union reminding us of what had happened to them

under the former administration of 0-0-0 when they gave other unions 14 per cent

and upwards.

So, Madam Speaker, what then took place when we looked at the figures and

the Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance looked at the figures with

Petrotrin and realized it was almost impossible to afford the increases, at the last

minute, when we were prepared to let the matter go to a strike, the hon. Prime

Minister intervened and he said it is wrong for those workers to have been given 0-

0-0 when others got 14 per cent. What can we really afford? And at the time, the

Minister of Finance, with the technocrats at the Ministry of Finance crunched it

and said we could barely afford 3 per cent, maybe a 5 per cent, and the Prime

Minister said offer 5 per cent as an interim because it is wrong for them to get 0-0-

0 and that is what this administration [Desk thumping] did at a time when it was

very difficult to afford.

42




UNREVISED

Furthermore, the instructions given at that stage to Petrotrin were offer 1-1-3

because financially, that would have been the most affordable package put

forward. And I remember the call, late that afternoon around four o’clock from the

management and the board: The union has accepted the 5 per cent and when we

asked the question: The 1-1-3? You know what we were told, Madam Speaker?

No, 3-2-0; 0 to be decided and that is what the taxpayers of Trinidad and Tobago

took on for the workers. And just to remind the country, through you, Madam

Speaker, the Industrial Court dealing with the live matter before it decided when

they heard all of the evidence of the financial state of Petrotrin, in a landmark

decision, awarded the union 1 per cent for that final year.

So the Industrial Court ruled as an independent tribunal, hearing the

financial state of Petrotrin at the time, that all the country could afford, because it

is the country and the taxpayers who own Petrotrin, was an additional 1 per cent

for that period. That is not evidence of any victimization and any personalized

attack on the PG of a trade union or on the workers of Petrotrin. And I can tell you

further, Madam Speaker, that since we came in as an administration, there were a

number of meetings held between the hon. Prime Minister, some of his Ministers

and the leadership of the OWTU, because I sat in the vast majority of those

meetings with the Prime Minister and we listened. And the unions, not only the

OWTU, came to the Prime Minister when they wrote and he had meetings with

them and told him of the difficulties they faced, the effects of the 0-0-0 that they

were offered by the former administration, et cetera, and we always tried to find

ways that it could be dealt with.

But, Madam Speaker, the difference with this administration, and I need the

taxpayers and the citizens to understand, the difference in how we dealt with it was

43




UNREVISED

not in an irresponsible manner, but we dealt with it in a manner that the burden to

the taxpayers was one that they could bear. So it was not just go out and give 14

per cent and then that meant an extra $5 billion added to expenditure for the year.

We sat with the unions—the Ministry of Finance sat with the entities and worked

out what could be afforded in very difficult times.

Coming out of that, of where we averted that strike in December 2016,

Madam Speaker, the population at the time was signalling that perhaps the strike

should have been allowed to go on because the population had begun to understand

the albatross that was around its neck. And for the first time in the history of an

independent Trinidad and Tobago, the Prime Minister did an address to the nation

in January 2017, solely and wholly on the state of Petrotrin. Coming out of the

aversion of the strike, the Prime Minister then presented the facts to the population

of Trinidad and Tobago, and the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, on the state of

Petrotrin in 2017. And recognizing the stranglehold that Petrotrin had on the

Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and how its 12 to $13 billion in debt was

affecting Trinidad and Tobago in 2016, 2017, the journey began at that stage with

the Government recognizing that it had a responsibility and a duty to the future

generations of Trinidad and Tobago to deal with this issue.

The can that had been kicked down the road for many years before, it fell to

this administration to do what is right for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago

whilst balancing the fact that there were 3,000 permanent workers and when you

add casuals, temporaries and contractors, maybe as much as 5,000. But looking at

the financial state of Trinidad and Tobago, as an administration, you had to take a

decision. Do you continue this? And I will get to why we could not continue it

and what it is that was done.

44




UNREVISED

At that time, Madam Speaker, if you would allow me just to put some facts

on the Hansard. Revenue of Petrotrin had declined from US $5.5 billion in 2012

to $2.4 billion in 2016; from $5.5 billion to $2.4 billion. But of course, the

expenditure had not decreased but the revenue had dropped by more than half.

They were owing tax and royalty even in that stage. I have heard it bandied about

in a most irresponsible manner by persons in the public domain who should know

better. The truth is, by then, in 2016, Petrotrin was already owing over US $390

million in tax and royalty and that figure has only climbed. The total liabilities of

Petrotrin in the accounts of 2016 to 2017, Madam Speaker, when we had to deal

with this, the total liabilities were US $4.3 billion, over $21 billion—almost, sorry,

$25 billion in liabilities at Petrotrin, and I just described a drop in revenue from US

$5.5 billion to $2.4 billion. It was a disaster waiting to happen unfortunately and

as an administration, we had to take the decision: Do we leave this for a future

generation or do we deal with it now?

But as fate would have it, Madam Speaker, we did not have that luxury

because what was also happening with the looming bullet payments? The Cabinet

took a decision, at that stage, to appoint a specialist committee headed and chaired

by the then Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries,

the Selwyn Lashley Committee. And what did we do? Again, led by the Prime

Minister, invited the union to put participants, to nominate two persons onto that

Committee and the union did so. Mr. David Abdullah and Mr. Marchan served on

that Committee. We pressured them, come with some recommendations. Despite

all that you would hear, Madam Speaker, they did not make specific

recommendations but what they did is alert the country via that Lashley report to

the dire state of Petrotrin when they reported on June 06, 2017.

45




UNREVISED

Immediately, when we had digested the report, we had met with the Lashley

Committee; they had presented. We had started to discuss with other experts:

What could we do to save Petrotrin? Could we improve the asset integrity? What

do we do with the refinery? We have E&P but no drilling was being done. There

were no rigs in use. What use is an oil company that is not drilling for oil? There

was no exploration and production being done on a successful scale and that is the

life blood. The refinery was losing money and in addition to the refinery losing

money, Madam Speaker, the asset integrity was of great concern. A new board

was appointed in 2017.

And, Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to put on record that I have

observed a most distasteful habit being formed and that is the personalized—and I

have said it before; I have said it before. The personalization and the personal

attacks by those on the other side on persons who have come forward to serve

Trinidad and Tobago. They tried it the other day by calling names of persons

saying they were awarded contractors which was not true for a mariner in Tobago.

They continue today. They think that by personalizing and calling names of

persons who are not accused of any wrongdoing—the only names called by this

side are those who there is evidence of wrongdoing having taken place. Why we

had to address it? Something called a sovereign downgrade.

In April 2017, Madam Speaker, to remind the population of Trinidad and

Tobago, this country suffered sovereign downgrades by Standard & Poor’s and

Moody’s and the single largest item they focused on was the state of Petrotrin, and

they basically told the country, if you do not fix Petrotrin, your rating is going to

continue to decline. And just to let the population of Trinidad and Tobago know

what that downgrade meant, one example. With the borrowings and the sovereign

46




UNREVISED

borrowings of Trinidad and Tobago, there is sometimes things called cross default

and when you have a downgrade in rating, it allows the person who has given the

loan to call in the loan. That is exactly what happened. A Japanese bank wrote to

the Ministry of Finance, triggered the clause that says you have suffered a

sovereign downgrade, we want US $200 million in seven days.

Fortunately, we were able to negotiate it, I think between 10 and 14 days and

we had to find US $200 million, otherwise, it would have triggered a default and

what that would have then meant, Madam Speaker, and the population of Trinidad

and Tobago, a cross default on sovereign borrowings of $120 billion. That is how

serious this was. Solely based on a downgrade because of the state of Petrotrin.

So as an administration that is responsible, we had to deal with it. A board was

appointed in September 2017 and rather than the criticism that I have heard from

the other side, they should actually be applauded for having the wherewithal, the

experience, standing strong in the face of adversity and doing the right thing.

And what did they do? They went and hired the best in class—Solomon,

McKinsey—and started analysing it. And you know what they discovered? That

the information being provided by management was questionable. How do you

operate with your management information being questionable? And they kept

reporting and I put it on the record, Madam Speaker, at every stage, the board

came and reported to a sub-committee of Cabinet, sometimes chaired by the Prime

Minister, and they were providing us with the information as we went along and

the options. And it is evolving, it is unfolding. I put on the record as well, there

has been no decision to shut down Petrotrin. They continue to say so; and we will

come soon to the structure, the new structure. This new structure and the

restructuring of Petrotrin took almost 18 months and it was not because we were

47




UNREVISED

wasting valuable time. It is because every time the board came to us with certain

proposals, they were then asked to go and look at this.

Because what the Government did and I want the workers of Petrotrin and

the population to understand at this stage the Government did not accept when they

came the first time and said you have to shut down certain aspects of Petrotrin

because the Government recognized the effects that would have on the workforce.

And we kept pushing them back and telling them go back to the experts, see if you

could tweak this, if you could tweak that, can you joint venture? But the truth is

the refinery was a loss-making entity and the amount of money—$25 billion

needed to be invested in the refinery. Where is the country getting $25 billion at

this stage to invest into the refinery to turn it around? So, Madam Speaker, that is

what we were facing. The board of Petrotrin did their work. They got best-in-

class advisors. They kept coming to the Government, we had discussions and

eventually, it came down. We looked at all of the alternatives. Eventually it came

down to the E&P; the exploration and production site could be made profitable

once you invest your capital in that and you manage to drill for oil and sell it.

And again, another falsity, a distortion of reality we heard was it being

suggested that you could not sell the crude from Trinidad and Tobago. Madam

Speaker, the crude of Trinidad and Tobago was actually fetching over WTI

pricing. So, again, a complete distortion of reality in an attempt to panic the

population. So what the advice was was that E&P could go forward but the

refinery could not and you had to cauterize the refinery.

And I would just like to say at this stage, the whole restructuring exercise

was something that took time. The restructuring exercise and the breaking it up

into the four companies was at the end of a process, and what was said at the end

48




UNREVISED

of that process is cauterize the refinery, put it in an entity that if there is a future for

it, it is not bringing down the rest. Petrotrin is not being shut down. I heard the

Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, once again, trying to suggest to the population that all

of the liabilities of Petrotrin would be lost and what about all its securitization?

And the Minister of Finance will deal with it but I will mark the point now.

Petrotrin’s assets were not encumbered so that is why this vesting Order can

work and what we are doing is Petrotrin remains alive to deal with all the legacy

issues. A holding company was set up that will own Petrotrin. The refinery has

been cauterized and that has been put into Guaracara Refining Company Limited.

Paria Fuel Trading is for terminalling; that is fuel, trading and product supply.

Heritage Petroleum Company Limited is for exploration and production, Madam

Speaker, and these will all go up to Trinidad and Tobago Petroleum Holdings

Limited.

They talk about the loss of jobs. The truth is everybody knew that

unfortunately, and it reached a stage that could not continue anymore, that there

quite simply were too many jobs and it was dragging—you heard the Minister of

Finance give the details, an annual wage bill of over $2 billion. You ask the

people in Trinidad and Tobago, those who walk in Port of Spain North/St Ann’s

West, if we can really understand what a wage bill of $2 billion is. Right. But it

was dragging down. As I have just said, the sovereign rating was being dragged

down by the single entity Petrotrin. So what we had to do, Madam Speaker, was

deal with it.

And I stand here today without fear of contradiction, no matter how anyone

tries to distort the truth and the reality and I say that what was decided and what

was given the blessing of Cabinet and it is now being implemented, is what the

49




UNREVISED

country needs at this point in time.

And this administration did the difficult task, but only at the end, Madam Speaker,

of a meticulous process, where we continue to ask for more information. We

continue to give ideas. We continue to push in different directions.

3.30 p.m.

And I would like to say that anyone following this seriously, I have heard it

said that the union had a proposal that could go forward. The Prime Minister

wrote to the union and told them: any viable business plan you have, send it to the

company and it will be dealt with. But, unfortunately, when the union was giving

evidence in the Industrial Court, they could not even remember who is the person

supposed to give them this $25-plus billion for the refinery. Is that a serious

proposal? But what I would like to say and repeat here today, Madam Speaker, is

what we have instructed the board of Petrotrin to do, and they are doing it. They

have put the refinery and its assets in a cauterized company, Guaracara Refining

Company Limited, and an RFP process, internationally, is going to be set up where

a data room will be created and anyone who thinks they have a plan or a proposal

and could make that refinery viable, would be able to get into that RFP process, go

through a proper evaluation, and at the end of the day, the board and the

Government will look at the outcome of that, and if it is something that is viable

for Trinidad and Tobago, I am sure it will get the go-ahead. But in the meantime

we had to cauterize it to allow the rest to grow.

There will be jobs. We have been told the startup is 800 in Heritage Petroleum

Company Limited.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member, your original time is now spent. You are

entitled to 15 more minutes to wind up your presentation. You may proceed.

50




UNREVISED

Hon. S. Young: Sorry, Madam Speaker. So Heritage Petroleum Company

Limited, a startup of 800 jobs. The holding company must have jobs in it as well

to run the whole operation. Paria Fuel Trading Company Limited, which is for

terminalling, 200 jobs. And this is the start. So “doh” cry the doom and gloom.

And I will also say that when they did an analysis—because this is how

detailed the analysis was, Madam Speaker—when the board brought the

information to the Cabinet, we asked the question: How many persons are close to

retirement? And out of that figure of the 3,000, there were 1,800 workers that

were a couple years away from early retirement. And those are the persons who

got those packages.

And when we talk, I heard the use of the word “severance” by Pointe-a-Pierre. I

would like to just correct that once again. Everyone has been terminated. There is

no severance in a situation like that. But what the Cabinet decided and gave the

blessings to the board to do—and they were not obligated to do this in law. This is

an important point, Madam Speaker. When you are shutting down a whole

operation, the whole operation, you are not obligated to pay severance. There is a

Privy Council decision to that effect. The Government told the board offer the

OWTU rates of severance. And I put on the record here today for the population

of Trinidad and Tobago, Madam Speaker, those formulas for payments are 75 to

100 per cent more than what the law on the statute books are. So the workers are

getting between75 to 100 per cent enhanced payment to what the law on the statute

book is. That is what they are being paid.

I hear murmurings on the other side, from people who have never practised

in the Industrial Court. I practised there. They are not entitled to payments. But

the Government took the decision, and it will cost the taxpayers $2 billion.

51




UNREVISED

Temporary workers, once you qualify over a certain period of time, you have been

there for over five years, you have worked 120 days for the year, they are getting

packages as well. We have done everything we can to ensure that the workers are

looked after. [Desk thumping] But Madam Speaker, as an administration we could

not afford, especially at this stage, we are now finding our feet after the instability

left behind, to allow another sovereign downgrade.

And I would like to say at this point in time as well, to the population,

Madam Speaker, that the Petrotrin board members, some of them who have been

tasked with the refinancing and the financing of the new entities going forward,

along with the technocrats in the Ministry of Finance, have gone to the

international market. They have already gone to the international market, not only

for the refinancing of the two bonds, but for the refinancing of the whole of this

whole new business product going forward and the structure. And you know what

we are told? Contrary to what you will hear and we have heard from the other

side, the sovereign rating agencies have endorsed what they have seen as the

planned restructuring. And what we are here today to do, this Bill, is a composite

part of it. It is an important part of it. And any lawyer coming out of law school

will know this is the simplest fashion and form to vest the assets of one entity and

then they still add from Trintoc and Texaco into the four various entities I have just

described, Madam Speaker. But the important point, and I tell the people of

Trinidad and Tobago here today, is the rating agencies and the foreign refinancers

have all endorsed this restructuring plan.

So, rather than hear about the doom and gloom and, et cetera, Madam

Speaker, what has actually happened is the country’s sovereign rating at minimum

has been saved by this administration, having the wherewithal to do it in a proper

52




UNREVISED

way and to allow this proper restructuring to take place, Madam Speaker.

Again, the personalization and the attack on Mr. Wiley. Mr. Wiley’s CV

speaks as to the amount of experience he has in here. And I have heard, because

the Opposition have nothing to say. They cannot catch the administration on

anything. Let me tell you what happened. What the Prime Minister indicated last

week, Madam Speaker, is Mr. Wiley was hired in August. The truth is, by August

we knew, even before then we knew, that if there was one part of the Petrotrin

operation that could go forward in a viable entity was exploration and production.

Go and drill for oil and sell the oil on an international market. And that is what

Mr. Wiley was hired to do. You “doh” wait for the incorporation of the new entity.

We all knew. Anybody in the oil industry knows an oil company has to explore

and produce oil and sell it. So we found, again, and it was not done locally. What

the Petrotrin board at the time did was hire two international recruiting firms with

expertise in oil and gas and it was narrowed down, I think, in the end, to a

Japanese, Mr. Wiley and I believe an Iranian, by international recruiters, and he

was brought in to lead the E&P. So do not allow, Madam Speaker, and the

population of Trinidad and Tobago, yourselves to be distracted by the noise. Mr.

Wiley is the expert who has been chosen to lead the E&P operation.

We have heard the Minister of Finance say that the first shipment of crude

has gone out. That crude before was being sucked up by the refinery. When we

sell crude we earn foreign exchange. We are earning foreign exchange at $3 over

the WTI pricing for oil. That is the value of Trinidad and Tobago’s crude oil. That

is a fact, Madam Speaker.

So that is why Mr. Wiley was hired. And now that we have gone through

the restructuring exercise and the Cabinet approved the structure—and I will tell

53




UNREVISED

you, Madam Speaker, that then the board came and presented to the Cabinet, the

Cabinet looked at the presentation and said: “Well hold on. You should set up

another new company.” And that is how the cauterization of the refinery came to

be, because there were some persons saying just mothball it and park it up. And

the Cabinet took the decision, instructed they form a new company, cauterized and

put the refinery assets there, and that is how you have that SPV now, that will

invite request for proposals, Madam Speaker.

So, Madam Speaker, I think by now the country knows the various entities

that have been set up for this restructuring exercise, the Heritage Petroleum

Company Limited which will be located in Santa Flora and Point Fortin and will

have the responsibility for all exploration and production assets, including the E&P

contracts, with revenue generated through crude sales and crude storage.

Terminalling, which is the fuel trading and product supply activities would be

undertaken by Paria Fuel Trading Company Limited, Paria Fuel, which will be

located in Pointe-a-Pierre, and will be responsible, Madam Speaker, for trading

and product supply logistics terminalling and product handling. With Heritage

Petroleum, the Guaracara Refining Company Limited, will be responsible for

preservation of the refinery assets, in addition to providing utility services to Paria

Fuel and Petrotrin. Petrotrin will remain as a member of the group of subsidiaries

held by the holding company, Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Limited. Petrotrin has

not been shut down. It remains to deal with legacy items.

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing that is wrong with this vesting

Bill. This is the simplest way to gather the assets and hive them off to the entities

that have been set up for the restructuring. And what I can say again, without fear

of contradiction, Madam Speaker, is if this restructuring did not take place in the

54




UNREVISED

manner that it took place, Trinidad and Tobago would be a very, very, very

different environment, economic environment, today. So I thank this Cabinet and

my Cabinet colleagues for taking those difficult decisions. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, with those few words, I thank you for the opportunity to

contribute. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Tim Gopeesingh (Caroni East): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and

Iconsider it an honour to speak on this Bill presented today by the Government, 17

days before the closure of all of Petrotrin; 17 days before a closure of such a large

company worth more than $50 billion in assets, to bring this 17 days before the

closure to Parliament. It is an insult to the Parliament. [Desk thumping] It is an

insult to the Opposition. It is an insult to the people of Trinidad and Tobago, [Desk

thumping] when particularly almost 9,000 employees, they want to say 3,500 and

what else is temporary. But it is close to 9,000 employees who are going to be

directly affected, as a result of this closure [Desk thumping] by these companies.

Madam Speaker, this issue of restructuring of Petrotrin came like a thief in

the night, with secrecy. People operating quietly, doing their own thing and not

letting the population know and not even letting the trade union know, when a

Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the trade union and the

Rowley-led Government. And the union never expected anything like this to come

and confront them all of a sudden. So even the union, which is the major

stakeholder, was caught in the middle of the night, not knowing what this

Government was doing.

You know, it is often said that transparency and accountability is the heart of

democracy. [Desk thumping] But when secrecy abounds, it is the heart of

authoritarianism, autocracy and treachery. [Desk thumping] Authoritarianism and

55



Dr. T. Gopeesingh (cont’d)

UNREVISED

dictatorship seem to be the hallmark of this present Government, Madam Speaker.

Everything is in secret and this petroleum issue and Petrotrin issue, which has been

brought to us as a Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage Petroleum, Paria Fuel

Trading and Guaracara Refining Vesting) Bill, 2018, which has five parts, eight

clauses, six Schedules.

And as I am on that, Madam Speaker, they have treated this Opposition with

contempt. [Desk thumping] Can you—they have provided some Schedules. You

have to be a quantity surveyor. You have to use a microscope. You do not know

what the addendum is at the bottom of each one of these. “They say is” map A,

map B, map C and you cannot read a thing from this, Madam Speaker. How

insulting it is to us, very insulting. [Desk thumping] We would show this to any

quantity surveyor, land surveyor, and they themselves will not be able to interpret

all of this, Madam Speaker. So it is a sham. It is a sham. You bring something for

us a few days before everything close down and this is what you bring for us.

What about the assets, and so on? They just have put all the assets in little

categories and nobody knows what are the true assets and liabilities of Petrotrin.

[Desk thumping] You would expect that a serious Government would bring

audited statements, up-to-date audited statements and financial management

statements accompanying this, so that the country can see what the assets are and

what the liabilities are. And then, they ought to have decided which assets will go

in which one of these companies and which liabilities will go into which company.

But no, contempt again for the people. Contempt for the Opposition. [Desk

thumping] Madam Speaker, may we remind this Government that 345,000 people

voted for this Opposition and we will never remain silent. [Desk thumping] We

will speak out for the people.

56




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, this Petrotrin Bill, under this Prime Minister Rowley-led

administration can be described as industrial vandalism. [Desk thumping] The

swift collapse of Petrotrin between 2015, when the PNM took office, and 2018, is a

direct result of the mishandling by this PNM administration, and the mishandling

from 2002 to 2010 by the Manning administration, the Manning PNM

administration, and where three Members, and possibly four Members of the now

Government were part of those Governments/Cabinet in 2002 to 2010.

So I will come to some of the other facts. So, since taking office, yes, I

believe the Member for Diego Martin West, the Member for Diego Martin

North/East, the Member for Arouca/Maloney and possibly Laventille West. But

they know that they were part of the Government between 2002 and 2010, and we

will come to that.

Madam Speaker, since—Port of Spain South—taking office, Madam

Speaker, this Government effected several changes to the board. They had

appointed an energy committee, which many members of the energy committee

left, for one reason or the other, and there has been fluctuating management. Yes,

did Abdulah not leave? [Crosstalk] That was one person.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members. Member for Caroni East, could you please

continue?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, there has been fluctuating management and

it was perhaps, because the people who were in there were uncomfortable with the

decisions being taken. That is why they left. This administration, they have taken

politically-appointed boards and fired the management team, making poor

qualified political appointees managers in a number of state enterprises in this.

And we must not forget the Malcolm Jones debt was at the heart of the urgency of

57




UNREVISED

this crisis [Desk thumping] and it is the detail that this present Government has

glossed over in the public utterances on this matter.

The impact of the—God bless his soul, a very nice person, but the impact of

his decisions meant that there was a debt of approximately $12 billion at the end of

the Manning’s PNM term in 2010, when we came into office, $12 billion in debt,

Madam Speaker. So the whole transition of Petrotrin can be described as messy,

awkward, chaotic, lack of information, secretive, heartless, with gross

incompetence and mismanagement by the PNM administration. [Desk thumping]

The PNM went about this country, unbelievably so, trying to convince the

population that the closure of Petrotrin is a good thing. The Prime Minister went

from night to night, all over the country. It is a good thing. We had to close it

down because you know what is happening? We would not have money. Petrotrin

wasting all the money. And the Prime Minister “make” himself to be a saviour.

He is saving the country. But it is far from the truth, Madam Speaker, far from the

truth. [Desk thumping]

When we see that the formation of the Heritage Company and the Paria

Company, we see them for the first time as advertisements. How insulting again to

the people. You see advertisements. When I open the newspaper I see heritage

and then a next day I see Paria. Like a “tief” in the night. What is that? And you

cannot imagine, we as Members of Parliament, representing thousands and

thousands of people do not know what Heritage and Paria were on the newspaper.

I wanted to know if it was a private company coming somewhere to employ people

in some other industry. It is only when I read the details of it I realized it was

secretive on the part of this Government again. They are hiding things. Why were

they hiding? And they do not seem to know what they want to do. [Desk

58




UNREVISED

thumping] “One minute Espinet say dey not closing down Petrotrin and then the

Government say dey closing it down. Today two Members of the Government,

one saying dey closing it down. The next say dey not closing it down. And de one

who say dey not closing it down, say just before dat, dat they closing it down so

dah is why.” [Laughter] Pure confusion. “He saying dey closing it down so

people cyah expect tuh get dey money.” The Member for Port of Spain North/St.

Ann’s—

Madam Speaker, this is a deliberate pauperization of the hard-working

people of this country. [Desk thumping] And the workers must not be the

scapegoat for the PNM’s incompetence and mismanagement [Desk thumping] for

their poor decision-making by successive PNM administrations. Who will be next,

Madam Speaker? Which enterprise will be next? Every time the PNM came into

office with different administrations, they have destroyed the lives of people.

In Caroni (1975) Limited closure in 1995, they destroyed the lives of over

100,000 people in central Trinidad [Desk thumping] and the people were made into

snow cone vendors and doubles vendors. Wicked! Wicked! And here “dey

coming” again to pauperize the entire of central Trinidad, south Trinidad and by

extension the whole of Trinidad and Tobago, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

When they closed down Caroni (1975) Limited, it was Mr. Panday in Parliament

said: “You have scorched the earth and the earth will never forgive you.” Again,

PNM, you have scorched the lives of the people and the people will never forgive

you for what you are doing to the people. [Desk thumping] So they destroyed

Caroni in 2003.

At BWIA they spent $1.5 billion in a restructuring and they only changed

two things at the end of the plane. Two pictures for $1.5 million. So BWIA, what

59




UNREVISED

next? Caroni (1975) Limited, what next? Petrotrin 2018, what next? Something

coming again. TSTT is on the horizon, yeah, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, today we were arraigned with the Minister of Finance

speaking about plant upgrades failed to improve; cost of upgrade loaded the

company with debt; $12 billion in August, 2019; Government $2.7 billion loan

guarantee; GOP completed in 2013 up from $2.4 billion; GTL 1.5 to 2.5 billion;

Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel, $791 million to $2.9 billion. If I were the Minister of

Finance, I would feel ashamed to make those statements, [Desk thumping] because

he was part of the Government that caused these things to happen. [Desk

thumping] He was part of a Government between 2002 to 2010 that created this

havoc on the lives of the people and created the financial havoc.

Madam Speaker, PNM’s borrowing on the bonds, on the two bonds in 2007

and 2009, have cost our people so far, TT $18.4 billion and counting and I will

explain that. Petrotrin debt, a 10-year bond, US $850 million in 2009, PNM time;

nearly $6 billion at 9.5 per cent interest. Sen. Mark and myself were members of a

joint select committee in 2009, when we had Petrotrin before us and Mr. Malcolm

Jones and a number of directors who were part of Petrotrin said that they could not

get something cheaper than 9½ per cent interest. Imagine 9½ per cent interest, you

take US $850 million when interest was 2 per cent. That is fraud, Madam Speaker,

and it is criminal in nature.

[Madam Speaker rises]

Sorry, sorry, Madam Speaker. I withdraw that.

Madam Speaker: You would withdraw that word and I am sure you can find a

different way to say it.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: It was not good economic and financial practice at that time.

60




UNREVISED

So they took US $850 million bond, nearly TT $6 billion at 9½ per cent. And

Madam Speaker, the other one, 15-year bond, US $750 million in 2007, near TT

$6 billion at 6 per cent interest. Madam Speaker, the world was giving away

money, 2 per cent, 2½ per cent, 1 per cent above LIBOR. LIBOR was 1½ per

cent. So who did this, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker, the PNM administration

and the PNM boards of Petrotrin did this. So now today they coming as town

criers and they are saying they met this and they met that, when they created the

havoc. [Desk thumping] They created the havoc. [Desk thumping]

So, therefore, a total of $11.3 billion in borrowing in bonds in 2007/2009,

Petrotrin and the Government has paid so far, for nine years. Do you know what

this country has had to pay in interest for the nine years on the US $850 million

bond at 9½ per cent? Eighty-five per cent; 9½ per cent for nine years is around 85

per cent. Eighty-five per cent of US $850 million is US $756 million, equal TT

$4.8 billion. So, on the first bond in 2009, in the nine years, we have had to pay

$4.8 billion in interest alone. And the Minister of Finance, you cannot come and

fool this population anymore. [Desk thumping] We can calculate just like you can

calculate and you cannot fool us. We are bright people on this side. [Desk

thumping] And if you take three or four us with degrees, we have more degrees

than and all of you on the other side. [Desk thumping] I know you like that.

“Doh” worry. That is a little joke.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, it seems that Caroni East has a flare for

creating excitement, but I would like to hear his contribution and I am getting great

difficulty, so please.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, thank you. I will make sure that my

comments come to you directly. Eleven years interest on US $750 million at 6 per

61




UNREVISED

cent, between 2007 and 2018. US $495 million on interest, that is another TT

$2.88 billion. So total interest paid so far, I drew this through you, Madam

Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, between 2007 and 2018, the total interest paid

so far has been 4.8 plus 2.9 is TT $7.7 billion. Also, on the principal TT $7.7

billion have been paid in interest on those two bonds since 2007 to 2018. [Desk

thumping] And also, out of the US $750 million bond, over US $500 million of

that have been paid already by Petrotrin. So US $500 million, or TT $3.2 billion of

the US $750 million bonds have been paid by Petrotrin already. [Desk thumping]

So total paid so far by Petrotrin from 2007 to 2018, by the people of Trinidad and

Tobago, TT $11 billion on principal and interest on the two bonds and we are still

owing US $250 million.

So, in summary, the PNM’s borrowing on the two bonds in 2007 and 2009,

has cost our people so far, TT $18.4 billion and counting. And let me re-

emphasize, there are present Members of this Government who were Members of

those Governments when all these things took place. And so, therefore, today they

have no moral authority [Desk thumping] to come and discuss and debate anything.

And therefore, the Minister of Finance should not have even attempted to talk

about anything, about the finance of this company, when they created the fiasco

that we are in now.

And so they want to pass the buck on Petrotrin’s mismanagement. You are

responsible as a Cabinet, you are responsible as a Government, and therefore if you

do not take your responsibility—[Crosstalk]—the Prime Minister now was a

member of this Government in 2009.

4.00 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, the crosstalk is getting excessive, I am having

62




UNREVISED

great difficulty in hearing the Member for Caroni East, who usually gives me no

difficulty, auditory difficulties. Could you all please keep the levels down.

Member for Caroni East.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Our hon. Prime Minister, very honourable, was a member of

this Government in 2009 when he knew what was going on then, but he said he

was a member of the backbench, so he does not want to take the responsibility.

But you all have to take the responsibility whether backbench, front bench or

wherever you were, you were part of the Government. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Indarsingh: Side bench.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: And then, let me just give you some minor details of some of

these little cost overruns, Madam Speaker. The World GTL, Petrotrin entered into

the GTL Agreement in 2005—PNM—in conjunction with World GTL,

establishing a 49/51 partnership with 49 per cent Petrotrin. But the partner, GTL,

could not come up with the money for their 51 per cent and Petrotrin took the

decision to purchase the entire loan with Credit Suisse.

So you form a partnership, the partner not putting any money and you take

the responsibility for the 100 per cent.

Hon. Member: “Dais a finance manager.”

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: So what was a small-plant initiative to cost the country,

which was started in 2005?—$3.3 billion. It went up from US $160 million to

$3.3 billion. And you know what they sell it for to Niquan?—US $35 million, but

Niquan only paying US $15 million. So you take a 3.4—[Interruption]—no, that

went into receivership in 2009 under PNM administration. So “doh” try and come

and blame the Opposition. [Desk thumping] “Doh come and try to blame us now.”

That went into receivership in 2009 and Pricewaterhouse were the receivers and

63




UNREVISED

they are the ones who made the deal with Niquan.

And, Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on it and—[Holds up

document]—sorry, sorry, Madam Speaker. There are whole loads of things—

Niquan, WGTL deal, to cost—no cost to TT taxpayers, that is what they are

saying. The editorial of one of the newspapers said; “Whoa, not so fast on World

GTL, Niquan deal”, Next newspaper said, “Government dust off gas-to-liquid

project”. Yes, next one, “New partner for GTL project”. Next one, “OWTU has

questions on the World GTL”, and so on.

Madam Speaker, you take a $3.6 billion and you sell it off 100 million and

then in addition to that you say, “Ah giving you gas for 25 years and ah giving you,

ah sure ah giving you that gas.” Yeah? That is PNM style, Madam Speaker.

PNM style.

What about the Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel project, where is that located in

the assets, hon. Minister? That is one of the plants in the refinery. Is that located

in Guaracara as an asset? Because it still has not been completed. The project

commenced in 2009, PNM, there were questions between Samsung and Petrotrin

on this matter, there were claims against Samsung and there were claims by

Samsung against Petrotrin. That Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel project is now costing

TT $3.3 billion. Where are the litigious matters placed in terms of the finance;

which one of the companies that would be considered? Is it the Petrotrin Holding

Company? Who is going to be responsible for that? And up to today, the Ultra-

Low Sulphur Diesel project is still not operational.

Gas Optimization Project, Madam Speaker, that is a scandal, biggest scandal

of any type of energy company with refining. You would not see that anywhere

else, you know, it could only happen in Trinidad. Petrotrin indicated that there

64




UNREVISED

have been very significant costs and scheduled overruns during the recent

executions of GOP, that is Gas Optimization Project, with total project escalating

from—the project escalated from US $650 million in 2006 to US $1.48 billion—

830 Eight million US escalation—

Hon. Member: What!

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: In the GOP plant. Gas Optimization Project.

Mr. Karim: “Tell them the year nah.”

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: 2006, under PNM administration again. [Desk thumping]

Hon. Member: Shame on them.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Then there is the construction of a new office, head office,

which was supposed to be about 65 million, that gone to 400 million and it is like

a—[Crosstalk]—yeah, so when we speak about the Gas Optimization Project, five

new plants were supposed to be part of that.

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of working in Petrotrin in Texaco in

those days in late 1967/68. I used to climb tanks. Go and sample the big tanks, go

on a ship and sample the tanks on a ship, come back to the refinery lab, do

spectrophotometric analyses to check—[Laughter and desk thumping]—to check

whether you have benzene, toluene and xylene, which is the normal paraffin plants.

I worked with Mr. Manning’s father when he was the head of the refinery—

Hon. Member: Patrick Manning?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes, my present Prime Minister knows that because we have

been associated over 40-something years, and we know where we have all worked

and so on. So, the fluid catalytic cracking unit, isomerization unit, the new

continuous catalyst regenerating platform unit, it is called CCR, new alkylation

unit, sulphuric acid regenerating unit, offsite and utilities to provide additional

65




UNREVISED

facilities for water treatment, stream generation, electrical power to improve

reliability of existing plants. So, all cost overruns, close to over $3 billion in the

gas optimization—and some of these plants are still not working up to today,

Madam Speaker.

I understand that the JSC of 2015, the members were told that the cat cracker

was taken out of service because the integrity of the fractioning columns was being

questioned. So is the asset, an alkylation unit, was also shut down.

So, Madam Speaker, this Opposition holds the members of those

governments accountable for the massive cost overruns and the great financial

mismanagement that occurred between 2002 and 2010 particularly. And the

mismanagement that has been occurring between 2015 and 2018.

Madam Speaker, let me come closer to the Bill. We want to ask the

Government: With all these liabilities, where are they being placed, which one of

the companies? Is it Heritage? Is it Paria? Is it Guaracara? If not, how is it going

to be placed? Is it the Petrotrin Holding Company or is it Petrotrin? These are five

companies but today we have before us three companies which you speak about

vesting, and today we were informed that you have the holding company taking

care of all the subsidiary companies and you still have Petrotrin. The question we

want to ask is, do we have Petrotrin open still, or is it going to be closed? You

must answer that. [Crosstalk] Yeah, because you were confusing on both sides.

You were confusing. [Crosstalk]

Mrs. Newallo-Hosein: Everybody has a different story, a different version.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, in this Bill there are some questions that

still have to be answered. We do not know the asset base of the entire of these

three or four companies. That is still questionable, and we believe as a responsible

66




UNREVISED

Government you should try to find the answer for that.

And Petrotrin’s 2018 financial year ended on September 30, 2018. And

normally by now they would have released unaudited financials. This is not yet

available. These unaudited accounts will be important in undertaking this process

of dividing up the balance sheet of Petrotrin.

The Bill makes no mention of liabilities. This means Petrotrin is being

stripped of assets, and is it being left with the debt alone, with the loans and bonds?

Has this been communicated with the creditors of Petrotrin, who no doubt would

be concerned that the company that owes them money now has no assets?

So, if you strip Petrotrin of all their assets, you put the liabilities there, there

are people who they owe, how would these people feel if they know that there are

no assets so that they can retrieve their money? How would the stripping of the

assets of Petrotrin affect the company’s ability to refinance the US $850 million

bond payment due in August 2019? We have not heard in detail what you are

going to do; you said that you are going to refinance it, how are you going to

refinance it? With whom are you going to refinance, and at what percentage you

going to refinance at? Not the 9½ per cent which you did before. Would this now

mean that it is inevitable that a government guarantee will be required, which has

the consequence of increasing national debt stock. So the US $850 million, are

you as a Government guaranteeing that debt? And where is that going to be put?

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, your original speaking time is now

spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes to wind up your contribution.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the extension.

No mention is made in the Bill about the Augustus Long Hospital. I saw in your

schedule it did not cross the main road by Petrotrin. It came from the highway and

67




UNREVISED

it ended by the Petrotrin gate. But the Augustus Long Hospital is on the other side

of the road, and no mention has been made of that and what is going to happen to

the retirement benefit obligations. My colleague, the Member for Couva South,

will probably speak about that, for the medical benefits. It is assumed that this

remains in old Petrotrin.

Madam Speaker, Heritage Petrotrin. What are the consequences for the

transition from Petrotrin to Heritage as it relates to oversight of the continuous

operations of Trinmar and the oil-producing land fields post-November 30, 2018?

Remember we have Trinmar. What is the relationship between this new company

and Trinmar?

Next point, management of relationships with joint venture partners—I am

speaking about the Heritage Petroleum—such as lease operators, farm-out

operators, IPSC, Shell, NMCE, et cetera. This is provided for in the Bill by way of

transfer to Heritage, but many of these joint venture partners do not know what is

going on. There are joint ventures with Petrotrin and others but the joint

ventures—have they told the joint venture partners what the issues are and how

they are going to manage the joint ventures.

Paria Fuel Trading Company, as it relates to Paria in the transition from

diesel and gasoline exports to import, the population needs to be guaranteed about

the quality of the fuel that is being imported, what is the octane rating, what is the

cetane rating, what is the sulphur content. Already on social media there is

concern being expressed that fuel is burning faster than before, whether real or

imagined, the population needs to be guaranteed, Madam Speaker.

Now, Guaracara Refining, that is another part of the Bill. Mothballing of the

refinery, we have heard the Minister speak about the sulphuric acid and the

68




UNREVISED

mothballing requirements of the refinery, this is a very specialist and dangerous

operation which we know involving some 25 process units. What is the cost of

mothballing in the refinery? We do not have an answer and a clue to that.

Because you have to have high-powered nitrogen through all the chambers and

cylinders and, given that Guaracara has no revenue-generating assets, how is this

mothballing going to be paid for? Mothballing will incur an annual and ongoing

costs. So the population needs to know what will be the recurrent type of cost in

this mothballing exercise for the refinery.

I have some issues here with what the Minister of Energy and Energy

Industries had said and so on. But what do I say about Petrotrin?—the lesser, the

better. Again, when I speak of Petrotrin, it is not a nice story. I feel great pain to

see the state of the company; the people of Trinidad and Tobago see great pain in

losing their jobs today, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping] If Petrotrin is not

handled properly it could bankrupt this country; it is serious as that. Well, they

mishandled Petrotrin for years. And that is why they are bankrupting the country

now, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

So the intent of the Bill, vesting the new companies and assets, this is where

we have reached. It is an uncertain future, there are a number of questions still. I

think my colleague might have asked it. Who are the shareholders of these new

companies? Who are the directors? What will be their payments and their salaries

and so on? What would be the total amount for these four companies? And where

you are going to transfer some of these liabilities, into which companies?

Madam Speaker, Petrotrin followed International Accounting Standard 19,

IAS19, which required inter alia—and my colleague, the Member for Couva

South, might expand on this—accrual and provision of post-retirement benefits

69




UNREVISED

including pension and medical. So, you have to provide for these pensions and

medicals, but nothing is being said about it. So you have approximately 20,000

former members and their families of Petrotrin who no answers have been given

about their medical benefits and they are asking questions. What will happen to

the medical plans and where would they get the medical treatment? The

Government has to answer this question.

Then there is the question of loss of foreign exchange. Madam Speaker, in

the absence of the refinery, Trinidad and Tobago will be required to import some

25,000 barrels of finished refined product for local needs at price delivered to

Pointe-a-Pierre of about US $90 per barrel. Inclusive of foreign refineries, margin,

shipping and insurance costs. Costing some US 2.250—well, 2,250,000 daily.

The loss of foreign exchange would therefore be in the range of some US $250,000

daily, compared with at least the US $2.3 billion paid annually in taxes by Petrotrin

up 2015.

So remember, the people who you are sending home used to pay taxes and

the tax payment for the Petrotrin employees came up to close to over $2 billion per

year, so you are losing that and by importing the fuel and exporting your oil you

are losing close to US $250,000 per day.

Mr. Charles: Tell them, tell them. “Dey doh know that.”

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: So Madam Speaker, these are some of the issues which I

wanted to raise to the attention; there are many more, but the time will not permit

me to that, in terms of the other issues around the three companies.

But, what happened when we were in office with Petrotrin—we ended the

fiasco that was Bechtel’s contracts with Petrotrin on the Gasoline Optimization

Programme. We finished the GOP in 2013 and contained cost overruns. From

70




UNREVISED

2010 to 2015, oil production at Petrotrin was stabilized and was increasing. We

secured a major loan for US $500 million from Credit Suisse without a guarantee

from Government. [Desk thumping] We hired highly competent managers in Ron

Huff and John Barden. These were two of the best in the world, they fired them

and I understand Mr. Espinet wanted to rehire them but they said we are not

coming back. Ron Huff and John Barden, two world experts.

We conducted several major maintenance projects in the refinery that were

overdue for many years—

Madam Speaker: One minute. I think I was understanding before where you

were going, but right not I am really having a little challenge in understanding the

relevance and unless you quickly tie that up into what is the substance of the matter

before us, I will have to ask you to move on to your other points.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Thank you. We would not have closed down the refinery.

Based on our performance over the period 2010─2015, we would have continued

with the great performance and ensured that the lives and the jobs of thousands of

our people were kept intact and we would not have done what this PNM

administration is doing to this refinery. And we saw Petrotrin paying $20 billion in

taxes and royalties and other payments during our time.

And so, Madam Speaker, in 2015 Petrotrin began to turn a profit and within

a quarter period we had an 85-million-dollar profit in 2015. So where has all this

gone?

So in conclusion, Madam Speaker, without doubt this action by this

Government threatens to throw our beleaguered nation—battered by punitive,

destructive, clueless, incompetent, and if I may say spiteful regime—further into

the throes of social, economic and general unrest and destabilization just with this

71




UNREVISED

simple act, Madam Speaker. The PNM is dealing with this as a company crisis but

Petrotrin is a metaphor for 13 years of PNM’s non-performance and crisis

management without thought, care for workers or the future of the country.

Why the secrecy all along, Madam Speaker, why the darkness? What is this

really going to cost? Who seeks to benefit from this closure? Why can this

Government not ever come clean on selling off our patrimony? And we have one

message for this Government today. The people of Trinidad and Tobago have lost

total confidence in you. You continue to show that from what you are doing that

you do not care about the future lives of our people; you have failed to manage our

affairs and the time has come for you to step down and give the people of Trinidad

and Tobago the chance to a team that has the will, the experience and the

competence to get the job done. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

The Attorney General (Hon. Faris Al-Rawi): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I want to dive directly and immediately into the response to this

debate. You see the hon. Member for Caroni East stood up and made a number of

outstanding statements that I want to directly deal with. First word that popped out

of the Member for Caroni East’s mouth, “secrecy”. Hear the word, “shrouded in

secrecy, deceptive Government. We are told nothing. How are we supposed to

deal with this Bill because we do not know what the assets are? You need a

quantity surveyor, you need an accountant, you need to have microscope basically

to read the Bill.” That is what the Member said in the round.

Dr. Gopeesingh: The Schedules.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Schedules unintelligible. Hear the hon. Member.

Hon. Member: Nonsense.

72



Hon. F. Al-Rawi (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: “How are we to make a decision about vesting if we do not

know the asset base? This Government is secret.” That is what the hon. Member

said. Let me point the hon. Member to two particular events as it relates to assets.

Number one, as he stands a distinguished Member of this House having sat for

many years in the Parliament, in the Senate and in the House, ever heard of

something called the Public Accounts Committee.

Dr. Gopeesingh: Yeah, but that is what I quoted from.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Ever heard of something called the Internet? Ever heard of the

publication of accounts in the public domain for Petrotrin? All accounts for

Petrotrin, interim, managerial and audited accounts are in the public domain, but

the hon. Members opposite are just too lazy, intellectually lazy, Madam Speaker.

[Desk thumping] Intellectually lazy that it is easier to come to this Parliament and

just say “secrecy, we do not know what the assets are”. [Crosstalk] Madam

Speaker, I cannot assist lazy intellectualism, [Desk thumping] when it transcends

itself into untruths.

Mr. Deyalsingh: “Oh my gosh.”

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: So, Madam Speaker, if the hon. Member would bother

himself—

Dr. Moonilal: Madam Speaker, 48—could I direct you to 48(1), (4) and (6),

Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Okay, well, 48(6) deals with imputing improper motives. So I

rule against you on 48(6). And you said 48(1), I believe you said, which is

irrelevant and this is indirect response to something was raised here. Are you

raising something else from your chair?

Dr. Moonilal: 48(4) Ma’am, insulting language. I was looking at that.

73




UNREVISED

Hon. Members: Yes, yes.

Madam Speaker: I overruled on intellectually lazy. I am certain I have sat here

and heard the word “slothful”. I am sure I have sat here and heard that, which

means the same thing, lazy.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, let me return to

this. On the allegation of secrecy, on the charade that the Opposition comes with

that this Government is hiding something, the first point made by my learned

colleague, the Member for Caroni East, was that we do not know what the assets

are and the country does not know what the assets are, because the hon. Member

who speaks for 300,000-plus people that the hon. Member said the UNC represents

as the voice for the people that elected the UNC Members into office. Not one of

them has the ability to direct their learned Member and colleague to what is

published information in the House of Representatives on the floor of the

Parliament and on the Internet, Madam Speaker.

So, Madam Speaker, I reject outright and out-of-hand the intellectual

laziness of my learned colleagues in coming [Desk thumping] to this floor as they

do.

Let us deal with untruth number two, Madam Speaker. Untruth number two:

“We cannot support this vesting because we do not know what the liabilities are.

They have not said what the liabilities are and the vesting Order does not deal with

liabilities.” Madam Speaker, if there was a degree beyond intellectual laziness that

I could associate now I would be searching for that.

Mr. Deyalsingh: Lord Father.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: So let us get into it. Number one, audited financial statements,

managerial accounts, interim financial statements in the public domain on the desk

74




UNREVISED

of this Parliament speak to liabilities. Liabilities are stood against assets, it is on

the back of that that our ratings have been premised insofar as state enterprises and

contingent liabilities for them, factor. Liabilities are factored by the financial

institutions that lend us the money to deal with this and Madam Speaker, the Bill

before us itself treats with all assets of Petrotrin relative to, for instance,

exploration and production in clause 3, described in Schedule 1, are transferred but

hear clause 4. All:

“…contracts described in Schedule 3”—and hear what it effectively says—

“(a) Heritage Petroleum is a party instead of PETROTRIN…”

What the Bill does, Madam Speaker, is it says anywhere and everywhere the word

“Petrotrin” existed in any contract, in any term, whether expressed or implied,

substitute Petrotrin and put Heritage. But, Madam Speaker, I have to read and

spell?

Madam Speaker, if you are substituting “Heritage” in the one case here for

“Petrotrin” into a contract, obviously whatever is in the contract runs with it.

Liabilities in the contract run in the same way that Petrotrin was exposed to

liabilities. Heritage is exposed to liabilities. You cannot understand that, most

respectfully, hon. Members? With all of the degrees that my learned colleague, the

Member for Caroni East boasted as having, I would say two things, it does not

show—[Interruption]—in the process of his analysis of the Bill and most certainly

it pales in comparison—

Madam Speaker: Member for Naparima, if you wish to join this debate I assure

you will get that opportunity. If you intend to invoke Standing Order 47 do it in

the proper way, please.

75




UNREVISED

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Madam Speaker, and secondly, all of the degrees espoused by

my learned friend as better enabling him to understand the matters before us now,

pale in comparison to one person on this bench alone. The Member for Diego

Martin North/East who I think outstripped him in the number of degrees.

Hon. Members: “Ooh goood.”

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: But, Madam Speaker, that is churlish, that is churlish, to have

to respond to a point like that. Madam Speaker, I say with respect to the concept

of liabilities that they are to be found in the audited and other published accounts

of Petrotrin. And secondly, Madam Speaker, obviously in the substitution by way

of vesting, which this Bill does, all rights, liabilities, exposures and obligations run

concomitant with the replacement.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, it is now 4.30 p.m., we shall take the

suspension now. This House is now suspended and will resume at 5.00 p.m.

4.30 p.m.: Sitting suspended.

5.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed.

Madam Speaker: Attorney General, you have 22 minutes and 10 seconds. [Desk

thumping]

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Much obliged, Ma’am. Thank you. Madam Speaker, just

before the break we were talking about the false premises upon which the

contribution of my learned colleague for Caroni East rendered his argument, and

we have traversed already the fact, point number one, that the Opposition has said

they cannot support this particular Bill on the back of the argument that the assets

needed to be disclosed and that the Bill is an incomplete consideration point if we

do not have that. And we demonstrated already, conclusively, that on the floor of

the Parliament, in the committees of the Parliament, in the Public Accounts

76




UNREVISED

Committee, all of the reports, the annual reports, the consolidated accounts, the

managerial accounts, the interim accounts, and the audited financial statements and

accounts for Petrotrin have been laid, and, secondly, that on the website of

Petrotrin you also have full disclosure. Let alone the fact, as I was making the

argument, that the bond transactions, the lending issues which have been traversed

by the company with their financial supporters, and also from a Government

guarantee perspective, insofar as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch most

recently have in fact been reviewing Trinidad and Tobago’s positions, accounts are

premised in each one of those positions, so we have demonstrated that that

argument just simply fails to launch.

Madam Speaker, we heard another statement from the Member for Caroni

East, another spectacular statement. The Member for Caroni East said that in

looking at the issue of what caused the Government to come here today, the

Member for Caroni East made the submission that it was on the back of PNM

administration decisions that the Government is now compelled to come and close

down Petrotrin, and the hon. Member referred to a number of things and poured

scorn. The hon. Member referred to the Patrick Manning administration, he

referred to the Petrotrin management under Malcolm Jones, he referred to the Gas

Optimization Project, he referred to the ultra-low sulphur project, he referred to the

building projects, and the hon. Member referred to the GTL, the Gas to Liquids

project. And the hon. Member, associating some facts, then jumped to make a

conclusion that this Government had significant issues because they failed to

manage the GTL project and that this Government sold GTL to Niquan. The hon.

Member went on record as saying, look at what you did, how could you have sold

the GTL project to Niquan for US $35 million? And the hon. Member was very

77




UNREVISED

animated in his submission, et cetera.

Madam Speaker, untruth number two, the GTL project, the Gas to Liquids

project was in fact sold to Niquan by way of commitments rendered in 2012.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Who was there in 2012?

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Who was the Government in 2012? It was under the esteemed

leadership of the Member for Siparia, Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

So there you have the classic example of a few truths, ranked up against a

few half-truths with a few blatant untruths coming out of one submission, and there

we are to accept all of the other things. You see, Madam Speaker, there is a ruse

that is carried out by people other than this hon. Member, but people who are

referred to as charlatans, people who are referred to as people who try to trick you,

tricksters often take the talent of putting a few things that are true against things

which are not true. I am not ascribing that purpose to my learned colleague, he

surely will know better than that, but I am here to demonstrate that it is an

inglorious, unadulterated, unbridled untruth to say that this Government sold the

GTL plant to Niquan by its own decision when in fact the decision was taken in

2012. That was right alongside the statement that the hon. Member made, “Every

time the PNM is in power they come to close down things. They closed down

Caroni”, the hon. Member for Caroni East said. Well, Madam Speaker, it is true,

Caroni was closed under the People’s National Movement, but the closure of

Caroni was caused by the execution and perfection by the United National

Congress, Basdeo Panday-led Government, of the Cotonou Agreement, and the

Cotonou Agreement was the agreement which saw the removal of subsidies from

the European Union.

Dr. Moonilal: Cotonou.

78




UNREVISED

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Cotonou, Cotonou, depending upon which pronunciation you

use. Madam Speaker, in fact, it was as UNC Attorney General, a fella by the name

of Anand Ramlogan, that wrote in the press his scorn for Basdeo Panday at having

killed Caroni, and who ascribed the blame for the closure of Caroni to the

Panday-led administration.

You see, it was convenient for Mr. Ramlogan then, as he wrote in the

newspapers publicly to do so because he was a member of the COP running

against Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj. But, Madam Speaker, I am drawing that fact,

I am drawing it in answer to a direct statement by my learned colleague for Caroni

East that somehow the PNM was the fault for closing down Caroni. You see,

Madam Speaker, it takes us into another fabrication of my learned colleague for

Caroni East. The Member for Caroni East stood up here and said 9,000 workers

are being fired from Petrotrin. Madam Speaker, the entire workforce is 4,700

people. How the hon. Member gets to 9,000 I just cannot understand. But you see,

Madam Speaker, what is happening there is that that has been put alongside

another untruth. The hon. Member said, and he had to retreat from the

unparliamentary word that he ascribed to the securing of the loans, the bonds in

2007, 2008. Madam Speaker, the country knows that we have a bond in 2018—

2019 we have a bond—sorry—and 2022 we have another bond. The first bond in

2019 is for US $850 million and the second bond is for US $750 million, together

amounting to roughly about TT $15 billion.

The hon. Member then went on to say, look at the interest rate. He said that

it was almost tantamount to a crime to have an interest rate at that. The hon.

Member said, look, the loan was negotiated for 9.5 per cent, and then he went on to

say that interest was at 1 per cent. Madam Speaker, I sat right here, pulled up the

79




UNREVISED

Central Bank website, pulled up the interest rates at the Central Bank website—

again, something which my learned colleague seems incapable of doing—but

pulled up an open source public document from the Central Bank of the Republic

of Trinidad and Tobago. Guess what the prime interest rate in 2007, 2008 was?

Madam Speaker, it was 11.75 per cent. The hon. Member said 1 per cent, the

public source data says it is 11.5 per cent; the hon. Member in his submission says

9 per cent too high because it is 1 per cent. So now he has demonstrated, from the

public documentation when you fact-check him, the public documentation says,

11.75 per cent and the loan is at 9 per cent. So is the hon. Member now to say,

well, kudos to the PNM Government for saving umpteen per cents, because how

does one describe the argument in reverse? So, Madam Speaker, asset base,

untruth; 9,000 workers, untruth; interest rate at 9 per cent when the prime lending

rate was 11.75 per cent, glorious, unadulterated untruth, Madam Speaker. [Desk

thumping] So I am dealing with the arguments coming from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I was treating with the liabilities before we broke. On the

liability side my learned colleague said that the vesting order does not treat with

liabilities, and I was at the cusp of explaining how that argument is intellectually

flawed, and permit me to do so. Madam Speaker, the Bill before us specifically

allows for the creation of entities. The hon. Members opposite say, tell us, we are

confused, are you shutting down or not? They then go on to say, assets are not

known, liabilities are not known, tell us what to do with that? So let us treat with

the structure so that we can explain what this actually means.

Madam Speaker, the structure that we are creating is really a reorganization,

a reorientation of the Petrotrin structure. We are creating a holding company. The

holding company owns four individual companies; number one, it owns Heritage;

80




UNREVISED

number two, it owns Paria; number three, it owns Guaracara; and number four, it

owns what is Petrotrin as it is now to be modified post vesting. The hon. Member

for Caroni East said, we cannot support this because we do not know who the

shareholder is. For heaven’s sake, Madam Speaker, the shareholder is the

Corporation Sole. One hundred per cent of the parent company is owned by the

Corporation Sole. The Corporation Sole is the trustee in the person of the Minister

of Finance for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. So the hon. Member cannot

understand that.

The hon. Member alleges to people who are in distress that they should not

trust us because, “the Government has not come clean, it is operating in secrecy,

they do not know who the shareholder is”, when the hon. Member and every

person opposite knows that the shareholder is the people of Trinidad and Tobago

via their trustee who in law is the Minister of Finance as Corporation Sole. And,

Madam Speaker, for somebody who has been in the Parliament as long as my

learned colleague, the Member for Caroni East, that is a tragedy of intellect, of

capability and of discipline to actually do the homework to remember it, because I

know he knows it. So, Madam Speaker, the structure is four companies with a

parent holding company. Minister Young in his contribution, the Member for Port

of Spain North/St. Ann’s West, already went through Guaracara, as the name

implies—that is where the refinery is, in Guaracara—will handle the refinery

operations. We know Paria will handle the terminalling issues for fuel

transportation. We know Heritage will handle the exploration and production sides

for oil and gas growing, and we know that Petrotrin will manage certain assets

which are left behind it. But, Madam Speaker, what this Bill does in the several

parts that the Bill engages in, Part I is just Preliminary, Part II treats with Heritage,

81




UNREVISED

Part III treats with Paria; Part IV, Guaracara, and therefore you are leaving

Petrotrin behind as of on the same horizontal level with the other three companies

that we create.

Madam Speaker, this Bill effectively, whenever we traverse Heritage, Paria

or Guaracara, what we are saying in expressed terms in this legislation is, wherever

you saw the word, Petrotrin, substitute it for Heritage, Paria, Guaracara. And do

that in relation to assets, contracts, and with the contracts come obligations,

because, Madam Speaker, as you know, a contract is not an asset without the other

side of management, to put it quite simply. Along with a contract comes

obligations, comes risks, come contingent liabilities; all of those flow with it. So

when my learned colleague, the Member for Caroni East says, we do not know

what the liabilities are, the Bill does not treat with liabilities, Madam Speaker, that

is to make a nonsense of what the expressed terms of the Bill actually says. So,

Madam Speaker, that argument too must be rejected out of hand.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance, the Member for Diego Martin

North/East, in his presentation referred to the fact that we had done a previous

vesting order. The Petrotrin Vesting Act, Chap. 62:07, that is Act No. 27 of 1993,

dealt with the vesting of assets, similarly to the structure which we now propose

that this Parliament approve, this House of Representatives approve. And in that

the Second Schedule in that Act actually treats with:

“Pointe-a-Pierre Residential Area and Buildings;

Clubs and Recreational Facilities;

Brighton Residential…”

It goes on that those things can be managed in a particular way. So when my

learned colleague talks about the legislation before the House, the Bill before the

82




UNREVISED

House, not treating with it, again, he has done the country a disservice by not doing

his homework and reading the Petrotrin Vesting Act, which this Bill makes

specific reference to.

Now, Madam Speaker, let us get to the heart of the issues for the people of

Trinidad and Tobago. Madam Speaker, I am the parliamentary representative for

San Fernando West—[Interruption]

Dr. Moonilal: For now.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: For now. Member for Oropouche East, you are correct. None

of us have title to a seat other than by way of election by franchise exercise in a

general election or by-election, and, Madam Speaker, the near 30,000 people in

San Fernando West contain a significant number of people that are employed at

Petrotrin or have businesses with Petrotrin, and when the Opposition speaks and

makes allegations [Cell phone rings] as they do, that Trinidad and Tobago has

something to be afraid about when we talk about the assets—

Dr. Moonilal: I am not hearing.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: I apologize, Madam Speaker, my phone tripped.

Mr. Lee: It was not your phone. [Laughter]

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Madam Speaker, when we speak, as the Opposition does, that

there is something that the PNM is doing to people, because you heard them,

savagery to the OWTU, savagery to the workers, savagery to PNM-controlled

Petrotrin management at this point. Madam Speaker, let us put the cards on the

table, let us apply the lens of common sense. Which Government, other than for

good reason, exercises the kind of decision which this Government has to

restructure Petrotrin two years before a general election? Who in their right mind

goes out of their way to affect 4,700 workers to just be capricious?

83




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, let me put this into context. Two issues I would like to

make out of this for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. Number one, what does

the Bill mean in terms of opportunity, what is there on the horizon as a subset of

that, and number two, why are we compelled to make this decision? Madam

Speaker, I will take the different angle from the speakers before me. Trinidad and

Tobago is engaged now for over 100 years in oil and gas exploration and

production. Madam Speaker, Petrotrin is alongside international producers.

People hear Trinidad and Tobago and say, well, we are an oil and gas country, God

favoured us, we are rich, we have resources, natural resources. If you take every

international oil and gas producer and concentrate on oil alone, they, in whatever

form they may be, bp, Shell, et cetera, Perenco, they actually produce 45 per cent

of our oil and gas production, our oil production, 45 per cent. Petrotrin has the

other 55 per cent. Our country earns—from that 45 per cent which the

international players bring, our country usually earns in the year 2015, 2014—2015

our country earned $22.1 billion in revenue from that oil production. So 45 per

cent of the pie equals $22 billion.

Petrotrin, as to its 55 per cent, produced zero. Zero dollars, zero cents, $4

billion in taxation and royalties not paid and we therefore stand as the only

country, which is an oil producing country, which does not live the lifestyle of

what you see in the movies. When you hear about oil in the Middle East you think

about Sheikhs wearing yashmagh and abaya with a nagal on the head, with

camels, having a jet, a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, and money falling out their

pockets. But our state enterprise contributes zero dollars and zero cents as we

stand now. But that is not all of it. When we came into office that 45 per cent

which we were holding on to, propping up the country went to $400 million. It

84




UNREVISED

dropped from $22 billion to $400 million and 96 per cent drop in revenue. Why?

They are sitting opposite me now. It is called the United National Congress that

failed to put a lid on the deferred taxation liability carryover, therefore reducing

our income from $22 billion on that little 45 per cent that was actually working, to

$400 million.

Madam Speaker, they labelled it as incentive. They did not care that till the

year 2025 we would have no revenue to run the country, because, Madam Speaker,

they did another thing. When I heard the Member for Caroni East talking about

Malcolm Jones and PNM, and Manning, and PNM Cabinet, clean hop over the

period 2010—2015. Who was Lindsay Gillette? Who was Kevin Ramnarine?

Who was Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan? Who was the Prime Minister, as Siparia

was, who did not attend a single meeting of the energy subcommittee of Cabinet?

The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago as the chair of energy subcommittee,

in the person of Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, the Member for Siparia, could not

bother to turn up for one meeting in five years, and the country and the UNC are

shocked that the deferred taxation write-off capacity dropped our revenue from $22

billion to $400 million. So when I hear the UNC say, we would not have closed

down Petrotrin, Madam Speaker, that is half of the statement, because the UNC

does not need to say, we would not have shut down Petrotrin. Petrotrin shut down

Petrotrin. [Desk thumping]

Petrotrin shut down Petrotrin because the only financial viability that could

come to Petrotrin is by way of Government subvention—

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for San Fernando West, your original time is

now spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes to wrap up if you wish.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Should it please you.

85




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: The only way that Petrotrin could have survived is if it received

the Government subvention. The Government subvention depends upon the

Government having money. The UNC ensured, in their stellar performance,

whichever way you want to look at it, because it was spectacularly bad in our view,

and spectacularly good in their view, but so good that they cannot reflect upon a

single step that they took in this debate. The viability of the company was

completely fatally rendered, exposed because of the bad decision-making such that

our finance support for Petrotrin could not be made. Now, Madam Speaker, when

we talk about analysis and the UNC’s allegation that this is somehow done in

secret, Madam Speaker, the public record will demonstrate that the hon. Prime

Minister started the discussion on Petrotrin squarely in 2016, addressed the nation

in January. January 07, 2017, the hon. Prime Minister did an address to the nation.

The Prime Minister did an address to the nation again. In 2018 we had another

address to the nation. In 2018, in the months of April, May, June, July, August,

September there were ongoing discussions.

Madam Speaker, now that I have the benefit of a Court of Appeal decision

which was ended so it is no longer sub judice, permit me to put on the record the

following. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by the hon. Chief

Justice Ivor Archie says a few things that I want to read onto the record. Listen to

this, it is at paragraph 2 at page 3 of the judgment. Hear the words of the Court of

Appeal:

“The uncontroverted evidence is that Petrotrin has been operating at a loss

from 2014 to 2017. With the aid of its consultants, Petrotrin explored what it

would take to operate E&P and R&M efficiently, so that it could be

86




UNREVISED

profitable and meet its debt obligations on its own. These debt obligations

included short term loan facilities of approximately US$500 million –

US$600 million, the payment of a US$850 million bond due in August 2019

and approximately US$250 million due in 2022.”

But in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, because I am not going to “he say, she

say”, I am going to read what the Court of Appeal and the Chief Justice had to say.

The Union agreed on a road map.

“Petrotrin…proposed the establishment of a joint committee…On 3 April,

2018, the Union and Petrotrin”—engaged—“provided that the parties would

discuss strategies… ensure the Company’s sustainability.”

The judgment of the Court of Appeal says, third week of August 2018, there were

further meetings. The judgment of the Court of Appeal says, 28th of August, 2018,

meeting between Petrotrin and the union. The judgment of the Court of Appeal

says, Petrotrin and the union met, 11 September, 2018; 19 September, 2018; 25

September, 2018; 01 October, 2018, and today I have to hear the Member for

Caroni East say, it was a surprise—it was a surprise. I think it could only be a

surprise for people that do not want to read, exercise their minds, or who want to

be untruthful, because I am now reading from public documents from third parties.

Madam Speaker, what it demonstrates is Petrotrin, in uncontroverted

evidence before the Court of Appeal, has been operating at a loss from 2014—

2017. Now, Madam Speaker, in 2014 and 2015, when those financial years came

to an end, it was the UNC in office. In 2016 and 2017, Petrotrin was being

mopped up in the environment of the loss of 96 per cent of revenue. The collapse

of the oil price, the drop of the expenditure from $63 billion as it was in 2014 by a

whole $13 billion; the reduction of the deficit which the UNC was operating which

87




UNREVISED

was close to $10 billion in deficit, Madam Speaker, those chickens had to come

home to roost.

Who do you think was paying the bills for the largesse of the UNC, for the books

that they did not certify by completing?

5.30 p.m.

Madam Speaker, we had to bring to book, bring to Government debt-to-

GDP ratio: wage negotiations, hospitals, overdraft which was on bust, collapse of

oil price. Madam Speaker, because of the decisions taken by the UNC our debt-to-

GDP rose from 45 per cent to 60 per cent, and that is not because the PNM did

anything other than pay for what they spent, and which we cannot see any evidence

of. We cannot see any evidence of.

So, Madam Speaker, I do not buy the argument on that first limb of what I

was speaking about. Let us talk to the workers of Petrotrin.

The company is being restructured. The OWTU in presenting their plan to

Petrotrin, President General Ancil Roget himself said that the workers would be

reducing their staff. So the OWTU knows that in their plan they have to fire

people. The PNM says in the Petrotrin decision before us right now that we are

sending home everybody, but rehiring. We are rehiring in four separate companies

and one parent company, that is five companies. Minister Young told you a while

ago that we had people at the cusp of retirement, over 1,000 of them at the cusp of

retirement. So that is 4,800 workers minus 1,000 to be conservative, who are due

to retire, that is 3,800 workers. Of the 3,800 workers, we know we need 1,000

immediately in exploration and production and in refining and terminalling

aspects, that leaves you with 2,000 workers, and we have not yet come to the other

two companies.

88




UNREVISED

What I am saying today is that this Government, in moving with alacrity

now to do the vesting now, is ensuring that these companies are up and running

now. But why are we doing that? We are doing that to protect the Trinidad and

Tobago taxpayers and the youth of this country from failure. Because Standard &

Poor’s and Moody’s, in their confirmed published statements of Trinidad and

Tobago, specifically referred to the sovereign ratings for Trinidad and Tobago as

being inextricably tied to the Petrotrin situation.

Standard & Poor’s specifically said that they took note of the state enterprise

liability which Petrotrin had. They went further to specifically identify the bond

due for payment in 2019, and in that bond identification they said that the

Government was the 100 per cent shareholder, and that if the Government had to

underwrite that facility we would no doubt, if one were to intellectually

extrapolate, find ourselves in the circumstance of a downgrade. What does a

downgrade mean? To the very people we are trying to protect, it means more

expensive borrowing, harder terms and conditions, longer pay back positions at

higher interest rates. But it means that we run the risk, as Minister Young so

vividly painted, of cross defaults. And in the cross defaults scenario it takes one

domino to throw the entire trail down.

So Madam Speaker, to the people of San Fernando West who are affected by

this, have hope; five companies with employment opportunities for you, for us, for

our children. Have hope that the Government has come here to establish the five

entity arrangement keeping Petrotrin, so that we avoid default. We preserve the

assets; we stop spending $2 billion in losses per year, and we earn foreign

exchange. But the trick to dealing with this, the hope to be found is in alacrity,

meaning speed, meaning we have to be nimble and get there quickly.

89




UNREVISED

The Opposition’s mantra, the Opposition’s modus operandi is quite simple,

you know. Caroni East demonstrated it so capably: bramble, make it up, say

anything, create fear, create panic, harass people’s souls and conscience, “doh

worry to sooth a situation”. You see, Madam Speaker, it is profitable for the UNC

to create pandemonium and fear for people. That is what they believe. We on this

side believe otherwise. We believe that right-thinking, logical, measured people in

this country understand what is going on.

We believe, as I have had personal experience—and let me come to

something. Madam Speaker, it is no secret that I was one of the standing attorneys

for ArcelorMittal when I was in private practice. In that ArcelorMittal scenario

we were met with a situation where we went to the union and said, “Listen, this

company is at risk of closing”. I wrote to the UNC Ministers at that time, the

Minister of Trade, I wrote to T&TEC, I wrote to NGC. I agitated the case, telling

them, “Listen, this company is at the brink of closure”. Chaguanas West would

remember, you were in the Senate with me. You remember what the UNC did?

They came to say I have a conflict of interest. They called it “Farisgate”. How I

am bringing my client’s business. Now, conflict of interest in that regard is if I

have a pecuniary gain off of a Bill before the House.

So they invented a story, and I remember Errol McLeod—I recall it was

him, “Dat company could never close down, man”. “Dat is ArcelorMittal. Dey

born here.” What happened in 2015, Madam Speaker? ArcelorMittal had to close

its doors, people went home. But Chaguanas West will bear me out through you.

Had the UNC paid attention to what I was saying, and had stepped in to manage

the situation, that private entity would not have left the shores.

Today in this vesting Order as we treat with Petrotrin, today we are talking

90




UNREVISED

about acting in best interest in the nick of time. But I want to publicly commend

my Prime Minister, Dr. Rowley, for not only being present at every Energy Sub-

Committee meeting, and chairing the meeting, and hosting an energy spotlight by

his orchestration, and making sure that our gas producers came to Trinidad and

Tobago, by Trinidad and Tobago holding it, but also for bringing in the best world

class advisors. [Desk thumping] We did not advise ourselves. We brought in the

best in oil and gas to look at our whole industry, upstream, downstream.

Madam Speaker, the big question to Trinidad and Tobago has not been

answered. “We selling oil and gas, but how much do we get?” What is our take?

It is a depleting reserve; it is a natural reserve. After it is gone, it is gone. And our

Prime Minister, leading our Cabinet, had the vision to say, “Let us put the contract

side by side”. “Let us see what the people actually get.”

Madam Speaker, my greatest fear, my greatest caution to Trinidad and

Tobago is watch out for those opposite. Do not buy the fearmongering, do not

“take basket”. Remember who put you in “de” basket. Remember who caused

you to lose the $22 billion that you were earning. Remember who sat in

governance of Petrotrin for five full years. Remember who did absolutely nothing.

Because let me say something without calling names. You know what some of the

supporters of the Opposition come to us and tell us openly, in the quiet of wherever

we are, when we are not on camera? “Boy, thank God allyuh in power. You all

have to take all de hard decisions. You all have the political belly to make de

decisions, because we could nah make those decisions.” Because of what, Madam

Speaker? I cannot say the word here, I do not want to incite it, but what I am

saying is the divisions in our society cause us to lose track with common sense.

On this side here, we do not stand up every single day and go through the

91




UNREVISED

ritual; you know the UNC ritual: praise Kamla Persad-Bissessar, all hail Kamla

Persad-Bissessar SC, MP, the hon. Member for Siparia. Then you go on to

deprecating the PNM, then you go on to spinning the wheel, if you could breathe

through the oxygen you are supposed to take. Right? So whilst there is panic and

ritual on that side, it is not often that we stop to say what our Prime Minister has

done. Today I am marking that spot on what our Prime Minister has done. [Desk

thumping]

Hon. Member: “My chirren doh carry guns.”

Dr. Rowley: “How yuh know is your chirren?” [Laughter]

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Madam Speaker, it is good to hear what I now categorize as

“Dupwellian logic”. I would not say what “Dupwellian” logic is, but it is now a

malapropism well known in this country.

Madam Speaker: Attorney General, your time is now expired.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Rudranath Indarsingh (Couva South): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker, as I join this debate on the Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage Petroleum,

Paria Fuel Trading and Guaracara Refining Vesting) Bill, 2018.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the Minister of Finance, I have listened to

the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West, and I have listened to the

Attorney General, the Member for San Fernando West, and all I could conclude is

that the confusion, the chaos, the lack of information and so on, as it relates to the

closure of Petrotrin and, if I should use the term guardedly, the successor

companies that are supposed come on stream by the 1st of December, 2018, we are

no better off in terms of when we started this debate. [Desk thumping]

But more importantly, Madam Speaker, the Government continues to peddle

92



Mr. R. Indarsingh (cont’d)

UNREVISED

misinformation, mistruths and innuendos, and it is important that I take this

opportunity here this afternoon to rebut and to put on record what the country

needs to hear in terms of what is the real truth, and what are the issues that are still

unclear to the over 9,000 employees of Petrotrin and their families, who may be

looking on at this debate today. [Desk thumping]

The Attorney General went into an area that he should have not really gone

into. He has no experience, he had no idea about the restructuring of Caroni

(1975) Limited, and he spoke about the closure of Caroni (1975) Limited. I want

to tell the Attorney General that it is a PNM Government, led by a PNM Prime

Minister, that took the decision to close down Caroni (1975) Limited in 2003.

[Desk thumping]

He spoke about Caroni Limited was closed as a result of the actions of Prime

Minister Basdeo Panday and the UNC-led Government and a Cotonou Trade

Agreement. It was political spite and malice on the part of Prime Minister Patrick

Manning and the PNM Cabinet. It is on record, Madam Speaker, and I do not

know if any of them will know or have knowledge about when the issue of Caroni

Limited broke or the intended closure, that there was a working document

compiled by the trade union entitled, “Prospects and Proposals for the Future of

Caroni (1975) Limited” and the establishment of a holding company and breaking

up Caroni into strategic business units, and the government retaining 51 per cent

shareholding in terms of its majority, and the private sector involvement in terms

of 49 per cent and so on.

These were proposals that were put forward on behalf of the trade union and

on behalf of over 10,000 families and employees at the time. And, again, I am

forced to conclude the sense of mamaguy and disdain that the PNM has had in

93




UNREVISED

terms of its DNA and its operation, whenever it is at the helm of the Government

of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] Because, you see, the union at that time

put a proposal towards the PNM Government. It did not result in the saving of the

jobs of the over 10,000 employees of Caroni (1975) Limited.

I was forced to think about what this Government has done as it relates to,

for me, insulting the intelligence of the executive of the Oilfields Workers’ Trade

Union and also the membership of the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union. Because,

they were invited by the Prime Minister who, in his address to the nation, and I

think that when he went down to that public meeting at the Marabella Community

Centre, he spoke or alluded to the fact that he would invite the OWTU to purchase

the refinery. And the OWTU came up with a plan entitled, “Saving Petrotrin,

OWTU’s Alternative Plan”, dated the 13th of September, 2018.

It reminds me of the PNM’s modus operandi in relation to attempting to

send a message or create a narrative, that they are concerned about the well-being

of workers and so on. They invite prospects and proposals, and then they throw it

in the paper wastebasket with the greatest sense of disdain and contempt for the

trade union movement and the respective membership.

There is one other statement or untruth, as far as I am concerned, that the

Attorney General alluded to again. In fact, I will focus on two issues. One, he said

that it would be 4,700 employees going home. But as a Member of the Cabinet of

Trinidad and Tobago, I hope that the Attorney General would have taken the

opportunity to read the Selwyn Lashley report, or the report compiled by

Permanent Secretary Selwyn Lashley on behalf of the Government of Trinidad and

Tobago, as it relates to the team to review the operations of Petrotrin and make

recommendations for its restructuring. Page 6 of this report states very clearly:

94




UNREVISED

Petrotrin employs 5,322 employees.

Again I want to say, the Attorney General is not au courant or he does not have the

full knowledge of documents which come before the Cabinet of Trinidad and

Tobago. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, they will tell you that they have not even come to grips—

up to today as we debate this particular legislation, they have not come to grips in

terms of the true numbers in terms of the current work force existing at Petrotrin.

Because the Lashley report says 5,322 workers, and in a document that was

provided to Members of the Opposition through the Oilfields Workers’ Trade

Union, they indicate that it is 3,500 permanent employees, 2,000 casual workers,

and 3,500 employees in relation to their relationship with service contractors. So it

is over 9,000 workers, and today I ask the question based on the inconsistencies

that have been presented by the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries, the

Attorney General. The Prime Minister even went to a meeting somewhere in El

Dorado and said the numbers to go home at Petrotrin were inconsequential,

displaying a total sense of insensitivity and callousness as it relates to the

employees of Petrotrin. [Desk thumping] The Prime Minister will want to engage

me in his crass behaviour [Interruption] and vulgar language here this evening by

attempting—

Mr. Imbert: Standing Order 48(6)—48(6)—48(6).

Mr. R. Indarsingh:—in relation to using language that is unparliamentary.

Mr. Imbert: “Man, sit down nah.”

Madam Speaker: Member for Diego Martin North/East, if you will just withdraw

what you just said, and I will then deal with your objection.

Mr. Imbert: Madam, he was on his feet while you were on your feet. I withdraw.

95




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. So that, in terms of the objection raised

by the Member for Diego Martin North/East, in terms of the insulting language,

Member for Couva South, I will just ask you to please retract that, and say what

you wish to say in another way, which your experience allows you to do.

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Madam Speaker, I wish to point out, and I am guided by your

guidance, and I will withdraw. But it is my responsibility also, as I stand on behalf

of the constituents of Couva South and on behalf of the 345,000 citizens who have

voted on behalf of the Opposition, to tell the Prime Minister that we will not

tolerate his undiplomatic language in this Parliament, [Desk thumping] as it relates

to the conduct and affairs of the business of Trinidad and Tobago, because—

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member, I do not remember the Prime Minister joining in

this debate as yet. I do not recall that at all. So having withdrawn the statement, I

will just ask you to leave that point and go on because the Prime Minister has not

spoken in this debate.

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Madam Speaker, I note your guidance and I note your

comments, but also, with the greatest sense of trepidation, I have noted at earlier

sittings of this Parliament that persons are being sent to the Privileges Committee

based on crosstalk. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Moonilal: “And we doh want de Prime Minister to go.”

Madam Speaker: So, what I want to say to you Couva South is, one, I expect that

when you withdraw or retract any statement you do it unconditionally. Secondly,

and I am sure you did not mean that, the statement that you just made could very

well be a reflection on the Speaker. I am sure you do not mean that. [Interruption]

And I will ask all Members, when I am speaking I really do not want any sound

effects or any supporting statements. So, again, just retract that last reflection and

96




UNREVISED

you could continue with your proper contribution in this debate. All right?

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I retract and I move on in

relation to the information that has been presented by the Attorney General here

this evening.

Madam Speaker, I dealt with the issue of the 4,700 employees. As I said, I

attempted to put on record that the ongoing inconsistency, as it relates to the

number of persons who are to be sent home, and from where I sit too, I will take a

great sense of comfort that clarity be brought to bear on this particular issue. [Desk

thumping] Because there are persons who are looking on at this debate, and they

are concerned whether as a permanent employee, a casual employee, a service

contractor employee, that they will stand to benefit from the separation packages

that have been promised by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

I was attempting to say that the Prime Minister, when he went to a meeting

at El Dorado, he was very insensitive and callous in his approach when he said that

the numbers to be sent home were not the issue. So for me, he as the Prime

Minister, the Prime Minister could sit very comfortably and with the wave of a pen

send home 9,000, send home five persons and so on, and then he would tell the

national community that we really do not care about the pain and suffering and

trauma that families have to undergo.

And I want to bring three real life examples to you, Madam Speaker, just to

underline what I am saying, in the context of three families who are constituents of

Couva South and who are working in the employ of Petrotrin. One particular

gentleman from Beaucarro told me he has paid fees for his daughter until the end

of the year. He is not in a position to tell his daughter whether he will be able to

pay her preschool fees in 2019.

97




UNREVISED

Another family indicated to me from Central Park, that he was facilitating

the payment of rent for his daughter in terms of rental accommodation for being a

university student in St. Augustine, and based on the pronouncements of this

Government he has had to tell his daughter that he can no longer pay for her rental

accommodation. She is now travelling on a daily basis to and from Central Park,

and facing the challenges of the criminal elements in this country at this stage.

Another one told me, another family told me—[Interruption] Mr. San

Fernando East, if you do not want to hear about the empathy and trauma of

ordinary citizens of this country, you could take a walk any part of this building.

[Desk thumping] It shows the class that you belong to—

Madam Speaker: Member, please! Direct your contributions to the Chair. Okay,

and because we all know this Chamber allows for a certain amount of banter—

[Interruption] Member for San Fernando East, I am on my legs, please. Because

we know the Chamber allows for a certain amount of banter, I know that you are

very schooled and steeped in that, I am sure you could rise above San Fernando

East and direct your contribution, please.

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The family

indicated to me that they have an outstanding mortgage of approximately

$700,000. The person is in his forties, and he felt that he would have planned his

life based on employment until 60. The entitlements that he is due to receive from

Petrotrin will not allow him to pay off for this mortgage, and he has been having

sleepless nights as it relates to whether he and his family, after being placed in this

situation, would be placed on the streets of Trinidad and Tobago, Madam Speaker.

Dr. Moonilal: Where he will be robbed.

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Also, the Attorney General in his contribution attempted to

98




UNREVISED

focus on the issue of interest rates that was dealt with by my colleague, the

Member for Caroni East. I think the Attorney General needs to get his facts

straight. My colleague, the Member for Caroni East said that the interest rates of

9.5 per cent paid on the Credit Suisse loan was too high. The Attorney General

responded that the prevailing interest rate paid at the time was 11 per cent, and

therefore 9.5 per cent was a credit of the Government’s negotiating skills.

I want to tell the hon. Attorney General that according to the Wall Street

Journal in January of 2008, the prevailing prime interest rate was in the order of

6.5 per cent, not 11 per cent. [Desk thumping] I think that the Attorney General

should do the honourable thing and apologize to my colleague, the Member for

Caroni East. [Desk thumping]

Then the Attorney General will stand up and attempt to engage my colleague

during his contribution, the Member for Chaguanas East, about ArcelorMittal, and

the closure of ArcelorMittal, and there were those who on this side did nothing and

so on. But I think that it is either the Attorney General is suffering from amnesia,

or really is not familiar with speaking the truth as it relates to the operations of the

PNM. Because when the management of ArcelorMittal was looking for the

Minister of Labour and Small Enterprise Development, Sen. Jennifer Baptiste-

Primus, who is my constituent by the way—I will say no more on that particular

issue [Laughter]—the management of ArcelorMittal could not find the Minister of

Labour and Small Enterprise Development, [Desk thumping] to discuss the very

important issue of the employment of 746 permanent employees at ArcelorMittal

and also 2,000 employees indirectly employed by contractors of ArcelorMittal.

6.00 p.m.

I say no more on this particular issue because the union, the workers and the

99




UNREVISED

stakeholders as it relates to ArcelorMittal, they are still looking for the Minister as

it relates to the delivery of her 10-point plan. [Interruption] Well I do not want to

get—I will deal with that another point in time as it relates to other issues.

Madam Speaker, and I also want to take the opportunity here this evening

because it is important to set the record straight, because the Member for Port of

Spain North/St. Ann's West, the very loquacious Minister of National Security and

the Minister of Communications, attempted to tell the national community and

boast—the last sitting I had to tell the Minister that he apparently takes a great

sense of pride in stroking his ego, and he came to the Parliament here, again, this

evening to tell us that he was an advocate attorney for the Oilfields Workers’ Trade

Union and so on, and one of the results that we are seeing today in Trinidad and

Tobago, in terms of the closure of Petrotrin and the formation of these three

companies, is that it is a work or the results, I want to get it right, in terms of two

years of meticulous work, planning and expert advice, and the Government did not

advise itself, Madam Speaker.

And also, he touched on the issue of union busting and said that there was a

lot of talk in the public domain that the PNM Government is being accused of

union busting, and at no point in time did this Government attempt to engage in

union busting and it did not attack the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union.

I want to tell those on the other side that apparently they are living in a

dream world. They are living in some sort of paradise where they have lost a deep

sense of connection with the people who voted them into office. I say so, Madam

Speaker, because anytime the PNM is in office, some state enterprise is destroyed

whether it [Desk thumping] is BWIA, whether it is Caroni, whether it is Caroni

Green Seafood Industry Limited, the Ministry of Tobago Development, and I can

100




UNREVISED

go on and on, because in less than three years this Government has presided over

the dismissal of over 50,000 plus employees in the public and private sector.

And the issue of union busting, I want to address this issue, Madam Speaker,

very frontally, because I want to ask all the speakers and probably the Minister of

Energy and Energy Industries in his winding up, will seek to focus on whether they

are prepared in this particular piece of legislation to ensure that there is

successorship rights for the employees in these three new entities. [Desk thumping]

Because they boasted about not being involved or not being part of any plot or

conspiracy to ensure that there is union busting, that they are involved in union

busting. Madam Speaker, and I say so because if they are concerned about the

workers, if they are concerned about the working class, if they are concerned about

the pain, trauma and suffering, of the 9,000 families of Petrotrin, I want to point

the Minister of Finance to two particular pieces of vesting legislation that was done

previously in Trinidad and Tobago because in his presentation the Minister

indicated that what is happening here in the Parliament today is nothing new

because it was done previously, I think he said in 1993, some 25 years ago.

Hon. Member: He said 35.

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Well, I would want to correct him, probably it is 25 years

ago, when there was the Petrotrin vesting. I want to read directly from that

particular piece of legislation, where under clause 4(1) (b) of that particular piece

of legislation, Chap. 62:07, (b):

“all collective agreements within the meaning of the Industrial Relations

Act, or any replacement or modification thereof in existence before the

appointed day, to which TRINTOC and TRINTOPEC were parties shall be

construed and have effect as if PETROTRIN were a party thereto and for

101




UNREVISED

the purposes of such agreement and of that Act, PETROTRIN shall be

deemed to be the successor to TRINTOC and TRINTOPEC;”

And it was also done in relation to the housing, the Trinidad and Tobago

Housing Development Corporation, if you go to this particular piece of legislation

in terms of Chap. 39—clause 39 subsection (2), as it relates to successorship rights

for the Public Services Association and the National Union of Government and

Federated Workers.

So, Madam Speaker, if they are so concerned about being on the side of

workers and not engaged in any activity or what we would call agenda as it relates

to focus on union busting, and the destroying of established trade unions in

Trinidad and Tobago, I would want the Minister of Finance to show the worth of

the PNM, in ensuring that there is successorship in these three companies, so that

workers could be involved in the collective bargaining process, and enjoy

unionized terms and conditions to show that they belong to a government that is

truly concerned about workers’ rights and upholding workers’ terms and

conditions of employment. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, again, I want to focus on the very important issue because

if, again, it is not rebutted, if there is not a counter argument from the Opposition,

then the national population will continue to believe what is being peddled from

the side of the Government is the truth in terms of being the total truth.

And, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Communications and National

Security went on to launch a broad-based attack on this Government about giving

14 per cent wage increases and so on. This was not something that was gifted or

the Prime Minister at that point in time, Kamla Persad-Bissessar called any trade

union to the Office of the Prime Minister or the Diplomatic Centre and indicate

102




UNREVISED

that you will be given a 14 per cent wage increase you know. Whatever trade

unions realized, whether 5 per cent, 9 per cent or 14 per cent during the 135

negotiations which were settled under the tenureship of the Government—

Madam Speaker: Member for Couva South, your original time is now expired.

You are entitled to 15 more minutes if you wish to complete your winding up.

Mr. R. Indarsingh: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will continue because as I said at that

at point in time whatever unions and their respective memberships realized, it was

under the grievance, procedure and the collective bargaining process outlined by

the Industrial Relations Act of Trinidad and Tobago. So it was settled bilaterally,

it was settled either in conciliation at the Ministry of Labour and Small Enterprise

Development or at the Industrial Court of Trinidad and Tobago. So the Minister of

Communications should get his facts right as it relates to his ability [Desk

thumping] in the industrial relations arena and the collective bargaining process.

And your DNA as a Government is stuck in a process of undermining the

free and fair collective bargaining process [Desk thumping] because you spoke

about what you all had to do and what you had to undo and so on. I want to tell

you that when you all under Prime Minister Patrick Manning had largesse and oil

price was US $147 per barrel, and natural gas was being sold at US $9 per

MMBtu, what was the offer to trade union movement and collective bargaining

process at that time? [Desk thumping] It was 0-0-0 and you settled not one

collective agreement, and that is why we had to do the bull work in terms of when

we came into power and we settled a 135 negotiations. [Desk thumping] And

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar at no point in time instructed any Minister

of Government or any chairman of any state board or any state entity to undermine

the free and fair collective bargaining process. [Desk thumping]

103




UNREVISED

That is the legacy of a government, and we in the Opposition understand the

pain, we understand trauma, we understand the history of workers in Trinidad and

Tobago, and that why we will stand on the side of workers [Desk thumping] and

not support this piece of legislation here this evening. Because if we support it,

Madam Speaker, you know what we are telling the Government of Prime Minister

Dr. Keith Rowley? Fire 9,000 and then go after the employees at WASA, T&TEC,

TSTT, the Board of Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and so on, and that is

why we cannot support this piece of legislation here this evening. [Desk thumping]

They went on to speak about Members of the Opposition launching personal

attacks on the CEO of the Heritage Petroleum Company Limited nobody. Nobody

this side knows the gentleman, but what we know and what we want to know, we

want to know the answers on behalf of people of Trinidad and Tobago [Desk

thumping] the taxpayers who will fund his $249,000 per month salary and the

perks of housing and accommodation and transportation. This is the place to ask

those questions. [Desk thumping] And you cannot come and tell anyone on this

side that it is about the intellectual laziness and so on. We are privy to

information. We read, whether it is the reports that are submitted to the Parliament

of Trinidad and Tobago and the respective committees and so on. We are on social

media and so on, but the ordinary citizen may not be privy to this information

[Desk thumping] and we have to ask questions.

We have on report in interest of ensuring that those of you who are prepared

to undermine the Constitution and are prepared to operate in a shroud of secrecy

and clandestine behaviour and mannerisms and so on, those are the questions that

have to be asked. And that is why today the public knows that a CEO of this

company is getting $249,000 per month. We know that he was hired in August of

104




UNREVISED

2018 and the company incorporated in October of 2018. Only in Trinidad and

Tobago. I think it the only country in world that a CEO could be hired before a

company is incorporated [Desk thumping] and formed.

And, Madam Speaker, and we want to know whether the CEOs of Paria Fuel

Trading Company and Guaracara Refining will have such a similar compensation

package. [Desk thumping] That is our right to demand that information on behalf

of the taxpayers of Trinidad and Tobago.

And additionally, we want to know on this side when this job was

advertised? What are the names of those who made the short list, Madam Speaker,

and whether while we have no—we operate in a global community and so on and

we belong to the global league of nations, but at the end of the day, Madam

Speaker, Trinidad and Tobago has a petroleum industry, an oil industry that has

existed for more than 100 years. And we if pride ourselves with nationalism and

patriotism and so on, I am sure that we could have probably, the recruitment

process could have seen someone from Trinidad and Tobago who are involved in

running companies successfully all over the globe. And we want to know whether

there were Trinidadian and Tobagonian nationals who were on this short list and so

on. We have a right to ask those questions.

We also want to know, Madam Speaker, how much money was paid to the

two firms who conducted this particular recruitment process [Desk thumping] in

the interest of transparency and accountability on behalf of the people of Trinidad

and Tobago? I would not want to get in way of Mr. Wiley's resume and so on, but

I could comment based on what I have seen, and certainly it leaves a lot of

questions to be answered in relation to the resume of the goodly gentleman.

Madam Speaker, before I end here this evening, I also want to take the

105




UNREVISED

opportunity to focus on some of the issues which are still to be answered, and I

hope that at some point in time, probably in the winding up from the Minister of

Finance we would be able to get the desired answers.

We have not heard from the point of view of how much severance payments

will be paid to the 9,000 employees at Petrotrin. We have not heard additionally,

Madam Speaker, what is the status of their pension plan contribution and also the

very important issue of their medical plans. Madam Speaker, we have been told

that there are 20,000 persons who currently enjoy the status of being retirees of

Petrotrin. And 20,000-plus whatever figure because I know that they will get up to

rebut and say, it is not—it is 4,700 or it is 1,700. Well the Lashley report says

5,322, and the OWTU's alternative plan 9,000 workers.

What I am concerned about is what has been put in place as it relates to this

29,000 retirees who will come on to what we call the health system of Trinidad

and Tobago. What is the status of Augustus Long Hospital? Will it continue to

exist? Who will fund it and so on? And we hearing about Petrotrin continuing to

exist in terms of legacy issues and so on. And will lead to the question: Where

will the funding come from as it relates to the continued functioning of the

Augustus Long Hospital?

My colleague the Member for Oropouche East has reliably informed me

today that there was supposed to be some process taking place at the Augustus

Long Hospital, nothing firmly was put in place, and patients had to be moved to a

private health institution. This is a Government that will tell you moan and groan.

They moan and groan about paying back pay to workers. They moan and groan on

a daily basis and tell you that they do not have money to pay ordinary people and

so on. But I want to ask: What is the business relationship with this private

106




UNREVISED

medical institution? And how much money will be expended as it relates to

accommodating [Desk thumping] patients who are currently at the Augustus Long

Hospital?

And then there is the issue of Paria, this company that is supposed to be

dealing with the supply of fuel and so on. I hear one Minister of Agriculture, Land

and Fisheries saying, well expect disruption in fuel supply. Again, a

pronouncement from a Minister of the Cabinet that tells me that there is ongoing

chaos and incompetence on the part of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

[Desk thumping]

And today the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries in the presence of

our visitors and so on said that the supply of regular gas will come to an end by the

end of November/beginning December. Again, showing that they have not thought

out this particular process, and what will this move on the part of the Government

of Trinidad and Tobago—if they are going in the direction of ending the supply of

regular gas to the fishermen of Trinidad and Tobago and the fisher folk of this

country, what will fishermen or the fisher folk now have to use? Of course, they

will have to find additional money, and consumers who buy fish will have to pay

more money based, again, on the lack of planning, vision and leadership [Desk

thumping] of Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley and his incompetent and chaotic

Government that has led Trinidad and Tobago on the brink of what we could call

collapse as a country.

Madam Speaker, there is much more that I could say on this particular piece

of legislation because up to now we have not been furnished with the full

composition of the members of the board of directors of these respective entities.

[Desk thumping] Their names, their qualification. When the respective companies

107




UNREVISED

were incorporated, Madam Speaker. And also, when were they, could we, in the

interest of transparency and so on, Mr. Minister of Finance, you boast about the

commitment of your Government and the follow through of your Government.

I would like to see the board minutes Petrotrin in terms of when these

decisions were taken, so that we could have the greatest sense of comfort in

relation to that the Government is really being clear, the Government is really

being transparent as it relates to this particular issue, and not find out via social

media, and not find out through some leak and so on, but through what we would

call by information being laid on behalf of the people of Parliament of Trinidad

and Tobago, Madam Speaker. This is what this process is all about because it is

the largest state enterprise. It is a state enterprise with an asset base of over $45

billion as it relates to the taxpayers of Trinidad and Tobago.

And certainly from where we sit, we cannot be part of a process that will

result in 9,000 being jobs in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] Fifty thousand

have already faced the axe under this Government who boasted through their

manifesto, through their memorandum of understanding which was signed with the

labour movement in 2015, that the Government of Prime Minister Keith Rowley

will improve your quality of life with the creation of jobs, the diversification of the

economy, and improving the quality of life and standing of living of Trinidad and

Tobago. [Desk thumping] Total untruths, and the only hope for the rescue and

restoration of Trinidad and Tobago is Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the United

National Congress. I thank you. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Member for Tabaquite.

Dr. Surujrattan Rambachan (Tabaquite): The Prime Minister wants the stage?

Madam Speaker: So you are giving way to the Prime Minister.

108



Dr. S. Rambachan (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Dr. S. Rambachan: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Prime Minister.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you, Madam

Speaker. Madam Speaker, under normal circumstances in a country that one could

say was being carefully managed, where people were happy, where state

enterprises were efficiently run by government-appointed boards of directors, this

might have been a very simple matter, this vesting Bill, but these are not normal

circumstances. And the manner in which we have arrived at the position where we

have arrived today leaves a lot to be desired. And the House will agree and the

public viewing will agree that the issues being your raised by the Opposition in

relation to this particular matter of the shutting of Petrotrin and the setting up of all

of these new companies under a holding company, is not a very simple matter at

all. It affects every citizen in this country [Desk thumping] and if per chance,

Madam Speaker, there are citizens in this country who somehow feel that this is

not their business, I want to say from the floor of this Parliament to every single

member of our country, that this is a matter that will affect you one way or the

other. [Desk thumping] Whether you live in north, whether you live in south,

whether you live in the east or whether you live in the west or Tobago, you are

going to be affected by the closure of Petrotrin.

Madam Speaker, you know, I carefully thought whether I should say or what

I am going to say, but I will say it, because I discern in parts of the country

especially in the northern parts of the country somewhat of a lack of interest in the

Petrotrin workers, and in the circumstances in which they have thrown. But you

know in the south of Trinidad and Tobago if you go there right now you will find

that there is gloom, there is a sense of hopelessness.

109




UNREVISED

There is a lot of frustration emanating from this decision because people do

not in reality know where they are going with their lives; it is very serious. And

even if you have collected in some cases a healthy sum, you have mortgages to

pay, and you still have to live in the future, so the uncertainty with which people

are living and the way their lives have been thrust, is something that is going to

affect everyone.

You see, Madam Speaker, you do not just withdraw in terms of what the

Government has presented $2.19 billion in wages from the economy and expect

that the spending power of consumers among businesses is going to be the same;

you are going to be affected. And the people of north Trinidad, and let me just say

a word in this regard to the American Chamber of Commerce and the Trinidad and

Tobago Manufacturers Association, that you ought to think twice about how you

support measures like this to destroy the lives of people [Desk thumping] because

the effectiveness and success of your businesses, the ones you claim to represent,

will depend on the spending on the spending power of people who have jobs.

[Desk thumping] And I am very disturbed that there is lack of sympathy with what

is happening. I am not against restructuring, but I think restructuring should

always have a human face.

Hon. Member: Correct.

Dr. S. Rambachan: And this is one instance where restructuring does not have a

human face. And the reasons for that are manifold. The Government has taken the

position that they are in charge and they are going to make these decisions one way

or the other, and they are going to bear the results of their decision. But I want tell

you, Madam Speaker, that the decision and the consequences of the decision are

going to have far-reaching consequences. And I think that it is something that the

110




UNREVISED

Government cannot pull back from now.

And despite the many assurances that the Government is trying to give in

terms of a bright future for the oil industry, Madam Speaker, I just want to remind

that when Caroni Limited was closed down, the very Government presented what

was described in many quarters as the plans for an agricultural revolution in

Trinidad and Tobago which agro-processing and what have you will flourish, we

have lived to see that none of that has happened. And today, the Minister of

Finance is speaking of the legacy aspects being retained in Petrotrin. Well, Caroni

(1975) Limited also exists today, but what has happened to the assets of Caroni

(1975) Limited?

6.30 p.m.

Madam Speaker, they have been pilfered away in a large number of

circumstances. Madam Speaker, the agricultural revolution has not taken place,

and people took a very long time, sometimes up to 15 to 20 years, in order to

reconstruct their lives and to get somewhere. [Desk thumping] So this is a very

serious situation. And just to come here on this floor of the Parliament and say,

“Well, Petrotrin will remain in charge of legacy assets and what have you”, I do

not think it is enough. I do not think that the Government has presented a very

coherent plan, a very convincing plan as to whether this restructuring is going to

lead to the kind of transformation that they envisage.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have heard in terms of what is going

to happen is in the words of the Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Ms. Allyson

West, who on October 20, 2018, in a Newsday report, Julien Neaves Newsday

report, and I believe she was speaking this in the Senate debate on the 19th of

October. She said:

111




UNREVISED

“…the transitioned Petrotrin will earn this country more than US $200

million annually.”

Now, Madam Speaker, it is one thing to say that you are going to earn US $200

million annually. Now, the hon. Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West

also alluded to that, and said that we are going to earn foreign exchange and earn

money from the exploration and production sections in particular. However, in the

case—the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West did not also say and tell

us what is going to be the cost of an importation of fuel into Trinidad and Tobago

and the foreign exchange that is going to be spent on that, and therefore what is

going to be the net effect? Because as far as I understand it, refined products are

going to cost you more than the raw oil that you are selling. And even if you claim

you are getting $3 more per barrel, I still want to know what is going to be the net

effect, and are you going to wipe out the foreign exchange by the exchange that

has to take place between what you export as crude oil and what you buy as refined

products into the country?

Because, Madam Speaker, the other thing that we have to note is that the

refined fuel that we are bringing into the country, whether it is jet fuel, whether it

is diesel, whether it is gasoline, that would depend on the price—international

prices—and it will depend on the price of oil so that the price of oil on the

international market will determine the price at which we pay fuel. That is my

simple basic understanding. So I think that we have to really ask the question:

What is going to be the net effect for Trinidad and Tobago in terms of the foreign

exchange?

Madam Speaker, very early when the Government began to debate about the

economy, I recall the hon. Prime Minister saying that—and that was the time at

112




UNREVISED

which the Minister of Finance and the Government had invited the IMF to come

into Trinidad, and the Prime Minister was saying that, look, it is better for us to

inflict our own IMF policies than to have it inflicted upon us. But the reality is,

that if you look carefully at what is being inflicted upon the population, it is not

different to the kind of IMF prescriptions that have been in other parts of the

Caribbean including Barbados. [Desk thumping] It is a reality. [Desk thumping]

And it involves the attack on state companies, and whether, you know, they should

be privatized or not privatized. I think the only thing that the Government has not

really done, except for about a 5 per cent depreciation in the dollar, is to allow the

dollar to devalue. I have supported the Government in not devaluing the dollar

because I do not think the devaluation is going to do anything good for the poor

man in Trinidad and Tobago. And my position on that has been consistent, and my

position on that has been very, very clear. But I think that the IMF policies are

being inflicted upon the population.

Madam Speaker, the Government said that they had the best advice. What

they did not tell the population is that McKinsey, the international consulting firm,

was paid $63 million in order to consult for the Government. That was the

consultant fees that have been recorded. That was an issue raised very early,

sometime in July 2017 I believe, by the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, when he

asked the question about consultants, we then having an inkling that something

was happening in petroleum which was being kept away from the workers and the

trade union. So, when we speak about secrecy in Government, this is the kind of

thing we are talking about. You just do not take decisions involving the people’s

assets. [Desk thumping] And the oil and gas of this country do not belong to the

elected officials of the Government. It belongs to the people. [Desk thumping]

113




UNREVISED

And when you treat with the assets that belong to the people, you have to treat very

differently. So it is not just good enough to say I am putting it in Guaracara, I am

putting it in X, Paria, I am putting it where.

Dr. Tewarie: In Heritage.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Or in Heritage. Madam Speaker, this is very serious,

because, you know, one of the problems with the PNM is that they do not plan for

seven generations. They plan for one generation. [Desk thumping]

You know, Madam Speaker, I am really paraphrasing what the hon. Leader

of the Opposition said to the people of Guyana, which was extremely good advice,

plan for seven generations. [Desk thumping] You must plan for seven generations.

If you do not plan for seven generations then you are not going to have anything to

reap in the future. Madam Speaker, you may not live to reap it, but you have to

plant it so that the future generations can reap it. You just do not talk about, “Well,

I have to care for the children in the future and the youth”. You have to do

something in order to make that security for them. [Desk thumping] So, just by

restructuring without a human face, I think it is something that I wanted to bring to

the fore. Madam Speaker, if you go to restructure a company, you must present a

rationale to the population as to why you are restructuring the company. And the

rationale must be a convincing rationale, and you must be able to argue the point.

Today the Minister of Finance again presented what he considers to be the

rationale, and he pointed out the problems that they were having with Petrotrin,

that Petrotrin’s annual loss was estimated at $2 billion; that Petrotrin needed $25

billion in order to stay afloat; that Petrotrin had these major loans of $850 million

and $750 million and so on—I intend to talk about that in a moment—which they

still have. And what we are not clear, at least what I am not clear about, is who is

114




UNREVISED

going to take the responsibility for those liabilities? It is very important to know

that. Who is going to take responsibility for those liabilities? If you are giving a

clean slate to Heritage, and to Guaracara, and to Paria, if you are giving a clean

slate to them then the liabilities do not go away. The debts do not go away.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: They remain in Petrotrin.

Dr. S. Rambachan: So they remain in Petrotrin. Now, who is providing the

guarantees for Petrotrin? Because if you have no guarantees for Petrotrin then the

Moody’s and the Standard & Poor’s, and so on and so forth are going to come

down your backs. So somebody has to provide the guarantees. Therefore, the

guarantees seem to me still to be provided by the Government, which means that

the taxpayers of the country [Desk thumping] still will have to bear the burden for

what is going to happen.

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to me that on December 13, 2017, the

then board of directors appeared before a Joint Select Committee on Energy in

Parliament, and they also appeared again on February 21, 2018. And I recall that

they presented what might be described as a very detailed assessment of the state

of the company, Petrotrin, and the board also said to the JSC that they had—in fact

they presented an agreed upon plan of action to make the company viable in what

they described as a sustained basis. And I believe that they said 18 months.

Chairman Espinet was present as well as director Nigel Edwards, and the Member

for Diego Martin North/East, the Minister of Finance, was chairing that JSC, and

Mr. Stuart Young, he was then Minister in the Office of Prime Minister, he was

also a member of that Joint Select Committee. I just want to put that on record,

because you see, certain things happened in that Joint Select Committee that are

important, and between February 21, 2018, and August, something dramatically

115




UNREVISED

changed, and I think that that is important to know what was changed. Members

would recall that during that parliamentary hearing there was no suggestion of the

refinery’s closure, that the refinery would be closed. In fact, it was agreed that

while there were problems at Petrotrin there were many significant positives,

including what they described as free cash flows amounting to about $270 million,

or TT $1.8 billion between 2013 and 2017.

So, the board in its testimony before the JSC of the Parliament did not

propose as a solution to Petrotrin the closure of the refinery. And they were then

talking about new business units and new organizations structure, a changed

governance, and they were talking about accountability, and I think, you know,

they put on the board then what they described as a culture of collaboration and

responsibility by all employees. Now, Madam Speaker, what happened then?

What happened just after that, between February and August, to trigger the closure

of the refinery and the sending home of all of these workers? Whether you rehire

some or not is immaterial to me. You have decided to send home all of the

workers. All of the workers. You know, one of the questions I must ask is this; I

do not think it has been raised today but I want to raise it. You have all of these

assets all over the country in 189,000 acres of land and 800,000 acres in terms of

sea—offshore. I am concerned here about both, but I am concerned mainly about

the 189,000 acres of land that have to be policed. What is happening to the

security area of Petrotrin? Is that going to remain in Petrotrin? Is that being

transferred to Guaracara or to Paria, or to Heritage? What is happening there? Or,

is it going to be privatized, and private operators are going to take over the security

arrangements at Petrotrin? I think that is something that has to be asked, because I

ask it again in the context of what happened at Caroni Limited, and the fact that,

116




UNREVISED

you know, things just deteriorated.

Now, the other matter is, you cannot tell me you are going to shut down the

pumping jacks, and you are going to shut down the operations. You are saying all

that is being transferred. But what arrangements are being made from December

1st for the maintenance aspects of all of that? Already I understand that the rate of

production of oil has fallen dramatically at Trinmar, and I understand it is down to

about 15,000 barrels a day right now compared to what it was, about 25,000. If

that is true—and I ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy and

Energy Industries to clarify that—and if the production has started to deteriorate

then you are running into an issue with the amount of oil that is going to be

available to export, and therefore you come back to the earlier point I was making,

what is going to be the net foreign exchange that you are going to have between

the oil produced and exported, and the gas and so on that you are importing into

the country?

I would really like to know what is happening at Trinmar? Is it true that

production has fallen dramatically at Trinmar? And if it has fallen, that is a very

serious concern, very, very serious concern. And is it because you have not done

the workovers that you needed to do with the wells and so on? And was it a

deliberate strategy not to do those things in order to create the basis for you closing

down the oil company? [Desk thumping] Did you wilfully neglect the

maintenance and the other aspects of production in order to justify the position that

you are taking. And I think that is a legitimate question to ask. Because I asked

the question earlier: What is the rationale that you are presenting in order to

suggest that this is a good decision? That this is an economic decision and what

have you?

117




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to look at what the Government is

saying, and the rationale that they have given for the closure of the company.

Madam Speaker, the figures speak for themselves as to what was happening in

Petrotrin. And if the figures I am to present are not disputed by the Government,

then the Government has to do a lot of explaining to the country as to whether the

information they gave on the finances really was enough to shut down Petrotrin.

Because you see, I do believe that there were alternatives. For example, I do not

think that you had to shut down the refinery. I do not think you had to send home

everybody. What I think you could have done was offer the people voluntary

separation. You could have started with that. There are other ways of

restructuring organizations. You could have done it. I do not think that the

Government really explored all their alternatives that they could have explored,

and in that regard I would really like to know what is the content of the McKinsey

report? What did the McKinsey report say? And was it the McKinsey report said

close down the entire thing and start over? So, you know, what was that report?

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the 2017 audited financial statements

of the company, and in 2017 the audited financial statements showed that the

company had a gross profit of 1.1 billion in 2017, and that it had been reducing its

operating loss significantly between 2015 and 2017. And this is reflected in the

financial statements in the Trinidad Guardian of 19th of July, 2018. And the

chairman indicated that Petrotrin had made a net profit of $85.6 million for the

second quarter period ending June 30th, and earned TT $18 billion in revenue for

nine months ending June 30th, which was a 21.2 per cent increase over the same

period in 2017. [Desk thumping] These are the figures. These are the figures,

Madam Speaker. The earnings before interest, tax depreciation and amortization,

118




UNREVISED

free cash flow, increased to TT $1.8 billion for the first nine months of that

financial year 2018. And then, if you look at the management accounts of

Petrotrin you would see the following, that the refinery—which they said was were

the big losses were taking place—the refinery had generated an operating surplus

of TT $602 million for the first seven months of the year, of which surplus, $191

million, was eaten up by corporate overhead cost. That is management and other

non-refinery worker.

Now, what it is showing is that the refinery was generating an operating

surplus so that what you had was a top-heavy management perhaps, and you had a

certain operating cost that was coming to eat into the operating surplus of the

refinery. And according to the information I have, if you calculate, and if you take

the noncash item of depreciation and exclude it, the refinery was generating a free

cash of $411 million in seven months.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: That is the financial—

Dr. S. Rambachan: That is the financial statements. So, I am asking the

question, if these figures are true, because for the month of April, I am told, the

refinery generated an operating surplus of TT $213 million.

Madam Speaker, you know, they talk about the salaries, and wages, and

what have you. My research has shown that for April of 2018, salaries, wages and

benefits cost just over TT $60 million While the total feedstock, crude oil to be

refined costs was $1.7 billion. So, the labour cost was not 50 per cent of

Petrotrin’s business. It was not. Those who calculate this—the experts in the

industry—say that the refinery had a very good and competitive gross margin of

US $10.80. [Interruption] So, Madam Speaker, I am asking the Government,

[Crosstalk] I am asking the Government—[Continuous crosstalk]

119




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Minister of Finance, you will have the opportunity to wrap up

and have the last word on this. Member for Tabaquite.

Dr. S. Rambachan: [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam

Speaker, I am doing an analysis from the Guardian's information. If the Guardian

information is wrong then prove to me that my assessment and my analysis—we

all do analyses. I could be wrong, but I could be very well right also in terms of

what I am analyzing. [Desk thumping] And is it possible that the Government is

using purely accounting data to try to make its case? Is that possible?

So, Madam Speaker, I just present this, and I think that you know one has to

go into more details, even more details in terms of this analysis that I have started

to present here today. Madam Speaker, so the Government then comes in terms of

this rationale that they were presenting and said look, “The Petrotrin’s debt is

unpayable.” That is one of the big things, that they cannot pay their Petrotrin debt.

Well, my colleague for Caroni East, he made a most important statement in this

Parliament, and I hope it is statement that is taken seriously, when he spoke about

the high interest rates at which these loans were negotiated. [Desk thumping]

Now, on the books of the Government there are also, if you check, some

very high-rated bonds still existing, 12 per cent and 11. And I wonder if the

Government is so cash strapped, why it has not moved to renegotiate those bonds

at lower prices [Desk thumping] in terms of what is there in the last budgetary

documents that we received in the Parliament? I want to ask therefore, if you are

saying the Petrotrin debt is unpayable, can you answer, Mr. Minister of Finance,

whether Petrotrin was paying all of its loans and meeting its obligations? As

onerous as they were, were they meeting it? Were they meeting it? What is the

real outstanding amount on these bonds? I want to know, for example, on the US

120




UNREVISED

$750 million bond—now, the US $750 million bond which was being amortized at

6 per cent, was that bond not being paid with principal interest since 2007?

Dr. Gopeesingh: Correct.

Dr. S. Rambachan: And if that is done, the final amount is due in 2022. So, if

you do some calculations you will see that the actual principal and interest still

outstanding is approximately only US $250 million, and not the US $750 million

that they are talking about. [Desk thumping] So that the 850 at 9.75 is due in

August 2019, and I see no reason why that could not have been renegotiated given

the free cash flow that we have been showing that was being achieved. So, Madam

Speaker, I think that it is important that we present this, because one of the reasons

that the Government is saying that they had to be closed is that the debts were

unpayable.

Secondly, they are saying that the taxpayers were subsidizing Petrotrin and

that we could not go on like that. Well, Madam Speaker, I know taxpayers are

subsidizing WASA to the tune of $2 billion a year. I know taxpayers are

subsidizing T&TEC, subsidizing the bus company, subsidizing—lots of things are

being subsidized in the country.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Which are not money making.

Dr. S. Rambachan: That is the point I am going to make. They are not money

making enterprises. I agree we have to subsidize them. But I want to warn the

population, you know, I want to warn the population, and warn you well, that you

cannot trust the word of this Government. [Desk thumping] The Minister of

Public Utilities is on record as saying that nobody would go home in T&TEC and

TSTT, and so on, but today we know that 100 workers of T&TEC—[Continuous

desk thumping] You cannot trust their word. You cannot trust their word.

121




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, it is the very Minister of Public Utilities who has signalled

that WASA has 2,000 more workers than WASA requires. So, it is very important

to understand whether you can trust the word of the Government, whether they are

saying one thing today and whether they are doing another thing, whether there is a

gap of integrity in terms of what they speak and what they actually do. [Desk

thumping] Madam Speaker, so are the taxpayers really subsidizing Petrotrin or

was Petrotrin contributing to the coffers of Trinidad and Tobago by way of direct

taxes to the Government? You know, it is easy to say, for example, that you are

going to shut down and send home 5,000 workers, or 5,300-what number of

workers. Madam Speaker, when you pull out $2.19 billion from the wages, given

an average of 25 per cent income tax rate, take off the pensions and so on, you are

probably pulling out about $300 million in taxes—revenue—to the Government by

way of income taxes. I do not think 5,000 people are just going to walk into a new

job tomorrow morning. Then we are talking about NIS contributions, and we are

talking about all others, and we are talking about consumer spending and what

have you. Madam Speaker, this is a very serious situation.

Madam Speaker: Member for Tabaquite, your original speaking time is now

spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes. Please continue.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I needed to say this. You know, I could add VAT

to it and so on. So, I do not think that Petrotrin was necessarily a ward of the State.

But Petrotrin was contributing its fair share in taxes, and it is on the record as to

what they were contributing and what have you. Mind you, I do not want to stand

here for anyone to think that I am not for efficiency, I am not for productivity, I am

not for restructuring, I am not for the proper use of taxpayers’ money. [Desk

122




UNREVISED

thumping] I am for all of that. But I am saying that you consider only one

alternative, and something dramatically happened between February when you

came to the Parliament and you said one thing and then you went and did another

thing. This is why I am saying that there is a gap of integrity in the Government.

[Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, the Government, in its case also as to why they are going

to shut down Petrotrin and close down the refinery and what have you, they argued

that the country will save money by importing all the fuel needs; all the fuel needs.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if that is right. You see, I have done a little

calculation here in the last couple of days, trying to track the price of fuel on the

international market. What is fuel selling for in the United States as of last week?

Now, a US gallon is 3.8541 litres. So, I calculated using that, and based on my

calculation, if you take super gasoline, in the US it is being sold at $3.14. That is

the average, eh. US $3.14 a gallon, which is $21.39 in TT, and in Trinidad right

now it is $19.15. So we are very close. Very close. Very close. And then

premium gasoline, in Trinidad it is sold at $22.16, in the US it is $22.67. That is

my calculation. Only on diesel you have a difference, in the US it is $22.98, in

Trinidad it is $13.14 a gallon. And you know the Government has already

established this position that they are going to remove all the fuel prices. So,

eventually people can look to paying for diesel as close to the other prices I have

shown, which could be as much as $22.98 a gallon for diesel if it goes the way of

super and if it goes the way of the premium gasoline. So, the customer will

eventually pay.

Now, I got some information from some of the workers, people working in

the industry, who said the average product price for the fuels that we use in

123




UNREVISED

Trinidad and Tobago, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, LPG, is in the order of US $85

to $90 per barrel and that we use that 25,000 but closer to 28,000 barrels locally

per day, which means that we spend US $2.4 million per day on fuel. And if we

import this we will have to pay freight and insurance, and that is going to put the

import cost up. Right? Now, if you say that you are earning $63, 60 with WTI

average, plus 3, 63, and that you have to pay out 85 to 90, I do not see how you are

having a net foreign exchange saving. Something has to be wrong especially,

when Trinmar has already dropped in terms of the amount of oil that it is

producing, and when you are not doing the maintenance and the workover on the

wells and so, that you need to keep this. And I have not seen any evidence of any

new land production by the smaller entrepreneurs and what have you.

Madam Speaker, the next thing they said is that the new exploration and

production Petrotrin will generate enough money to pay the debts. Madam

Speaker, even if we use crude oil production level of 40,000 barrels per day, and

that the given price that we can obtain for this crude, there is no way that there will

be enough profit to pay back the US $850 million due in a year’s time. You

cannot. And therefore, I think that you have to restructure the loan. Whether you

do it one way, or you do it the other way, you have to restructure the loan; or

whether you close or you do not close, you still have to do it.

7.00 p.m.

Madam Speaker, the point I am making here is that, you know, I listened to

the opening remarks of the Member for Diego Martin North/East, the Minister of

Finance, and what I really heard in his first five minutes was a sorry and sad tale of

mismanagement, poor decision making and what amounted to in the language that

he spoke, the collapse of an institution. But you know what I did not hear from

124




UNREVISED

him, where the blame has to be laid and a situation like today, history should also

record, who were the players who brought the Petrotrin to its knees? [Desk

thumping] Who are the players that presided over the collapse that has led today to

this vesting Bill?

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Kamla.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Who has done that?

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: That is their answer. People’s Partnership, UNC.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Madam Speaker, the Government, in my view, has not

presented a very convincing rationale for what they have done. I think I have

presented enough information here to raise the eyes and eyebrows of the people of

this country. And you know why I have raised it, Madam Speaker?—because the

Government has somehow, in my mind, somewhere an unwritten, untold agenda

about all state enterprises. [Desk thumping] I think it is important in terms of

transparency and openness and really good governance for the Government to

clearly state what is its policy, public policy, on public enterprises or state

enterprises. What is it? What is it going to be? Is it that you are going to go in the

direction of privatization? Is it you are going to go into—you are going to give

more shares to the people to own in those companies? What is the model that you

are proposing?

Here you have proposed a model which is shut down, take all the debts and

still the taxpayers have to bear it and you put it into four companies. You know,

that is the definition of that kind of restructuring. Well, okay, that is one model if

you may have it. But give us a clear stated policy on your public enterprises. Give

us a policy.

Madam Speaker, I am afraid for what is happening in Trinidad, I am really

125




UNREVISED

afraid, eh. Madam Speaker, today I came to Parliament and, with your permission

I want to tell you, I had doubts of entering this debate at all because I was

disturbed. I was disturbed at the shooting on the Beetham. I was disturbed,

Madam Speaker, because people could be going to work—my daughter travels that

time of the morning to work and I was disturbed, really, really disturbed. I was

disturbed that I have been trying to get the cybercrime unit to investigate a matter

in which my family was defamed and nothing has been happening. I thought I

come here to sit down into this Parliament to discuss this, when there are so many

issues facing the people of this country; that is why I spoke about the human face

of this Government. I cannot get the Commissioner of Police to move on that

matter in which my family was defamed and you are telling me after months the

cybercrime unit cannot do anything about it.

So, Madam Speaker, I came into this debate with a mind like that, very, very

heavy heart and I thank you for the opportunity for me to say that because I had to

get that out of me, because I think when I say that I speak on behalf of all the

people of this country, [Desk thumping] because when 5,000-plus persons go home

and four on the average of five is affected and they cannot feed their families, I

hope that they would not be tempted to move in the direction of crime in order to

feed their families. May God bless them; may God give them courage; may God

give them wisdom; and may God give them success that they will find a job very

quickly so that their families can be happy once again, Madam Speaker. Thank

you. [Desk thumping]

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): [Desk thumping] Thank you very

much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I did not take advantage of the courtesy

offered by my colleague, the Member for Tabaquite, when I tried to catch your eye

126



Hon. Dr. K. Rowley (cont’d)

UNREVISED

a while ago. I gave way when he offered it, most graciously I should say, because

I wanted to actually hear what he had to say, hoping that he would—and he did in

some way change the tone and tenor left by my colleague, the Member for Couva

South.

Madam Speaker, this exercise, this assignment has always been from the

very beginning, open to what is happening here in the Parliament today. I as Prime

Minister was and I am under no illusion that anything that happened here today is

surprising. Madam Speaker, whether we like it or not, the situation is that there are

those who will agree and those who will not agree. In this House, my colleagues

on the other side, they see opportunity. We on this side, we see impending disaster

if there is inaction. They see opportunity by way of stoking emotions. We see the

requirement for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to carry out its oath of

office without fear or favour, without malice or ill-will. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, so many inaccurate statements have been made with so

much emotion in this House that sometimes it defies their imagination. I have

heard my colleague, the Member for Couva South, say that I went to a meeting as

Prime Minister to deal with this issue in El Dorado and I said that the workers are

inconsequential. Madam Speaker, I am not a drinking Prime Minister who gets to

the point of drunkenness. I would have had to be drunk to be dealing with this

issue and to go in a public or even a private space—

Mr. Al-Rawi: Or even think it.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Or even think it that the workers at Petrotrin are

inconsequential when they are at the frontline in facing this matter. Madam

Speaker, I said no such thing and I know of no other person in this country who

could truthfully say that they have heard me say that. But you see, Madam

127




UNREVISED

Speaker, that phrase is meant to fire the emotion of the affected persons. All the

Petrotrin workers and their families, if they hear that the Prime Minister has said

that their circumstance is inconsequential, then that feeds into the narrative of hate.

Madam Speaker, I have been the subject of the stoking of hatred of one kind

or another. Today that was the last of it. In this very House, the stoking and the

attempt to encourage hatred in my direction has been my portion from my

colleagues on the other side. I am accustomed to that. So this is just another way

of putting it that the Prime Minister say, in El Dorado, that the workers are

inconsequential. I want to say it again, Madam Speaker, I made no statement of

that nature or similar statement. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker, in making their arguments they have to find support for it,

because they see opportunity and I cannot blame them for that. The Government is

having to fix the Petrotrin problem, they see political opportunity. They see a way

back to Government and that is what Oppositions do. But I want the people of the

country to know that you cannot hang your hat on what was said by the Opposition

Members here today; they will mislead you. Listen to this one—that we have no

moral authority to talk about Petrotrin, because we were in Government when

Petrotrin went off the rails. Sounds logical.

Madam Speaker, a Member of the other side, my colleague, the Member for

Caroni Central, was the chairman of the audit committee in Clico which had a

collapse requiring $25 billion of taxpayers bailout. He was the chairman of the

audit committee. None of us here had an office in Petrotrin business, other than we

were in Government, yes—I was in the backbench, they were on different bench—

we were in the Government. But to say today we have no moral authority, can I

also say that maybe that was the reason why they did not try to get back taxpayers’

128




UNREVISED

billion from Clico. Is that the kind of logic? Is that what it is? Because if that is

how it goes according to how the Jamaican say, “if ah so it go”, that we have no

moral authority to speak, because we were in the Government.

When managers in Petrotrin could tell us today that somehow they hired a

Japanese company to build a multi-billion enterprise and when it finished building

somebody discovered that it could not be used because the foundation was

dangerous. I do not know how it happened. But the bottom line is, I was not an

engineer in Petrotrin. I was not in the energy Ministry, but in the country acting

for taxpayers as we all do—today is my fault. But the bottom line is, Madam

Speaker, my fault, your fault, anybody’s fault, we are faced with a situation where

if we do not act—the one thing I agree with my colleague, the Member for

Tabaquite, he said it very well when he started his contribution, this matter affects

all of us in Trinidad and Tobago, from Charlotteville to Cedros, from Carenage to

Sangre Grande, all of us. And from day one we have said that, and it is because it

has the potential to seriously affect all of us that the Government had to act; we did

not have the luxury of other Governments to not act.

Madam Speaker, so far, all the speakers who have spoken have not seriously

engaged the presentation of the Minister of Finance. In fact, one of them said a

while ago, I think it was my same friend, the Member for Tabaquite, that we are

handling this matter as an accounting matter. Madam Speaker, if you are facing

financial collapse and downgrade and bankruptcy, what do you use other than the

accounts? You have to be concerned about how it is going to affect people as we

are, or what the alternative will be as we must, but what else?

It reminds me of a meeting I had with the labour leader, and he came to see

me after the announcement was made that we are going to shut the refinery down

129




UNREVISED

and restructure the company and restart this whole involvement in the oil business.

We never said we are getting out of the oil business. Let me make it quite clear.

We never said we are getting out of the oil business, so this shutting down of

Petrotrin as though “you close door and go”, we never said that. We said that we

are going to close the refinery—and I will come back to that, and we will

re-engineer our position to move from a loss-making situation to a profit-making

situation. That is the Government’s position, a restructuring. This is not the first

time that a company or an entity is going to be restructured. But the opportunity

for the politicians is so attractive they cannot leave it alone.

Madam Speaker, so meeting with the leader of the union, and I said to him,

all that was available to me as head of the Government, none of it very attractive

for the company’s future if nothing is done about it and drastic intervention is not

made. And at the end of it, I asked, he said to me—I asked him, what is your

position with respect to what you have just heard? And he said, the numbers are

wrong. I said how you mean? He said, yes, the numbers are wrong. I said, just

like that? I said my numbers came from the company’s accounts, from the

Ministry of Finance, from the auditors and from the bankers who lend the company

money. Where do your numbers come from? He said, the numbers are wrong. I

said okay fine, but what is the source of your numbers, and we could not get

further than the numbers are wrong.

Well, I realized right then and there, Madam Speaker, we were not being

serious about this matter, but we on the side of the Government we have to be

serious about it. We do not have the luxury of saying the numbers are wrong and

just leave it so. Like Petrotrin management came to the Standing Committee of the

Cabinet and gave us a beautiful PowerPoint presentation at the request of the

130




UNREVISED

Cabinet because this Cabinet wanted to know what was going on inside of

Petrotrin. Beautiful presentation, every page they turn is a disaster and then at the

end of it there was no applause. As my colleague said, there was silence. Now,

when I asked, so how does the company address this issue? The silence had a look

and the look was, “all yuh have to fix that”. And, Madam Speaker, we in the

Government did not have the luxury of just being silent and waiting for somebody

else to treat with it. It fell to the Government to treat with it.

Madam Speaker, there is something else too. There is an attitude from our

colleagues on the other side that if the Government does something it has to be

wrong and they see opportunity in trying to make it wrong even though it is

obviously right. Today I had to sit down here and for the umpteenth time listen

about the closure of Caroni. And the people it is pointed at is, how they hate and

the invective and the wickedness that is being ascribed to us because we closed

Caroni. I want to remind that spokesperson in this House today, that Caroni (1975)

Limited had that name because it was the PNM in 1975 that bought up all the

pieces of failed sugar companies in this country and created Caroni (1975)

Limited.

So in 1975 we love them so much, we love sugar so much that we bought up

private sector failing companies to keep people in jobs and created Caroni (1975)

Limited. And what that did, it give us 20 more years in the sugar business. We get

no credit for that. But today we are wicked. St. Kitts, Antigua, Jamaica, Barbados,

they all had sugar industries in our region and over time they eventually, except for

a little bit in Jamaica now and a very, very small piece in Barbados, the sugar

industry in the Caribbean died. It is not because anybody hated sugar workers.

We tired tell them that. We enjoyed that 20-year extension especially in the last 10

131




UNREVISED

years, largely on the basis of preferential sugar prices that we got in Europe and in

America, where we had a quota where they paid us far more to keep us on the

farms than the market would pay.

When the conditions changed and those prices that quoted disappeared, they

paid us to get out of the business, they paid us money to get out of the business

because over time that they gave us the deadline—after those dates we will no

longer be paying you the prices you got. That is the truth of it, but politicians in

Trinidad and Tobago holding on to this thing because they believe and I dare say it

works for them. Some of them go as far as to publicly say that the closure of the

sugar industry in Trinidad and Tobago was a racial attack on the Indian population,

completely forgetting that there were plans all along to attempt to fix it. There was

the Rampersad plan, the Dookeran plan, the tripartite arrangement, all of it trying

to save the industry. But when the market died, the industry died with it. It is only

those like Guyana and Belize with large mechanized arrangements that could

survive in the industry.

Why is that so difficult? And the attitude is, you blame the Government,

you invoke the worst, you stoke hate, you stir the pot on hatred and in my case it is

so easy to do, it is so easy to do, when you miss me, call “meh” father too. You

bring Vernella Alleyne in the Parliament to accuse me of rape, stir the pot of

hatred, right? You come into Parliament, you bring document to say I have

money, I am collecting money in Miami, right? You know, just turn the pot of

hate, because, Madam Speaker, that is their attitude. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, I chaired, as a Member of the Manning Cabinet, I chaired a

subcommittee of the Cabinet on BWIA. Every Monday morning you come to the

Cabinet, BWIA comes cap in hand because they want a bailout here and a bailout

132




UNREVISED

there and it is always in US dollars, eh, and they have to get it now otherwise the

sky is going to fall in. And we take money from the hospitals, from the schools,

from the social services because BWIA has to have it now. We did an in-depth

investigation to BWIA and the management of BWIA were always telling us that

the best route was the London route, until it was properly studied and then the

Government discovered that the biggest money-losing route in BWIA was the

London route. And then the Cabinet took a decision to close down the London

route.

They came into office and they met the restructured BWIA not flying to

London. Well, the PNM stupid, the PNM crazy, the PNM wicked. You know

what, Madam Speaker, let me tell you what they did, because they have to do it

differently because the PNM did it one way. We shut the London route down. As

a matter of fact, I went to Tobago with my colleague, the Member for Siparia,

when they had the naming of the Arthur Napoleon Robinson Airport. The speech

she made on that occasion was that something terribly wrong had gone on in

London and there was corruption in the selling of the gates, and the Member for

Siparia as Prime Minister said publicly that she had directed as an instruction let

there be an investigation done to get to the bottom of the corruption with the

London gate. I have not heard a word about that from that day till now. To this

day I have never heard about the outcome, [Crosstalk] I have never heard about the

outcome of that investigation directed by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and

Tobago, but they have to carry the story about the gates in London had corruption

and there was an investigation and maybe if she enters the debate today she can tell

us the outcome of that.

But let me tell you the numbers. Because the PNM had done that they are

133




UNREVISED

going to undo it. So they came into office as Government and, Madam Speaker, in

June 2012 they went and they got two planes and parked them somewhere and

could not use the planes because the planes could not be certified. That cost us US

$4.6 million for two planes that they could not take out of the hangar, US $4.6

million because they are going to London. Because they could not use those

planes after the $4.6 million was lost, they then went and they wet-leased two

planes to do the route. That cost us US $12.1 million in losses. And then when we

were drowning in red ink on the London route, they extricated themselves from the

contract early and to do that, to get out of the contract before its full expiry, that

cost us US $5.1 million, and having flown the route from 2012 June to January

2016, CAL lost TT $260 million.

I want to repeat that, because we closed the London route, and they knew all

about how bad it was and an enquiry had to go on, they went back to fly it to

London to prove that they were different. It did not cost them one cent because

they all left as millionaires, but it cost the taxpayers of Trinidad and Tobago $260

million.

Madam Speaker, it is the same thing. Today we are hearing that if they were

in office they would not have closed Petrotrin. That is okay. But tell us what you

would have done. What is your alternative? We heard from the union that filed a

case in court that they had an alternative. The alternative was so workable, so

useful that when a simple question was asked by the cross-examining lawyer: Who

is this financier who is backing your alternative to the Government’s proposal?

Mr. Al-Rawi: “Ah cah remember”.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: The most amazing answer was given in the court, I cannot

remember but when I get back to the office I will try and find out. And we are

134




UNREVISED

supposed to take that seriously, come on, come on, come on, colleagues.

Colleagues, like today I heard my friend, the Member for Caroni East who is my

friend, Madam Speaker, in case you all do not know. We went to the same

university in the same hall, bosom bodies. [Crosstalk] Many nights we had dinner

in his home. He was very generous to me. Many nights. From the day he set foot

in the UNC he “turn beast”. [Laughter and desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Order! Order!

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: From the day he got associated with the UNC he “turn

beast”. [Laughter] When my first child was born at seven months, he delivered

her. My friend—my mother was in the hospital, one of his colleagues left a needle

in her, he “get ignorant”—that is my friend. I “doh” know happened to him?

[Laughter] Today he came here and had to be accused of intellectual, what?

Hon. Members: Laziness.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Laziness. I do not believe for one minute that the Member

for Caroni East is intellectually incompetent. Not for one minute. But what I do

believe is that trying to score political points he has sold himself short.

Mr. Hinds: That is worse.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Because to come here today and to try to make an argument

that the information about Petrotrin’s assets—

Mr. Al-Rawi: Not available, hidden.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley:—not available and is hidden, to push a point that this

Government is acting in secrecy. Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, the

Member for Siparia, or any of the others: Which Prime Minister in this country has

addressed the nation three times on one issue? [Crosstalk]

Hon. Member: Eric Williams.

135




UNREVISED

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Which one, which issue?

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Which issue? [Crosstalk]

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, from January— I deliberately did not give

a Christmas address in December 2016, because it was my intention to speak to

this country in January 2017 to draw the country’s attention to what was happening

at Petrotrin, and I would say again, my fault, your fault, our fault, it was our

problem and I did just that.

Madam Speaker, I addressed the nation on the singular issue of Petrotrin.

Look at today. I heard another one of my colleagues, I am not sure which one,

because they are all—they got up today and said that it is because—who was that

speaker that said, I think it was my friend, the Member for Caroni East again.

[Laughter]

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: He is no longer your friend.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: He is my friend, he knows. [Crosstalk] Madam Speaker, he

said that it was because we interfered with Petrotrin’s stability in talking about

restructuring and closing it down, why guarantees were needed. You heard the

frightening numbers and the frequency with which the Minister of Finance was

required to provide that support for Petrotrin, an oil company. And I can tell you

because we studied it. Petrotrin was the only oil company in the world that did not

respond to the oil collapse of 2009. They did not change a thing. If anything it got

worse. And the Minister of Finance was telling you how frequently they came to

the Exchequer for support otherwise they will collapse. And my friends on the

other side, experienced parliamentarians, professionals in their own right elsewhere

came here and told the population today that the reason why Petrotrin end up in

that situation, which never existed before, is because this Government had some

136




UNREVISED

policy and the policy triggered that kind of response from the company.

Madam Speaker, nothing is further from the truth. Let me read a couple of

paragraphs from a letter dated, it is on Petrotrin letterhead. And it is dated the 15th

of March, 2016. The spokesperson who said that actually said it was Espinet who

was doing certain things and Espinet caused this—Madam Speaker, on the 15th

March 2016, citizen Espinet was nowhere near Petrotrin’s business. The chairman

of the board of Petrotrin at that time was not Mr. Espinet. So that put an end to the

demonizing of a citizen who is doing public service. When they cannot deal with

the situation that they are confronted, demonize the chairman. Well, demonize the

Prime Minister that is okay, but people are doing—you are twisting people’s arms.

We had to beg UTC board to allow their officer to take part in the work at

Petrotrin, but to the Opposition they are there to be demonized until he comes here

today and misrepresent the truth, that it was Espinet who caused the banks not to

be lending the company money and therefore the company had to go the Minister

of Finance.

7.30 p.m.

So the 15th of March, 2016, long before Espinet was there, a letter to the

Ministry of Finance, and the heading is “Petrotrin’s Liquidity Crisis”. This is

written to the Ministry of Finance, signed by the President of Petrotrin—15th of

March, 2016—“Petrotrin’s Liquidity Crisis”. So this crisis did not begin with this

Government. We met this crisis there and it was unattended by the Government of

Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] And hear it:

Petrotrin wishes to further advise of our cash flow situation and the need for

shareholder support.

This is an oil company, eh.

137




UNREVISED

In our correspondence dated 4th of February, 2016…

So February 2016, this Government had hardly sat into office—

…the board advised of a $250 million shortfall by June 2016 and the

company’s desire to avoid loan default and non-payment of salaries among

payments.

Madam Speaker, in February 2016 the President of Petrotrin was advising this

Government that Petrotrin could not pay salaries, and worse, Petrotrin was in

danger of defaulting on its loans. And let me say, Madam Speaker, for those who

do not understand it, a lot of the stability in this country, its economy, is dependent

on borrowing and paying, and borrowing and paying. That is called the public

debt. The people who lend you money are comfortable in lending you that money

because they have some confidence that you would be able to repay it. Once you

default on one of those loans you will find in the contracts of the others that you

borrow, that the minute you default on a loan of that nature all the other loans

become payable, because people now are not comfortable in you having their

money when you are not able to pay anybody who you owe. It is as simple as that.

So whether you like it or not, you have to avoid a default. You cannot say,

“I am going to default on A and not default on B or C”. The minute you default on

one, all the others become payable. And that is how a country goes bankrupt. In

case you do not know, bankruptcy was an option of the route we were taking, and

we would not have been the first country to go bankrupt because that is how a

country goes bankrupt.

If this letter was not responded to by the Minister of Finance and stepped

into Petrotrin’s shoes to prevent Petrotrin from going bankrupt, hundreds of

millions of US dollars was immediately payable, and that is what would have

138




UNREVISED

bankrupted the Government and the people of Trinidad and Tobago. We are not

making joke. We are dead serious on this side, because we took an oath of office.

[Desk thumping]

And if you want to tell me that for intervening in that dire situation, Petrotrin

liquidity crisis, where they cannot pay salaries and they are defaulting on their

debt, that we are wicked and we this and we that, Madam Speaker, we wear that

responsibility as a badge of honour—[Desk thumping] That is where we are.

Petrotrin’s—

Madam Speaker: Member for Diego Martin West, your original 30 minutes are

now spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes, if you wish to—

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Petrotrin’s liquidity crisis, an issue that came to my

Government in February 2016—we came into office on the 9th of September, 2015.

And you know, you all could spend as much time as you want calling Malcolm

Jones’ name and Patrick Manning. Let me just remind all of us in here. Those are

two dead men, and the requirement for Petrotrin and the people’s business requires

that those who are living not reside among the dead. Look at how many times you

are hearing the same story over and over and over again, until—you heard about

Niquan.

Madam Speaker, the first time I heard about Niquan—and Niquan came

before this Government. The reason why Niquan exists is because one of

Petrotrin’s failed projects, they went out publicly to find somebody who might be

interested. They did that, you know, Madam Speaker—to find somebody who

might be interested to try and make the failed project work. They got one

submission. It was Niquan, and they accepted it, and they put things in train in

2012. They accepted Niquan’s offer in 2012 but could not operationalize it

139




UNREVISED

because Niquan wanted a supply of gas and it took a lot to get to the point where

we concluded what they agreed to do. Niquan had nothing to do with this

Government. We met it there as an agreed position of the Government of Trinidad

and Tobago. But if you heard them today, throwing it in to bolster their hatred

package: Niquan and Niquan and Niquan. You would not think that Niquan came

out of their tenure.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that my colleague from Caroni East is an

unintelligent person. He has a lot of business of one kind or another, and he knows

that if you are going with a partner and you sink your money in and your partner is

to put money in, and you all are committed to a business, and then the partner says

to you, “I am sorry, I cannot put up my moneys”, then you have one or two

options, you know. One option is to let what you put in go down the drain. Or the

other option is to become now—meet the shortfall. Get the shares that go with

that, but you meet the shortfall that your partner should have met. You might end

up with a bigger shareholding in the company, or all of the shares, but the other

option would have been to let your own money now go down the drain.

Petrotrin stood in the shoes of its partner and today that was raised here as

some unusual—Petrotrin had a partner who eventually could not deliver on its

commitment. You might want to say Petrotrin should have known that before, but

it would not be the first time that partners fail to come up with their shareholding.

But do not put it across as though the fact that Petrotrin, at that situation, came into

the shoes of its partner to allow the project to go forward, and then, of course, they

are raising, Niquan, Niquan. All the Niquan business is that they are using natural

gas to make a clean diesel that could be sold. So whether it is Petrotrin, Heritage

or Pelican, whoever it is, once it is produced, whoever is buying diesel in this

140




UNREVISED

country, it can be sold there. It is as simple as that.

Madam Speaker, the thing that I am really disturbed about, eh, is the fact

that there are people, there are families who are, in fact, experiencing the trauma of

this change, and it is those people’s heartstrings that they are tugging at with this

emotive hatred. Instead of helping these people emotionally to go through what

they are going through, the Opposition is, in fact, making their life a living hell by

telling them that it is a mistake; it is a mess.

Madam Speaker, we, as a Government, had to intervene. We intervened—

only yesterday I instructed the Minister of Finance to take steps to ensure that

when Petrotrin workers are severed in this arrangement, that the Ministry of

Finance will adjust the tax arrangements that the untaxed portion of that money is

raised from $300,000 to $500,000.

Hon. Member: Wow. [Desk thumping]

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: What that does, it leaves an extra $50,000 in the hands of

every person who is separated from the company. It is going to cost the country an

additional $150 million, and the separation package is going to cost $2.7 billion. If

you hear them talk, it is as if we are going to put people in the street and kick them

over a cliff. Who is going to get this $2.7 billion? Petrotrin workers.

Mr. Al-Rawi: With an option to be re-employed.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: And we have gone further. We have said to them, as we

restructure this company we will enter into a new plane, because when Heritage—

those persons who are going to be hired into Heritage, sometime in the not too

distant future we are going to move to a point where we are going to move to

employee stock ownership to make them owners in the very company they work

in. That is how we are supposed to go. [Desk thumping]

141




UNREVISED

But, Madam Speaker, whether we like it or not, the people of Trinidad and

Tobago will have to paddle our own canoe. Fortunately for the people of Trinidad

and Tobago, at this particular time that there is a PNM Government in office, with

the requirement, with the fortitude and the commitment and the confidence in our

future to do what has to be done to restructure Petrotrin, and that is what this Bill is

about. [Desk thumping]

I simply want to say that you have been hearing about the energy

committee—the energy subcommittee of the Cabinet. The energy subcommittee of

the Cabinet is a coming together of the best talent that is available to the Cabinet at

the time a Government is in office, because energy is so important to us that in

recent times serious governments have operated by getting the input—let me just

tell you, Madam Speaker, who was on the energy committee by this Cabinet Note

of July 06, 2017, and somebody here today, again, in trying to bolster the argument

that David Abdullah was on the energy committee, I will call out all the names,

Madam Speaker, and you will tell me if you hear David’s name there.

Prime Minister, your humble servant, Chairman; hon. Colm Imbert, Minister

of Finance; hon. Camille Robinson-Regis, Minister of Planning and Development;

hon. Stuart Young, Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister and the Minister in

the Office of the Attorney General; Sen. The Hon. Paula Gopee-Scoon, Minister of

Trade and Industry; Sen. Kazim Hosein, Minister of Rural Development: Sen. the

Hon. Franklin Khan, Minister of Energy and Energy Industries; Sen. the Hon.

Alyson West, Minister of Finance; Mr. Kelvin Charles, Chief Secretary, Tobago

House of Assembly; Mr. Andrew Jupiter, Chairman, Petrotrin; Mr. Gerry Brooks,

Chairman, National Gas Company; Mr. Keith Sirju, Chairman, T&TEC; Mr.

Wendell Mottley, ECONOMIST; Prof. Ken Julien, energy expert; Mr. Steven

142




UNREVISED

Gardner, Industrial Engineer; Mr. Mark Loquan, President of NGC; the Permanent

Secretary, Ministry of Finance; the Permanent Secretary, Minister of Energy and

Energy Industries and two technical advisors of the Ministry of Energy and Energy

Industries.

These are the people who would meet on a regular basis or on a needs basis

to look at the decision-making process in the PNM Government of Trinidad and

Tobago, which I have the honour to lead. So when you hear these flippant

statements about the energy committee, and the who and the who and the who, and

the misinformation and the outright untruths about the energy committee, I want

the population to know that energy decisions have been taken by these people, and

the Cabinet takes responsibility.

I heard them asking, who took the decision to shut down the refinery. Oh,

give me a minute, Madam Speaker. I heard it said today somewhere—by my

friend from Tabaquite—that the refinery was making a margin of $10.

Hon. Member: Yeah. Yeah.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, that is fairy tale.

Hon. Member: They mean negative.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: We get a monthly report in the Cabinet from the company

about the margin. The margin that comes to us varies from $2 to $7 loss per

barrel—

Hon. Member: US, US.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: US dollars per barrel.

Mr. Al-Rawi: The lowest was $12.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: The margin from the refinery is always in the red in US

dollars. What it means—and you also heard, “Where are you going to get money

143




UNREVISED

to import the refined product?” They seem to forget that we were using money to

import every day, 100,000 barrels of crude oil to refine it and to lose $7 per barrel.

So these numbers that they are coming here with that are totally erroneous. It is all

to upset the people. Because if you are being told that your company was making

this profit, $10 per barrel, and the Government shut down the company, that must

upset the people of Pointe-a-Pierre and the people of San Fernando and Gasparillo,

and that is the objective. All these untruths, Madam Speaker, are meant to upset

the people who are directly affected.

Madam Speaker, we have done the studies. We paid good money. Because

they want to know how much the consultants earned. US $10 million to review an

oil company in our currency is a lot of money, but US $10 million is not a lot of

money to pay a proper expert firm to come in and to go over. They came to us on

many occasions. We saw the difficulty. We saw the pain. We saw the political

danger. But we sent them back on every occasion: “Look at this; look at that; try

again, come back.” At the end somebody asked, “Oh, in February, you said so and

so and in September you close the company down.” The reason being that

between February and September we were looking at this moving target, learning

more about it, and the more you learn, the more dangerous it became.

The more they gave us information about Petrotrin is the more it was

dangerous. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, it got to the point where the

safety in the refinery was an issue. To bring it up to standard, the safety—as a

matter of fact, it was after the issue being raised from the OSH standpoint. Madam

Speaker, there are reports in Petrotrin pointing to pipelines that required to be

attended since 2011. One of those pipelines broke and swamped the whole of

Cocoa Beach in La Brea and the western peninsula. The only reason why we have

144




UNREVISED

not had to pay significant damage to the Venezuelans is because of the good

relationship between the Venezuelans and the Trinidad and Tobago Government,

otherwise we were in trouble for polluting Venezuela.

Madam Speaker, if that refinery pollutes and gets into the mainstream of

current going to the west and it pollutes Margarita, you understand what we are

talking about? You understand what we are talking about? We will get a bill here

for US $200 million or more, or US $500 million to clean up down-the-road

pollution. That is what we are facing. And they wanted us to do nothing.

Madam Speaker, we know that this development will affect the whole

country, but the alternative would have been worse. To do nothing would have

been far worse. We know that some families and some workers are going to be

affected. As a matter of fact, hundreds of workers would be far better off than they

were before, because they will get a big cheque to go, and if they are young, as

they are saying, they can be employed either with the company or somewhere, and

they get a better life going forward. And those who are close to retirement, they

get an earlier retirement; they get a cheque. You hear they are raising about people

who are going home and their pension. Madam Speaker, Petrotrin has probably

the best pension fund in the country, sound and secure. There is no issue there.

Whenever they raise that, it is to create mischief. Eleven billion dollars in a

pension fund, overfunded by Petrotrin, because while the company was in

bankruptcy stage, the pension fund was being funded solidly and overfunded. So

the pension fund is there.

The medical benefits, we are saying, Madam Speaker, that the board has said

they will make alternative arrangements. Of course, they want to know now.

Madam Speaker, big issue: “The Augustus Long Hospital. I am not hearing about

145




UNREVISED

that—the Augustus Long Hospital.” I asked the Minister of Health how many

beds are there in the Augustus Long Hospital and he told me. When the hospital

came into being it was because the health system in this country was virtually non-

existent. But since then, we have had, as of today we have 700 beds in San

Fernando, 400 beds in Port of Spain, another 300 in Mount Hope, Couva. We have

a new hospital in Point Fortin, brand new, 100 state-of-the-art beds coming up;

Arima, 150. Madam Speaker, Augustus Long has 49 beds. So in the country we

have 3,000 beds, but you saw their behaviour today about the Augustus Long.

Madam Speaker, one of the worrisome things I saw, a supplier of a

particular product told me that his two biggest customers for the product was San

Fernando General, which has 700 beds and Augustus Long that has 49 beds. The

two biggest customers of the particular product are at those two hospitals. Madam

Speaker, I know that this Bill today provides them with an opportunity for my

colleagues—

Madam Speaker: Hon. Prime Minister, your speaking time is up.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: And I thank you very much, Madam Speaker. [Desk

thumping]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Good job.

Madam Speaker: Member for Oropouche East. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Roodal Moonilal (Oropouche East): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker,

for the opportunity to intervene at this time on possibly one of the most important

Bills that this Eleventh Parliament would consider.

PROCEDURAL MOTION

The Minister of Planning and Development (Hon. Camille Robinson-Regis): I

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this House continue to sit until the conclusion

146




UNREVISED

of the matter before it.

Question put and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (HERITAGE PETROLEUM, PARIA

FUEL TRADING AND GUARACARA REFINING VESTING) BILL, 2018

Dr. R. Moonilal: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as I

was saying before the Procedural Motion, that this is possibly one of the most

important Bills that the Eleventh Parliament would be called upon to discuss and to

consider. And in considering this matter, Madam Speaker, I have had the benefit,

of course, of listening to all speakers today, both on the Government side and the

Opposition, and to reflect on some of the issues raised by speakers before, and, of

course, the last speaker who has left the Chamber, but I will still reflect on some of

the issues raised by the Prime Minister in his absence.

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely serious Bill, as speakers have said

before, that deals with the life, the career, the work, the employment, living

conditions of communities, towns, cities, and by extension, the entire country.

And in listening to the contributions of colleagues opposite, I think there are a few

thematics that emerge, and I would not begin by condemning their argument,

necessarily, but by synthesizing what I think that they were trying to say.

The first thematic is that the Members of the Government have rooted their policy

in their political inheritance. They argued that their failure is because of their

political inheritance, that somebody did something before and because you did

something before, or you failed to do something before, we are here today, and this

is why we have to take this step. Now, in a simplistic way that is a blame game,

but in a more sophisticated way it is really political inheritance as your failure.

[Desk thumping]

147



Dr. R. Moonilal (cont’d)

UNREVISED

The other thematic is that they have explored everything. They have really

tried. They tried their best. They had what they now famously call best-in-class

advice, both local and foreign, and look, they have tried everything and nothing

could work, so we are here today. That is a second limb that they stand on. What

is the third, or course, is that by taking the action that they propose, they therefore

save the economy, save the earth—

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Save the world.

Dr. R. Moonilal:—save the world, and they stand on that limb. Now, you could

say everything you want about that—and I would treat with it, but there are two

stories. I just want to take the discussion a bit further first. There are two stories I

thought that we did not hear before, and it jumped out today. One came,

interestingly from the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West and one

came from the Member for San Fernando West. There were two stories that were

not prominent before but they came out today. You know, the stories jump out.

The Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West had an analysis, you

know, but the Member for San Fernando West first made an interesting point. He

said that the Government and the Prime Minister, who he congratulated, but then

quarrelled with us for congratulating the Member for Siparia—but who he

congratulated on his good job in this matter and showing the courage and so on; he

said that who would take a decision like this that brought so much political risk.

What government will send home 5,000, 6,000, 9,000, whatever it is? I do not

want to debate that. What government will send home 4,700 people two years

before a general election? And it could be less than two years. But the Member

for San Fernando West said it. He said, “Which government could do that?”

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: That Government.

148




UNREVISED

Dr. R. Moonilal: But it was a striking point because he is suggesting that losing a

general election is really the most important thing in political life. But I want to

tell him—because my argument will take me there later—that losing a general

election is not the most important matter here. It could be losing your freedom.

[Desk thumping] Because your freedom is more important than a general election.

It is more important. So at stake here could be loss of freedom, not general

election. You may have already lost that. You could already lose that, but you do

not want to lose your freedom. You prefer to be outside or in opposition than to

be inside somewhere else. And that is what struck me; that you can take political

risk because there is something bigger than losing a general election at stake in this

matter.

And the second issue, of course, the Member for Port of Spain South raised

several matters, of course—

Hon. Member: North.

Dr. R. Moonilal: The Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West raised

several matters about the legacy issue of Petrotrin. [Interruption] No, I will come

to the Member for Port of Spain South, because I do not think Port of Spain South

would like to be left out. But the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West,

of course, in his own style, had to be bitter and had to, you know, have animosity.

And the speaker before me, let me say it one time, for 20 minutes of his speech

really gave us the victimhood speech. You know, he really is a poor victim of

everything. I mean, people come to Parliament and want to accuse him of

everything. I “doh” know why people would do that. And he is the victim. He is

the victim of hate.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: He lost his good friend too.

149




UNREVISED

Dr. R. Moonilal: I am coming to this good friend in a minute. What struck me is

that his former Prime Minister identified him as the epitome of anger and hate.

[Desk thumping] And today he would stand today and accuse those on this side as,

you know, purveyors of hate and spite, and when we come, we come with malice

and everything is about this poor Member for Diego Martin West.

And then he went on to cry—yes, he went on to cry, but the entire

Government’s presentation today was led by the town criers. The Member for

Diego Martin North/East was the town crier. It is actually a functionary in 19th

Century European society, the town crier would go out with a particular dress and

costume on the street and with a bell and announce all the news to the people;

public announcements on behalf of the monarch. It was the town crier. And

today the Member for Diego Martin West and the Member for Diego Martin

North/East, in particular, came across as the town criers. They were crying about

the state that they found themselves; how much money this year we had to pay:

October, March, November. We heard that from the Member for Diego Martin

North/East. The Member for Diego Martin West said everybody make him out to

be something that he is not, or we do not consider himself to be.

And then he attacked our friend from Caroni East and saying that was his

friend in an incarnation and then “turn beast”. But I want to tell the Member for

Caroni East and my colleagues here, one of the greatest things you could do is

“turn beast” against the People’s National Movement. [Desk thumping] That is an

act of patriotism. But the Member for Diego Martin West, Madam Speaker, I

noticed he spoke about BWIA; he spoke about CAL; he spoke about sugar; he

spoke about plane; he spoke about babies; he spoke about hospital beds, and,

Madam Speaker, I intend to follow him in all those areas because he has raised

150




UNREVISED

some critical issues, I think.

You see, Madam Speaker, at the heart of this issue here before us is that the

Government came into being—and I will not repeat things that we know already; it

is on public record. But the Member for Diego Martin West knows about Petrotrin

long before today—long before. You see, I have in my hand a speech here. It is

the Appropriation Bill, Monday, September 14, 2009. I do not know, some

colleagues who were here before would remember. And the Member on his legs at

that time was the Member for Diego Martin West. He made some observations

about Petrotrin—

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: The same Member.

Dr. R. Moonilal: The same Member. But you know, the Member likes to repeat

all the time that he was fired from the Government, and so on, but he was really

fired from the Government for a short period of time. The majority of the time,

between 2001 and 2010, he spent in the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk

thumping] He was fired as Housing and Trade, I believe, but the majority of the

time—and the time when those matters of Petrotrin were initiated were times when

the Member for Diego Martin West was in the Cabinet. He was only released from

Cabinet, 2008 or thereabout.

But he had some observations. He said:

“I have heard the union talking about”—Petrotrin, and so on.

And he said, and I quote:

“We entered a gas to liquids project, and this document”—Review of the

Economy it was. “This document tells us the original estimate was $850

million. It has been revised for $1.3 billion, as a result of incomplete

engineering at the start, omissions…”—project delays, additional testing and

151




UNREVISED

technical issues.

So he knew about that in 2009. In 2009 no one on this side, with the

exception probably of one of two persons or so, was on the compound then.

They were not there and certainly not in the Cabinet at that time. He went on to

talk about another one—$850 million project, the Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel Plant.

That had moved to $2.4 billion. He spoke about the alkalization plant, Madam

Speaker, moving from 586 million to 1.8 billion, and then he took the whole thing

together. Today, we are looking at a cost of $9.3 billion—[Interruption]

8.00 p.m.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: In 2009.

Dr. R. Moonilal: In 2009, he said $9.3 billion.

You see, at that time Diego Martin North/East, incidentally, was Leader of

the House. At that time he was Leader of the House and the Member for Diego

Martin West was on the other side. He was facing north and Diego Martin West

was facing south in the Parliament, and they had their own exchange, of course, at

that time, but Diego Martin West said, “Petrotrin now looking at $9.3 billion. And

while we looking at that, we quarrelling over taxation, we want to tax household

by household”—meaning property tax. “We want to put a tax on cigarette and

rum, and raise revenue while we cannot explain $9.3 billion at Petrotrin”.

So the Member knew that. He knew who were involved, he knew who were

the culprits at the time, and today telling us “Don’t bother about that now. These

people, dey dead”. But I want to tell him not all died. [Desk thumping] Not all,

because a key figure in that—Madam Speaker, I also refer to another parliamentary

debate we had in this House. It was the 24th of the sixth month, 2016, where on a

Motion of a loss of confidence in the Attorney General which I piloted at that time,

152




UNREVISED

several issues were put on the public record, and on the public record we put in

great detail all the drama that took place with the World GTL plant and what

happened there. I just want to repeat one matter or two from this.

At the time in 2005/2006, when this was going down so to speak, there was

the CEO of World GTL, David Loring—I could never forget him so long as I live

and maybe thereafter I will remember him. He “buff up” Petrotrin when he asked

Petrotrin to put out some money to come up for payments of US $24 million or

less and Petrotrin refused. There were some people in Petrotrin challenging why

Petrotrin must be spending this kind of money on financing the project, while the

external partner, World GTL, promised financing. You know what Mr. Loring

said? In quoting him to Petrotrin, he says:

My wife had more courage than Petrotrin. My wife has more courage than

Petrotrin. She wired US $200,000 to Louisiana Chemical today and at some

point Petrotrin needs to stand up shoulder to shoulder with us and get

construction going.

Madam Speaker, Petrotrin responded that they had more courage than his

wife. They approved $24 million and wire transfer. They had more courage than

his wife. But you know in another email—and this is the one I wanted to read as

well linked to that, when Mr. Loring was “buffing up” Petrotrin, he said:

We are disturbed by Petrotrin’s desire to control finance, administration—et

cetera.

Here is what he said. He said:

The basic structure of the agreement is what Dr. Julien, the Minister and Mr.

Jones wanted.

Dr. Julien received a national award. He was named on the energy committee of

153




UNREVISED

the Member for Diego Martin West a few minutes ago.

Hon. Member: In the Office of the Prime Minister.

Dr. R. Moonilal: In the Office of the Prime Minister. He was also appointed

advisor on energy to this Prime Minister. David Loring said, listen—he said Dr.

Jones, the Minister—and who is the Minister? At this time the Minister was Dr.

Lenny Krishenlal Saith, who is receiving a grand honour from the party on the

weekend, I think, for his good work in attracting World GTL Limited to Trinidad

and Tobago and his good work. In fact, I find there is an uncanny and macabre,

murky coincidence that the gentleman, who is partly responsible for the collapse of

the oil sector and the closure of Petrotrin, is going on Sunday to receive a grand

acknowledgment from the party in Government. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Indarsingh: The Cabinet travelling at—[Interruption]

Dr. R. Moonilal: And I do not want to delay them, Madam Speaker. I know that

there is Cabinet in the morning in Tobago. One way to get the whole Government

to go there, courtesy the taxpayer, is to put the Cabinet meeting on Thursday and

the convention on Saturday and Sunday. So, Madam Speaker, I do not want to

keep them back. They have to be journeying across for Cabinet and so on. You

see, this business took place in 2005/2006. When we raised it they were

uncomfortable. Now, I do not know where David Loring is in the world. I do not

know where World GTL is. I think the money has gone, we had to pay back and

so on.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, just updating this story—and the Prime

Minister knows it—by 2008/2009 there was a situation where this Government, the

then Manning government, had to pay about $800 million on this debt; had to pay

$800 million. The question is: Where was the Cabinet oversight and who was in

154




UNREVISED

the Cabinet? It is some of the very same persons who are now serial offenders in

that sense and have come back. They were in the Cabinet when this went down,

and make no mistake about it, the debt that you say you cannot pay, the debt that if

you default upon the earth rotation will be reversed, that debt was incurred by that

Petrotrin management under Malcolm Jones, Ken Julien [Desk thumping] under

the Cabinet of the PNM. There must be Cabinet Minutes and Notes where they

had oversight over this and they supported this. So today the workers will pay the

ultimate price for Malcolm Jones, et al, and the rest of them—[Interruption]

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Two Js.

Dr. R. Moonilal: The Js—including the Members of the Cabinet and the

Government in office at that time. Today, the workers pay—and I wanted to ask

the Prime Minister had he been in the House. He was in a meeting on September

5th or thereabout, and said in the restructured new entity the workers will have

stocks, will have shares. What about that?

Mr. Indarsingh: In Marabella.

Dr. R. Moonilal: In Marabella. You told the workers they will have shares in the

restructured company. Where would that come from? Is that also on the cards?

Would the workers then have interest in Heritage, Paria, Guaracara, petroleum

holding? What, where and how? They must tell us.

You see, Madam Speaker, they are making a bigger issue out of the medical

fund, so presumably Petrotrin will continue to hold the medical fund and so on,

and the pension plan, of course, that will continue. But you see, the Prime Minister

cannot escape responsibility for a critical matter in this. Is that upon entering

office something happened with this Government and that is why I came back to

the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West. I said there were two new

155




UNREVISED

issues raised, one was by each. Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West raised a very

interesting point. He said when presentations were being made at the Cabinet

management of Petrotrin came, and management—and I will just paraphrase

because it may not be the exact words, but it is the effect. He say management

came with information, documents and whatever, but you could not trust that

information. It was inaccurate, or the Government had reason to believe it was not

completely accurate, the information. Did you say something to that effect?

Mr. Young: It is the board. The board picked that up.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Okay. Good. So let me be very clear. The board picked up that

the management information, documents, reports were incorrect. That is a

fascinating issue now because it means, in Government, they had reached the point

with Petrotrin, and probably other state enterprises, where they have a political

board in place—because that is a politically appointed board—you have a board

with competence of one kind or another—that is why you appoint them, eh. They

have competence in management, accounting, law, and so on—and the

management you believe cannot be trusted.

You know what has been the solution to this? They have subcontracted out

the Government. They have subcontracted the Government to

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young and other companies. Do you know an

incoming government in this country in a few months—you know what an

incoming government has the do? An incoming government has to go by

Pricewaterhouse’s office in Port of Spain and say, “Could you return our

government please? We want to run the affairs of Trinidad and Tobago.” Because

today, as we talk, PricewaterhouseCoopers and other entities are in Petrotrin and

they are the ones who are working out all the data, collecting data—the IT data—

156




UNREVISED

collecting information, working out packages and so on. They were in HDC doing

a lot of things which were the subject of another debate. They were all over in

state enterprises. So we have to take back the Government.

A government of the United National Congress will have to go and take

back the government from PricewaterhouseCoopers [Desk thumping] because the

Government of the day believe that they cannot trust managers in the state sector,

that managers there are either incompetent or they are deliberately misleading them

and they cannot trust them. That is a very, very dangerous position to be in

because you see, all from Eric Williams time to today, you put your political board

in place with competence, and when that board go there they will assess the

management and what is required. What is not required they will make the

necessary changes according to law, corporate governance, and you will have an

entity on the move.

You cannot have these entities driven by external players like these, and it

brings me now to a key issue I want to raise in this context, Madam Speaker. You

see, Madam Speaker, there are two mega controversies surrounding Petrotrin.

Two! One is famously called the AV Drilling matter, and investigations that are

ongoing with that matter involving what could be $100 million. When I raised the

matter months ago, the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West said, no,

no, no, I was wrong because I said when Petrotrin is closed or—you know we are

getting into a situation where we are not closing Petrotrin but everybody going

home. So it will open with people-less in a sense, paper way, and somebody will

come in at some time. I just want to ask the Government, as of today, November

14th, could they name one person who was formerly working at Petrotrin who has

been reemployed in any company? I am not sure one person exists who has been

157




UNREVISED

reemployed. But they said that Petrotrin itself is not closing down, but everybody

going home.

Now, the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West is right, I believe,

when he says look these matters can continue because Petrotrin will continue as a

company. So the matters can continue. But the matter continuing itself,

investigations, whether it is from the police or for civil purposes, who are

witnesses? Who are the people you will depend upon for evidence, for

information, for documents? Madam Speaker, I can now tell you that the people

who will be needed to prosecute in civil or any criminal matter, they all received

their papers to go home. So they have gone home. They gone. Some of them will

be looking for jobs here and they will be looking for jobs aboard.

The two major controversies and one—you know there was very curious—it

was “curiouser”—just two days ago, maybe 48 hours ago, TV6 had a major

scandal revelation, quoting from a report months ago, involving Petrotrin dealing

what is called the Boodoosingh Company, and in a nutshell what they are saying is

due to an internal audit they found that this company call Boodoosingh was able

over time to, in a way, siphon gas fuel products out by having different

compartments in a truck. So in a simple way, if they were putting fuel into a truck,

part was hidden and they would not check that part and they would go with it in a

simple way.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: A hidden chamber.

Dr. R. Moonilal: A hidden chamber in a vehicle and so on. But you know who

exposed that scandal? It was not an external PricewaterhouseCoopers. It was not

detective from Houston or London. It was the internal auditors of Petrotrin who

did that. [Desk thumping] A & V who exposed that. It was exposed on the

158




UNREVISED

political platform by the Member for Siparia [Desk thumping] using information

from internal auditors. All these people have lost their jobs. Do you think

someone in the labour market looking for employment, whether in the four

companies you set up or outside, will have the time, commitment, interest in

following a matter for civil or criminal prosecution?

So the chances are AV Drilling and all of that matter went down the drain.

The chances are the Boodoosingh’s scandal, which we are reading about as well,

went down the drain because nobody will be submitting themselves when—

imagine an internal auditor has an application in at Paria Trading and then they

expect them to go and talk against Petrotrin or against somebody who is related to

somebody, a friend of somebody in high office. Who is doing that? “So the

witnesses gone”. So to say the company will continue is a moot point. There will

be no flesh and bodies to support any investigation, civil or criminal into AV

Drilling or Boodoosingh scandal with the fuel, and it is a legitimate question to ask

whether those considerations were also on the table. Because when we look at this

mystery before us, what is happening is that no technical report, whether it is

McKinsey, whether it is Solomon, whether is Lashley, whether it is anybody, no

report is saying that close down the refinery, close down Petrotrin.

In fact, the Chairman of Petrotrin, as difficult as we find his demeanour and

his contribution, went to the Industrial Court under oath and he said, “I took no

such decision. I never say close down Petrotrin.” Never said that. But, Madam

Speaker, where did it come from and why did it come from? Why? Why? And

when we asked they cannot point us to any technical report or submission that

recommended close refinery, close this, close that.

In that Industrial Court what is also instructive is that one Mr. David

159




UNREVISED

Abdulah, who is not UNC—in fact, more than he is political leader of another

party in competition with the United National Congress—goes to the Industrial

Court and he says, “Petrotrin closure a con job. A con job.” Madam Speaker,

David Abdulah, “Petrotrin not in default”. Abdulah is saying in no uncertain terms

in the court—this is under an oath, eh. This man is not standing up by the

standpipe and talking you know. He said the company was overburdened with

debt—we know that—but it has not been profitable in the last three years and has

not been paying its taxes. He is saying this in 2018, so what three years he is

talking about? It is the last three years he is saying that Petrotrin has not been

profitable in the last three years, has not been paying it taxes. And he said it is a

false narrative to place in the public domain that Petrotrin is in default. He said

Petrotrin has move defaulted, and to correct the record the Member for Diego

Martin West raised it, Mr. Abdulah may not have been a member of the energy

subcommittee, but he was also incidentally a member of a team that they put in

place to look at restructuring the company and so on. So he was a member of that

team. It was a Government appointed team.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: The Lashley.

Dr. R. Moonilal: The Lashley Committee was it?

Hon. Members: Yeah, yeah.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Yes, he was a member of the Lashley Committee—

[Interruption]

Mr. Indarsingh: He was a member of the Economic Advisory Board.

Dr. R. Moonilal:—and member of the Economic Advisory Board which is close

enough to the Government policy position and thinking. So he is saying under

oath that Petrotrin paid its taxes. It was making a profit three years ago. What

160




UNREVISED

happened? As soon as they come they say the managers giving us inaccurate

information. They fired managers you know. In the Parliament we ask questions.

Three and four top level managers gone. So Mr. Abdulah is saying that this is a

con job where they deliberately brought the image of this corporate entity into

disrepute so that they can easily close down and say “Look what happened now.

You see, we telling you that all the time. We telling you that all the time.” But

they were never in default.

The Member for Diego Martin West, they rattled out all the numbers that we

cannot, incidentally, verify. You know in this debate, incidentally, they can call

any number they want, eh. We cannot verify that. So I cannot stand up here and

say the Prime Minister told us a number that is not true, because I do not have

access to that. I do not know whether it is true or not true, Madam Speaker. But

what I could tell you is Petrotrin never defaulted in that way. [Desk thumping]

They were paying their debts up to 2015 and what did we do because that is the

saying. We had a whole public meeting on what we did. We issued statements.

The Member for Siparia held a press conference—I think it was in Chaguanas—

and spoke at length about what the last Government was doing to restructure

Petrotrin and for Petrotrin to meet its financial and organizational challenges. We

spoke at length to that, and I think in a Monday night forum a whole meeting was

spent on that.

We were very clear on what we were doing. [Desk thumping] And as

Caroni East said earlier—Caroni East said it—in 2015 or thereabout, before we

demitted office, Petrotrin was able to get a loan without even a Government

guarantee [Desk thumping] because the international financial community had

confidence in Petrotrin.

161




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Member for Oropouche East, your original speaking time is

now spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes if you wish to complete your

contribution.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Yes, Ma’am.

Madam Speaker: Please proceed.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, thank

you and I will move on. Sometimes I feel this clock works too fast when I am on

my legs, but I know it is not so. Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: While I do appreciate your humour, I keep the time.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Yes, Madam Speaker. That is why I told you I do not believe it

is so. The Members opposite—I just want to make a point because it was here.

The Attorney General spoke, of course, and made heavy weather, you know,

accused us of all sort of things, as he would naturally want to do, but again he did

not raise the issue of the history of this matter.

And, Madam Speaker, where we are today we have a Bill before us and I do

not want to completely ridicule those people who draft these Bills and so on, but

when it came to us and we had to read this, even with my glasses on I am seeing

map 2, map C and so on. Now clearly, it cannot be that you give Members of

Parliament something to read and you put these maps in this way [Desk thumping]

where you cannot even understand where is road, where is bush, where is water,

where is anything. This is like a colouring book that they gave us a couple days

ago that you cannot understand.

Now, had you a more mature approach you could have taken this piece of

legislation, have some dialogue where Members of Parliament—including Caroni

East who raised it earlier—would ask more questions on acreage, ask more

162




UNREVISED

questions on assets of Petrotrin. For example, Petrotrin has residential properties

not only in Pointe-a-Pierre, but in Santa Flora, in Point Fortin, Fyzabad, Penal,

Mayaro. I suspect in North West of Trinidad as well they have that. They

operate—Petrotrin has golf clubs or club. They are grooming the courses. As the

Member for Diego Martin West told us earlier, they must groom those courses

otherwise they fall into—[Interruption]

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Bungalows.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Yes, they have bungalows. Do you know at one time the

Manning administration had spent millions of dollars, 43 million to do what?

Mr. Padarath: Cabinet retreat.

Dr. R. Moonilal: To Cabinet retreat in Santa Flora.

Madam Speaker: Please. Continue, Member.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Thank you. The Manning administration had spent $43 million

to upgrade and refurbish Petrotrin bungalows for Cabinet retreat meeting. That is

the situation.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is limited, I want to get to new points and

not repeat some things. Why do we make all this issues? Why do we come today

and repeat and put back the Malcolm Jones years, put back the administration of

that period today? It is very relevant. And it is relevant because if you manage the

affairs of the country and you do not have serious Cabinet oversight over state

enterprises taking investment decisions as Petrotrin did, you will end up in the

position you end up today. [Desk thumping]

When World GTL came here, Members of the Opposition, I remember,

asked, how did you find them? Did you put an international tender out that you

wanted to go into this area or this downstream area, and companies all over the

163




UNREVISED

world applied, put in their submissions? How did World GTL come? And then

we discovered that it was Prof. Ken Julien who had some type of relationship with

David Loring and the bunch and brought them down. You know what is familiar

and relevant today? How did Sandals come? We are talking procurement, how

did Sandals come? [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, I put it to you today that Sandals—scandal—is a World

GTL in the making [Desk thumping] because it is the same approach of having

partner, inviting for billion dollar investment, and you know what is happening?

World GTL was the example, so I route it in World GTL. The Government,

meaning the taxpayer, put out the money. They do not put out money. They come

into the country and say no, no, no, we have no money you know. You bring the

money, you guarantee the loan. In the case of World GTL, they promised to build.

In the case of Sandals, in Tobago, they say you building.

Madam Speaker: Member for Oropouche East, I will not allow you to talk about

Sandals. You could continue about World GTL if you wish.

Dr. R. Moonilal: Okay. Yeah. Madam Speaker, let me then clarify. The World

GTL model of investment policy and construction is a model that should not be

followed today by any entity. [Desk thumping] That model is what we are

condemning today. I am calling on the Government to look closely at the model of

the World GTL where they came in without money, they promised you

technology, they promised you we will do designs—that sound familiar? But I do

not want to call that name. World GTL told you they have technology, they have

financing, which was untrue, they have materials, they have the technical know-

how, they are doing the designs for you, but you pay all the money; and you did.

The Government at that time did pay, and more than that the Government went and

164




UNREVISED

guaranteed not only theirs, as the Prime Minister said earlier, they guaranteed not

only their commitment, but the commitment of World GTL too, and when the

matter hit the ceiling, hit the fan, we were left here to pick up that bill, and today

that is directly relevant for your vesting.

Madam Speaker, some small questions I want to ask concerning the way

forward related to the vesting issue. You know the obscenity really, which the

Government cannot catch is that you told this country that you cannot any more

carry Petrotrin because of the cost of wages, and then you hire a CEO at $250,000

a month. Now, we know that good expertise is hard to find and so on. We know

that. You do not have to give us that mantra. But could you imagine the obscenity

of telling people you have to lose your job and then hire somebody for 250,000?

And then they portrait Petrotrin—you see there is an attack here—as the Member

for Couva South eloquently put it—on the working people, on the middle class.

People who went to school, get an education, get a job, we attack them today for

that.

Do you know there are workers in Petrotrin who are going home with

$86,000? They work seven years in Petrotrin and because of the arrangement with

contract, temporary, or whatever, they are going home with $86,000. How far

would that carry someone at the age of 30, 35 years? Where is that carrying you?

There is another issue to root it. There are people in Petrotrin who you are sending

home who have mortgages, who owe the banks money, who have medical

expenditure, who have HDC, who owe HDC. Would you put in place—the Prime

Minister announced today—some type of tax break on their payments? Would you

also put something in place so that they can get some type of relief from

mortgages? You saw in the flood recently people lost all their furniture and then

165




UNREVISED

have to go to Courts to pay for it. The same thing is happening here.

They are workers, employees— In fact, you know for some of banks—I

will not call the name of the bank, but a banker told me recently they said Petrotrin

is their favourite clientele because the Petrotrin workers enjoy a tenure. They

come for loans for their house, for expansion, for jobs, for education for their

children. He said Petrotrin has always been the favourite client—their workers—

to the banks, what will happen now to the banks that they call in their loans from

these workers and these workers have to meet their commitments? And to stand

up today and say well $2 billion for the workers, not knowing that there are many,

many workers there who will not get more than $80,000/$90,000. Same thing

happened in Caroni too, and there are many workers, for example, who would have

been on contract for many years.

Do you know there are people who worked in Petrotrin for 20 years, and

because they cannot satisfy certain requirements—they are contract seasonal and

so on—and they cannot satisfy a requirement for the last five years, 750, I think,

days— There is a requirement that in the last five years you must have 750 days.

You know, because they cannot satisfy that requirement having worked for 15

years, 10 years, they get nothing? They get nothing and that is no fault of their

own. It is when they have work, when they call them to work. So you are dealing

with a crisis of immense proportion [Desk thumping] and to dismiss it away as raw

economic and you have no choice; you had a choice. You came in and change the

board three times—[Interruption]

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: And one resigned.

Dr. R. Moonilal: One resigned, then you had managers coming and going. The

Petrotrin was a revolving door for managers and board members, till finally

166




UNREVISED

something happened here and those on this side raised a red flag. When they

started to appoint board members as executive managers, we raised the red flag.

We said that was improper. Those same managers, Espinet and whoever, went on

to preside over this matter. As my friend lower down the Bench told me, he said

this is really a tale of “Wiley, Riley”, and who else?

Hon. Members: Smiley.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. R. Moonilal: And Smiley. This is a tale of “Riley, Wiley and Smiley” and

this is where we have arrived but it is not a smiling matter because, Madam

Speaker, the people who will hurt the most are not them, it is the persons who are

employed—well, who were formerly employed at Petrotrin. They have the

dubious distinction, one person who I know, of going around the company with a

bag of letters to dismiss people and you know the last letter on the stack is his own.

The final job of the assassin is to be killed.

So, Madam Speaker, the other is really a couple of comments I had earlier

on a presentation made by the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West.

Well, as I said, I do not want to get into his adversarial matters and so on. There

are many issues and because of the way the Government handled these matters,

you will always have confusion, and the confusion is not being fuelled from the

Opposition. You know, the Prime Minister tonight crying that the Opposition is

fuelling confusion and—“what the Prime Minister think? We here to provide

what?” Employee Assistance Programme? Yeah. What is our job? “To put ah

couch and tell the workers come and sit down in the Opposition Leader office.”

That is not our job. Our job is to stand up for the rights of the citizens, [Desk

thumping] to protect the taxpayers’ money. That is our job. They have an EAP for

167




UNREVISED

calling people in for counselling, we are not counsellors. [Crosstalk] And they

shut that down, I think they lost their job too.

So, Madam Speaker, the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann’s West, I

want to tell him that our job is not to counsel workers, “dais na our job”. It is to

secure the interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] And

their own Member, a member of their Cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture I

believe he is, sound an alarm. It came from the most amazing source when he

sound an alarm publicly to say that ship trading in the region, an American

political imperatives today given the crisis we face at a global level and America’s

role in the crises all over the world and their energy security interest, he is saying

to us that there is no guarantee that fuel will come to Trinidad in a timely and

regular manner and it could disrupt the flow of fuel into the country.

Because as of now, and I say without derogatory term, Trinidad and Tobago,

today, is really like any other Caricom nation that did not have an energy sector.

We are energy dependent today. Today, Trinidad and Tobago is an energy

dependent territory. Like any other Caricom territory, we are in that boat today

and I do not say it in a derogatory manner. We are energy independent and if we

do not get fuel, the cars stop going, machines stop operating, services collapse,

planes stop flying. So we are in that boat and Minister of Agriculture, Land and

Fisheries sound the alarm. Why do they not respond to him and accuse him of

destabilizing the country? [Desk thumping]

So, Madam Speaker, these are some of the issues, I know other colleague

will have other angles and so on, I thank you for your attention. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Member for Siparia.

Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar SC (Siparia): Thank you very much, Madam

168



Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Speaker. I remember a song by the very famous David Rudder and he sang about

Trinidad and Tobago being the land of oil and music. You remember it, I am sure,

Ma’am, I see you smiling. The land of oil and music. Let us remember it was that

very same oil is where we got the steel pan. The only acoustic instrument to be

developed in the world in the last century and this century as well. And here we

are today, basically slaughtering the land of oil and it is a time when we must stand

up and face the music. So when the hon. Member for Diego Martin West accuses

the Opposition of utilizing what is taking place with Petrotrin that we are seeing it

as a political opportunity and poor fella, song and dance all over the world, went

back to years and years with BWIA, when CAL took over BWIA. He went back

to Caroni, he went back to—there is another one. All the various—Caroni, BWIA.

He did mention the other ones that were divested. Went back to all of those and

what we wanted to hear and what the country wants to hear is about Petrotrin and

what is going to happen to Petrotrin. [Desk thumping]

The Member accused us of fearmongering, of creating fear in people’s

minds and it struck me how out of touch this Government is when the head of the

Government is totally out of touch with reality. [Desk thumping] Trinidad and

Tobago is not a real place, because if it were, I am sure he would have consulted

with the Member for Point Fortin before he told this Parliament that we have a

brand new hospital in Point Fortin. Nothing is further from the truth. There is a

hospital that we started, it is under construction but it is not a brand new hospital

with how many beds. If there were beds inside there, they would all be water

soaked by now. Out of touch with reality and those same Point Fortin people are

going to be affected by this closure of the refinery. People in Point Fortin—when

last did the Prime Minister go into places like Point Fortin, Marabella, Pointe-a-

169




UNREVISED

Pierre and so on and really talk to people, listen to people or even to his own MPs

to find out how people out there are afraid of on their own. So it is not the

Opposition fearmongering and creating the fear, it is people are fearful [Desk

thumping] and they are asking us to raise these issues. So if you come down, you

talk to somebody there—a young couple, both of them employed in Petrotrin or

would be until November 30th, took out a mortgage a couple of years ago. They

have three little children, what are they going to do? How are they going to feed

them? How are they going to send them to school? How are they going to pay the

mortgage? Well, for those of you who have money, you will see a lot of houses

coming up on the market for sale. That is already happening and this is going to

exacerbate it. And then when—I listened, I cannot believe a word any one of those

people say, not a word I can believe so I like to look at documents.

The Member for San Fernando West, you know, talks about people being

intellectually lazy and they did not read the Bill. Well, I want to say to him, leave

Sen. Saddam alone and they should revoke your law degree [Desk thumping] and

they should revoke your appointment as Attorney General because you are the

master mind, the drafter of this Bill that is before us and elementary things in this

Bill. So you cry, song and dance, how things bad, bad, bad, and when you come to

do, “you cyah even do it properly”. [Desk thumping] You cannot even bring a Bill

to give effect to what you say you want to do.

Let us read it. I will read the Bill. This is where we go. I will read the

Preamble of the Bill first. It says:

“Whereas Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter referred

to as ‘PETROTRIN’), a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago and

registered under the Companies Act…”—et cetera—“has agreed to transfer

170




UNREVISED

all of…”—its—“assets relative to its exploration and production operations

to Heritage Petroleum Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as

‘Heritage Petroleum’), a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago…”

When did Petrotrin decide this? When did Petrotrin decide this? Why on the face

of your Bill you are telling an untruth? [Desk thumping] You are telling us

Petrotrin has agreed to transfer assets. The Chairman of Petrotrin told the world,

under oath, “it wasn’t me”. He took the Shaggy defence: “it wasn’t me”. And the

Prime Minister stood here then and told us it was the Cabinet. So when did

Petrotrin take this decision? On the 28th of August, the Chairman announced what

was going to happen and a couple days later, the Prime Minister gave an address to

the nation. So when did Petrotrin meet and pass a resolution? What is the date of

that resolution? If it is that Petrotrin agreed, then it would be that Petrotrin, the

board would have sat but the Chairman said it was not him.

It continues:

“…whereas it is expedient to vest all…assets relative to…”—E&P—“of

PETROTRIN in Heritage…”

Expedient for whom? For whom is it expedient to vest all of this in Heritage?

And others, Petrotrin financiers agreed to transfer into Paria, to transfer into

Guaracara, to transfer into Heritage and throughout, it is expedient. To whom is it

expedient? It certainly is not expedient for the energy security of Trinidad and

Tobago. [Desk thumping] It is not expedient for the economy of Trinidad and

Tobago and above all, it is not expedient for the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

[Desk thumping] This decision, as others have told us, will have far-reaching

effects and I want to warn the population you know. I am not fearmongering, do

not believe a word.

171




UNREVISED

[MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Just a couple weeks ago, my colleague mentioned it, Minister of Public

Utilities: “Nobody gonna lose their jobs in TSTT”. A few weeks later, what

happens? What happened? I have a document here that was sent out to the

workers of TSTT. Yeah, sent out to the union yesterday. TSTT, Mr. Clyde Elder,

Secretary General, Communications Workers Union on the letterhead of TSTT and

it is dated November 12th. That is yesterday? No, two days ago, November 12th.

Reference is made to the meeting of October 26th, 2018 between the

company and your union relative to company’s new business model in

accordance with the provisions of Articles 3 and 13 respectively and of the

subsisting collective agreements.

So first of all, they are going into a new business model. In other words, they will

be restructuring. Similar, Petrotrin is being restructured.

Subsequent to the extensive presentation at the meeting under reference, the

company gave the undertaking to provide your union with certain

documents.

In this regard, please find: job descriptions representing you and our

modified jobs; the list of proposed positions to be made redundant

consequent to the implementation of the new structure.

And attached to this TSTT letter is a list of proposed positions to be made

redundant.

Mr. Imbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order on a point of order, 48(1). This

is not a debate about TSTT.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One second. Overruled, proceed. Proceed, proceed.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just

172




UNREVISED

to remind my colleagues, I am talking about the loss of jobs. [Desk thumping].

And I went further to say that I do not believe what they say and I gave this as an

example where they said nobody would lose their job and then we get a list of the

positions to be redundant. And listed here are 99 positions that people are going to

become redundant. People are saying it is 100 persons who will lose their jobs at

TSTT. That is not what that means. It is not 100 persons, it is about 100 positions.

So if you have a technical engineer, for example, how many of those do they have?

If they have clerks, how many of those will they have? I am told that they have

about 2,000 workers. And will this be a case of all, all, all again? I do not know,

that all will go. The word in the company is that about 40 to 50 per cent of these

people will become jobless before Christmas. Just like these Petrotrin workers,

that is the Christmas gift given to the workers of this country. And so, we are

talking about workers and the loss of jobs and our inability to believe anything that

the Government says. So for whom is it expedient? That is where I come off the

Bill to talk about. It says it is expedient.

So on the face of the Bill or in the Preamble, I call upon the Government to

tell us when Petrotrin took these decisions. When Petrotrin took them? Was it

before the Cabinet, after the Cabinet? Was it before the 28th when the

announcement was made? Was it before or after the Prime Minister made his

address to the nation? What did Petrotrin take this decision? As they should.

Petrotrin is a private company in case we did not know. It is a private company

with the shareholder being Corporation Sole and two officers in the Ministry of

Finance, but it is a private company so they have to have a resolution for this to

happen. It is not just that you come by statute to do this, the board, in law, must

pass a resolution for the divestment of whatever it is, assets that you have divested.

173




UNREVISED

So on the face of the Bill, you cannot believe it. It is not true until they could give

us a date of that resolution.

Secondly, they speak about:

“…pursuant to section 6 of the Petrotrin Vesting Act, Chap. 62.07, the

Minister may by Order transfer and vest in PETROTRIN the assets or any of

them which were set out in the…Schedule…

AND WHEREAS such Order has not been completed:

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to vest certain of the…Schedule Assets in

Guaracara…in the manner hereinafter set forth…”

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Member for San Fernando West as a

lawyer, as the person responsible for the drafting of this Bill has done his

homework at all. Because that last Preamble, where you are going to vest certain

matters in Guaracara, talks about Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited,

PSAEL.

“…WHEREAS Palo Seco…Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as

‘PSAEL’), a company incorporated…registered…”—and so on—“has

agreed to transfer certain lands owned by PSAEL comprising…”—about—

“three thousand, seven hundred…acres…”

When did PSAEL pass a resolution? When did they meet? Did they meet at all?

And I am—respectfully, they did not meet to pass any resolution to make any

agreement [Desk thumping] and I will tell you why. When I asked if the Attorney

General really did his homework or anyone on that side, you talking about you get

the best in class, you paid them $63 million and all these things, how can you come

to now vest lands from PSAEL into Guaracara when those lands are vested in

Petrotrin? [Desk thumping] That is why, you know—and I will show you how it

174




UNREVISED

happened because we did it. We did it in 2015 in February. We brought a vesting

Order to take the PSAEL and vest those lands, the 3,000 plus acres into Petrotrin.

So you have to amend that eh. You have to take out PSAEL from there and you

have to, again, put Petrotrin and go back and ask Petrotrin to pass a resolution

agreeing to take the PSAEL lands [Desk thumping] and put it into the Schedule.

So the 2015 vesting Order tells us about what assets from Trintoc and Trintopec

and so on were vested in Petrotrin.

I think what the Government has been very negligent, and I would say even

reckless, in their haste to pass this Bill is they have failed to provide either the

country or this Parliament with the Schedule assets. My colleague spoke about the

maps. Fine, you could put a map, okay. I could probably go and look for

somebody. But remember you gave us this Friday eh, two days for no work,

weekends, to get people to assist and two days to prepare to come here on a

massive major matter like this. A massive major matter. I would say the oil

industry is the heart and soul of our country. It is the heartbeat and you come here

for two days, want to rush this debate tonight to fly off to Tobago tonight or

tomorrow.

So here we are, the Petrotrin Vesting Bill, 1993 and I do believe Diego

Martin West was a Member of this Parliament when that Bill came. I was not

there then in 1993. Port of Spain is smiling. Were you there in ’93, Ma’am?

Ms. Mc Donald: No, no, no.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Diego Martin West was here and he contributed to

the debate on the Petrotrin Vesting Act which is now Chap. 62:07, and what that

Act was doing was taking all the assets from all over to bring all into—guess what?

One entity. And what was that entity? Petrotrin.

175




UNREVISED

We have come full serve. You look at a flow chart, you will see three

streams of companies coming into form this one company Petrotrin. This monster

company that they are now demonizing as “ah monster”. So you had Tesoro, you

had bp, Shell, Texaco, all these other companies. All these companies, all foreign

owned you know and then they all came into two streams: Trintoc and Trintopec.

So on the left which is where they all came from, all these foreign companies

going into Trintoc and Trintopec and Trinmar and then finally, all of that going

into where? Petrotrin. So we created this monster or what the Government wants

to name as a monster. Diego Martin West stood here and said this is the best thing

to do, this is the way to go, bring all together, bring all together. Today, he comes

and tells us we must split it up. And we are splitting it up—do not be fooled “yuh

know”, Sir. It is not only three companies are being formed, we have existing

companies that will hold assets, we have new companies that are being formed and

there is one that no—it is like in no man’s land that we are not hearing any mention

of which I will remind them of today.

So you have Heritage first where you are taking the assets for exploration

and production, then you have Paria which is the one to deal with what they are

calling “terminalling”. I am not sure what that really means but that is going to be

an importer company. All that company will be doing is to be importing the

refined products of elsewhere. The third is the Guaracara where they are saying

that they are going to mothball the refinery assets. But there is another one. There

is some company they formed a little while ago, downstream, upstream something.

Yes, Trinidad Upstream/Downstream. Well, that one is still downstream because

no assets, nothing has been vested in it. I suspect that they did not want to come

and remind us about Niquan or did not want us to remember Niquan because that

176




UNREVISED

Upstream/Downstream, when the Minister gave a statement in Parliament, it was

about they are going to put assets in there to deal with Niquan. So that is four.

Look where our energy assets are now. So that is four companies.

Petrotrin will continue to exist because all the things that have not been

taken away in this vested Bill will remain in Petrotrin. I am assuming that eh

because we have not been told. But we just have to assume if you did not put it in

one of these companies, it stays there. Okay, so there is Petrotrin, that is five. So

three new ones. Another new one, Trinidad Holdings Limited. And all these four,

Sir, they were all incorporated on the 5th of October, 2018. So the three in this Bill

but no mention is made of the holding company although that was also

incorporated.

Now, I find it very strange when we look at the company’s documents for

those new companies: Guaracara—they are identical in most regards. They are

identical. Mr. Speaker, before I go into those, I think I should make it very clear.

The Attorney General has returned. I want to ask him kindly to consider the

provision where you have in this Bill before us where you are talking about

PSAEL lands and those lands have already been vested by Legal Notice in

February of 2015 are already in Petrotrin so PSAEL cannot agree to transfer

anything and we should not be in this Parliament passing anything with wrong

information on it. [Desk thumping]

When you read the vesting Order in 2015, you will see it says that the assets

set out in the Schedule are transferred to and vested in Petrotrin as of the appointed

day. This is February 2015 and all PSAEL lands going to Petrotrin are set out in a

Schedule. A proper schedule by the way, the blocks of the land, they are there, the

blocks, the numbers, the cadastral, all of that is in the Schedule. That is what we

177




UNREVISED

should have gotten in this Bill eh know. We should have gotten all those

assessments within the Bill.

And so here, look at the assets being transferred. In the Quarry, Coora part

of Trinidad and in Palo Seco, these are the lands. So Petrotrin is now the owner of

these lands. Lands required by Petrotrin, sorry, this is in the Palo Seco

Agricultural Enterprises Limited vested in Petrotrin, parcels required by Petrotrin,

acres, 1,828 acres, two roads, 21 purchased. That is Coora Quarry. And then we

have Palo Seco, whole parcels required by Petrotrin, 892 acres and then 1,003.

And when you add these up, Sir, and when you look at the map which I had grave

difficulty looking at, had to get someone to help me to look at the map in the Bill

of the PSAEL and it is identical parcel of lands. The same parcel that is already in

Petrotrin.

Mr. Padarath: Laziness.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: And therefore, that is intellectual laziness, I agree.

[Desk thumping] And attacking your Sen. Saddam for expressing his views as a

young politician calling on people to revoke his law degree, a seasoned politician

like San Fernando West, I say your degree should be withdrawn [Desk thumping]

and you should withdraw yourself or the Prime Minister move you out, revoke you

as Attorney General to bring a Bill like this that is so important for them, that is so

flawed. It is so legally flawed just on the face, just reading it. You can see that the

homework was not done, one; and two, it is incorrect to say Petrotrin took that

decision, it is incorrect to say—you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if a lawyer out

there had attempted to make a deed, transferring lands from PSAEL to Heritage or

to Guaracara, you know what that is? Fraud Squad looking for him eh know.

Because PSAEL does not own the lands. The lands are vested in Petrotrin, so that

178




UNREVISED

is a fraudulent action taking place there. [Desk thumping] Fraudulent. Port of

Spain North smiling because he knows it is true. You cannot take lands that do not

own—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, Member, one second. Princes Town, please, you

continue to echo accordingly, so please, there is a procedure. Proceed, Member for

Siparia.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Yes, Sir. “Any person out there try to transfer

something that do not belong to them is Fraud Squad.” So how can we support

this? It is fundamentally flawed. [Desk thumping] Fundamentally flawed.

So I wanted to look at the actual company documents, the incorporation

documents. The first point about them is that every one is the same except the

name of the company. So let us look at the Articles of Association. One, all

incorporated October 5th, eh, 2018. Name of company: Paria Fuel Trading

Limited. Name of company: Heritage. Name of company: Guaracara. Liability of

members, limited by shares. Is this a public company? No. I am saying these

facts hold for all of the four new companies, all of them. The classes of shares and

any maximum number of shares in each class, unlimited number of ordinary

shares. Restrictions, if any, on share transfers or share ownership, none and I have

a serious, serious problem with that. Firstly, there is no statement filed as to who is

the shareholder so they could bark loud or bark what, only when I see that lodged

in the Companies Registry, I will be satisfied because I do not believe you. [Desk

thumping] So there is no shareholder listed in the company documents, let us start

there. No shareholder.

And then now, you are saying restrictions, if any, on share transfers or share

ownership. So you want to tell me, you vest these assets, billion-dollar assets. In

179




UNREVISED

fact, I am told in the last financials 2017, the asset base of Petrotrin was valued at

about $40 billion so we are splitting up in these three and four different companies.

And they put two directors at the moment. Only two are named. It is the same two

names throughout in all the new companies. And you are saying there is no

restriction for share transfer. Should it not be that the shareholder, meaning the

Government, as the representative of the people of Trinidad and Tobago should be

subject to a restriction for Corporation Sole as the shareholder? [Desk thumping]

So then all kinds of deals could go down. If that does not happen, we do not put

restrictions for transferring shares, then whoever is there, two to seven persons

become board members. So these seven people could go in there and transfer all

the shares out of the refinery too, whoever, however. We had the WGTL thing

there where you had a partner and what happened? “Partner gone bankrupt and

bankrupt you too.” Similar things can happen.

You have your refinery there, you are looking for partners, we do not know

what kind of partnership you will enter into, what RFPs will bring but there should

be a restriction that Corporation Sole must know. [Desk thumping] That means

that the people of Trinidad and Tobago must know that you do not pick up shares

and give your friends and family, you do not make deals. So that is missing. We

do not know who is the shareholder on the face of the document, one, and

secondly, there are no restrictions on share transfers or share ownership. No

restriction.

Then restrictions, if any, on powers of directors to amend by-laws. Guess

what? None, none. Again, this should be subject to Corporation Sole as the

trustee on behalf of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. It is not in the company

documents, I do not if you will amend these documents but so far, this is all we

180




UNREVISED

have for all the new companies. So that is identical, Sir, for all the new companies

that have been formed to deal with this splitting up of the Petrotrin assets.

Then we come to an item, item 10, I believe it is, in the Articles, number of

intended employees. Sorry, that is cited 9 in the Articles, nine all of them.

Number of intended employees. The first one, Heritage, it says 800 intended

employees. The second one which is Paria Fuel Trading, 200. The third one

which is Guaracara, you know what this says? Number of intended employees, I

have it here, one and Guaracara is where we are vesting all “we” refinery assets.

Billions of dollars of taxpayers’ value and you have one intended employee. Well

first of all, it is bad enough from the almost 5,000, you are only going to have eight

and two, 1,000. [Crosstalk]

9.00 p.m.

So you have 1,001. It is frightening, you know. This is the frightening thing

because—you remember the fake oil scandal?—the new one that has come out

with the fake gasoline, or whatever it is. So you are going to have one person. So

when this thing shuts down on the 30th, what is going to happen with those assets?

You remember Caroni? Vandalism, looting, “tief out all de tractors”. What are the

measures that are going to be put in place? [Interruption] One employee.

And then you come to the other company, Sir, which is the holding

company, Trinidad Petroleum Holdings. Do you know what it says about intended

employees? So first was 800, then 200, then one. Do you know what it says about

the holding company? None. Intended employees, none. These are the

documents filed. These are the things that you filed in the company’s registry,

signed by Mr. Espinet. I have no problems with Mr. Espinet, you know. But

listen, this man said:

181




UNREVISED

I do state as true and correct that none of the signatories of the Article is an

individual who is so described in the Companies Act and all requirements

pressing into formation, incorporation, under the Act have been complied

with.

—so none.

What is going to happen to that refinery? The Prime Minister says we are

fear-mongering. We should be afraid. [Desk thumping] We should be afraid.

Forty billions of assets. We should be afraid.

And then now we come to, again, the Member for San Fernando West,

again, who is the advisor to the Cabinet, who will not tell the Cabinet, “you cannot

hire Wiley”. I do not care if Wiley is a good person, bad person, indifferent

person. I am not concerned about the person. I am concerned about the law of

Trinidad and Tobago. So let us pull that file up David—Mr. Wiley. What would

happen with the Wiley hiring, you see? There is an Act called the Petroleum Act

of Trinidad and Tobago and that Act has regulations made under it, regulations

made under the Petroleum Act. So I am asking, and I am in fact going to answer

the question. Was the decision to hire the new CEO of Heritage, was it illegal?

My colleagues have already raised issues about this, with respect to—

[Interruption]—Are you speaking to me? My colleagues have talked about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Thank you, Sir; maybe I should not look at them

and look at you. My colleagues have raised the fact that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, before you go to the point, your initial 30 minutes

have expired. You have an additional 15. Care to avail yourself?

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Most certainly, Sir.

182




UNREVISED


Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: My colleagues have dealt with the issues relating

to Mr. Wiley, the fact that he was hired for a company that was not yet formed.

That is bad enough, eh? The fact is he is hired by Petrotrin. We were told that he

was hired by Petrotrin by none other than the Member for Diego Martin West,

right here in this Parliament. So he is hired by Petrotrin to work for whom?

Heritage. That too is bad enough. So it is bad enough that he was not—you hire a

man for a job, that the job has not yet been created. The company does not exist.

And it is bad enough, as I am saying, that he is hired not by the company that has

to—that he is going to be working for.

In fact, I saw this man post up something saying his present position is CEO

of what? Heritage whatever, whatever. In October, he posted that up. Okay.

However, Sir, we are governed by the laws of the Republic of Trinidad and

Tobago and the day we break these laws we do not deserve to be in government.

[Desk thumping] We do not deserve to be in government. The Prime Minister told

us so far that they took the decision, Petrotrin took the decision, to hire somebody

for a next company. So Heritage probably had to come and ratify that decision as

the company where he is supposed to be working. The Prime Minister said so far

Petrotrin has used international recruitment processes to hire one person of the

highest calibre so far because it is the intention of Petrotrin to use international

benchmarking, so the oil company would be engaged in oil company production.

There are very important issues coming out of this, and then of course, there

is also the real bad, it is a quarter million dollars per month, yes, a salary. What

the hypocrisy, when you say the Petrotrin workers getting too much money, so

what you do? You bring a man to head one-third, in fact it is one quarter of what

183




UNREVISED

was the then Petrotrin and giving him quarter million dollars. What is going to

happen when you bring them for all the other companies? Hypocrisy I say, Sir,

hypocrisy. [Desk thumping]

So, we go to what is known as the Petroleum Regulations. These are made

pursuant to provisions to the Petroleum Act, Chap. 62:01. And that Act goes back

a long way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the early days, because we are over 100 years

in oil, and over the years we have put in a legislative framework to govern what is

to happen in the petroleum sector.

The Petroleum Regulations imposed obligations on licensees under the

Petroleum Act. Petrotrin is a licensee. I mean, you could open the Gazette

anytime—you open the newspaper, you will see where Petrotrin actually applies to

the Minister for a licence to go and do production, exploration, et cetera, et cetera.

And when we see here we are vesting those licences of Petrotrin, some of the

assets represent some of the assets that have been invested in Heritage—so,

licence.

The Petroleum Act says, under Regulation 42(f), a licensee such as Petrotrin

shall:

“…minimise the employment of foreign personnel, ensure that such

employees are engaged only in positions for which the operator cannot, after

reasonable advertisement in at least one daily newspaper circulating in

Trinidad and Tobago, find available nationals of Trinidad and Tobago

having the necessary qualifications and experience…”

Dr. Moonilal: What? “So dey breaking de law again?”

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Yes, of course. So the question is this: I have not

seen any, and I challenge the Government to show us any advertisement, according

184




UNREVISED

to law, [Desk thumping] any daily newspaper for the job of CEO Wiley. These

regulations are that the licensee must comply with this licence obligation. And

under section 5 of the Petroleum Act—so we have the Act and then the

Regulations—under section 5 of the Act they talk about the Minister being charged

with general administration of the Act, and so on, exercising his powers directly,

indirectly, special and general directions. So the usual powers given to a Minister

where something falls under him. You know, where is the Minister of Energy and

Energy Industries? We are here presiding over the slaughter, the butchering, of our

greatest assets and where is the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries? Where

is the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries in this most important debate?

[Desk thumping] But it is him, the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries, who

has responsibility.

Hon. Member: Russians.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Yes.

Mr. Hinds: Who is your leader?

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: I am my own leader, thank you. [Crosstalk and

desk thumping]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Members, please.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: “…the Minister is charged with the general

administration…Any decision made or action taken by the Minister in the

exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties in accordance with

this Act and the Regulations shall be deemed to be made or taken by the

Government and shall be binding thereon.”

So you have caused your Government—the Minister firstly responsible did not

bring this to the attention of the Cabinet and of the Government—has caused this

185




UNREVISED

Government to act against the Petroleum Regulations, against the Petroleum Act.

[Desk thumping]

The Prime Minister said that Petrotrin has used the highest international

recruitment processes to hire one person of highest calibre. And so the Prime

Minister may now want to take advice. Fire that Attorney General and get proper

legal advice. [Desk thumping]

And I go further, you know, and that is where they have very short

memories. But maybe because you are going to fire all the Petrotrin workers,

nobody wants to help you. There is a judgment. There is a case on this very

regulation. The case is Derek Salandy v The Petroleum Company of Trinidad and

Tobago.

Hon Member: Petrotrin, again?

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Yes, but it is the same regulations. That is the

point. It is the identical regulation that I just read that was in question. So this was

filed in 2012. The judgment was given on September 14, 2017—just recently.

Just recently, this judgment was given.

And if you look at paragraph 2, the complainant seeks compensation for

being treated less favourably than Brett. So Mr. Salandy said he was treated less

favourably than Brett and he said that the company breached that same regulation

by hiring a foreigner instead of him. And they wanted a declaration that he was

treated illegally and unfairly and wanted a declaration of the court that Petrotrin

contravened its own employment policy in a manner of the hiring. So exactly the

same thing happened. They had to hire a fella. They did not advertise according

to regulations. They did not proceed in the manner by law and in the judgment at

paragraphs 41 and 42, the court held that:

186




UNREVISED

In our findings of fact the Tribunal noted that the respondent had deviated

from his employment policy to engage in public advertisement of the

vacancy having determined the need to recruit.

So this is the exact—on point—as they say. This is like before digital, what you

had? Analogue. This is the analogue of that situation with Mr. Wiley. So Mr.

Wiley, I have no problem with you, Sir. You may be good, bad or indifferent, but

you are illegally hired by the Government. [Desk thumping]

Okay, I have a lot of things I would really like to say but I will pass it to my

colleagues. There is one other issue. It is still a haunting issue to me, which has to

deal with the need for a certificate of environmental compliance. I had written to

the EMA and said you are going to be—first, that is another thing with this

Government they move the goalposts every day. They are always moving the

goalposts.

So, first they had said shut down. The Prime Minister used the words shut

down the refinery. I believe the Minister of Finance used the word in the budget

debate. Several of them had said shut down the refinery. When I wrote to the

EMA

and I said: Listen, what you doing with that refinery, this shutting down, and so

on, it requires a Certificate of Environmental Clearance under the law, under the

EMA Act. I gave them the section, and so on. Well, after that went, the

Government then changed the word. They said they are not decommissioning,

they are not shutting down, they are doing what? Mothballing. But before you

could mothball, you have to shut down, you know. Mothballing, from my

understanding, you put liquid nitrogen or some kind of nitrogen in the whole plant.

I understand there are about 25 units of things that need to be mothballed inside

187




UNREVISED

there. And you want to tell me you have a—there is something called oil—a

certain kind of oil—which is a very inflammable something that would be in that

refinery there needed to be mothballed. You are going to be affecting security

issues, safety and security issues. So EMA wrote me back and says: Sorry,

Petrotrin says they are not shutting down. They are mothballing. EMA is

absconding from its duty. It is neglecting its duty. I call on the EMA to do the

right thing and I have written them again. [Desk thumping] I have written again. I

have written them again as follows:

Reference is made to your letter of October 9th in response to mine in which

my request for information was laid. In the second paragraph of your letter

you indicated…

—and, I quote:

As Petrotrin has stated that the plant is not being decommissioned the

requirement for a CEC does not apply.

So you are listening to Petrotrin? You have a duty and you have a job, under the

Act, to protect the environment and the safety of people in this country. So

Petrotrin just tell you they are not shutting down, they are not decommissioning.

[Interruption] “Yeah, yuh buy it” hook, line and sinker. In my letter now:

Petrotrin has recently used many words to describe their intentions with the

refinery. I have heard and read the use, closure, they have used it, shut

down, termination, getting out of the refining business and the latest, the

mothballing. I have been advised that decommissioning, whether on a

temporary or permanent basis, is the first step towards mothballing and so

one cannot preserve a mothball, a running or a series of interconnected

operating plants.

188




UNREVISED

So they have to do what? Decommission. They have to shut it down. You have to

get an EIA and you have to get a CEC for this, and I serve notice that if the EMA

does not act, we will go to court on this matter. [Desk thumping]

Finally, there is this one other matter on privatization and that is tied up with

the fact that there are no restrictions on transfer of shares and ownership, that this

thing could go private, go south and totally we lose count of where it is gone and to

whom it is gone.

Support needed for Petrotrin: There have been letters and emails circulating

inside of Petrotrin, which are telling people—yes, support needed, that is the head

of the email. There is an email now, sent by a person by the name of Ajodhasingh.

I believe he is the Deputy Chairman, or something, of the board. So here is an

email he has sent out, dated 12th November. He has sent it to all the managers and

he is telling them—Subject: Your support is needed, phased exit process. What

date I told you? 12th November. Shut down on November 30th. In it he says:

To ensure the smooth and orderly wind-down of your operations, we have

decided to exit on a phased basis. All employees that are not involved in

critical business activity, this decision will not affect exit payments,

employees’ salaries up to November 30th.

And then he sends a guideline. So he tells them: Look, meet everybody, right?

Call these people. Call the managers. Call them in, and this is what you must do:

host a departmental meeting or conduct individual meetings;

be sensitive and cordial in discussions;

identify critical projects or activities you need to be completed until Friday,

November 30th;

express your gratitude to employees for their support; and then ask these

189




UNREVISED

questions.

If these questions are asked, this is how you answer them:

How did you determine which employees should leave?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, you have two more minutes.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: Thank you, Sir. I will be okay with it. Thank

you. How did you determine which employees should leave? So this is what the

managers have to ask these people. “Because I going home, but you not going

home.” How come? Hear the answer: “As we continue to wind down our

operations, certain employees would have reduced work activities. Other

employees whose services are required for the wind-down or transition or whose

output may be required during the next two months have been kept on.” So they

tell us all, all, all, all, but it looks like they are going and keep a few. And how are

you going to hand-pick them? Just tell them, “Well, we need some for the

transition”.

Then, it is important to note—this is the guideline—that those persons who

have been allowed to leave before November 30th, they remain employees until the

30th of November and should be asked to come out to work. [Crosstalk]

Question No. 2: If you were asked this question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Silence on the Government Front Bench, please.

Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar SC: “Why was I chosen as against another employee?”

Hear the answer: “See answer to question 1”; and, look, this thing goes on, Sir.

And then they have a sheet here that they have to tick off: employee ID, your

name, your department, your office keys, your laptop, your radio, your pager, your

cell phone. This thing sounds fatal, terminal, you know. So they are collecting

and there are more things in the guideline.

190




UNREVISED

And finally—40 seconds, Sir—I think the Government should review this

Bill. We do not support the principle of the Bill. [Desk thumping] But even more

fundamentally, the Bill itself is flawed and cannot be passed in the manner it is and

it should be withdrawn. I thank you very much. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Lackram Bodoe (Fyzabad): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for

the opportunity to join this debate. [Crosstalk]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One second. Members, please. Fyzabad—we need to hear

him.

Dr. L. Bodoe: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to

join this debate on the Miscellaneous Provisions (Heritage, Petroleum, Paria Fuel

Trading and Guaracara Refining Vesting) Bill, 2018.

Before I enter into my contribution, I just want to thank the Member for

Siparia for bringing to the attention of the House [Desk thumping] some very

pertinent points, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And again, I would want to join in the

request that, perhaps, the Government should consider before we progress and

proceed with this. But nevertheless, I want to take up the invitation of the Minister

of Finance and the Member for Diego Martin North/East with regard to questions

to be answered.

And I wanted to go directly to the expenditure, in terms of the cost of the medical

plan that was mentioned in the piloting of the Bill of $245 million per year as the

cost of the medical plan for Petrotrin. And on behalf of those employees and

retirees of Petrotrin, I want to raise some questions that I think need to be answered

with regard to the medical plan. If I can draw attention to a recent newspaper

article, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to the Trinidad Guardian of yesterday

and the headline being that OWTU threatens to sue Petrotrin over the new medical

191




UNREVISED

plan, and I quote saying that the President of the OWTU is accusing Petrotrin of

attempting to close down the company’s medical department withoutany

consultation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the medical plan at Petrotrin is a term and condition of

the employment. And one of the issues that these employees are facing currently is

that, having entered into an agreement/a contract, with the expectation that they

would receive certain amount of medical treatment, they are now left in a situation

where they are not certain as to what the future would be with regard to the

medical plan. In fact, speaking to those retirees, many of whom live in my

constituency, it has come to my attention that no one has received in writing any

idea as to what form or shape or fashion the medical plan will take going forward.

I wanted to point out as well one of the concerns, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of

these employees and retirees is that, having been given the assurance of treatment

following retirement, these employees would not have taken the step of investing

in their own private medical plans because they had that assurance from Petrotrin

and, therefore, they are now left in a very difficult position. Many of them being

close to age 50 and 60, and so on, would find it very difficult to buy in into a plan.

So I wanted to make that point.

I also wanted to seek some sort of clarification from the Minister as to what

would become of those employees who would have incurred injuries at the

worksite or would have sustained some sort of illness because of the work

environment, and they would have been guaranteed treatment until they were cured

or treatment for the rest of their life. This was one of the terms and conditions.

And, therefore, what would be their situation going forward?

There has also been quite a bit of talk about some sort of medical plan being

192




UNREVISED

offered, or being outsourced, and the questions that would come to mind is that: if

that is the case, how would the provider of such a medical plan be selected? What

was the process? And really and truly, what would be the scope of such a plan?

So, I am hoping that the Minister, in his winding-up would be able to provide some

answers as to those issues because it is one of the main issues that is troubling the

employees and the retirees.

The issue of what actually happens to Augustus Long Hospital, come the

30th of November, is also a very real issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And I just want to

give you one real example, one real-life example, with regard to a pregnant patient.

But before I do that, I just want to declare an interest. I just want to declare that I

actually am a provider for Petrotrin. I work at the Augustus Long Hospital. So I

want to declare that interest, but to say that my contribution has nothing to do with,

in terms of external providers. I am just speaking on behalf of the patients who

seek attention there and, of course, the workers in the medical department.

So, one of the issues that needs to be answered in the minds, and you have to

understand that because there has not been must communication of information,

Mr. Deputy Speaker, many of these patients are in a little bit of a dilemma. And I

give you a real example of a patient, a pregnant lady, whose baby is due on the 30th

of November and her concern really would be what happens to her, you know,

around that time, whether she goes to Augustus Long Hospital or whether she goes

to another facility closer to that time. So, I am sure that these are answers which

need to be provided.

I also note the fact that the whole issue of the future of the Augustus Long

Hospital was dealt with by the Prime Minister, in the context of the other beds that

are available in Trinidad and Tobago and I take note of that. But I also want to say

193




UNREVISED

that the thinking behind the establishment of the Augustus Long Hospital was to

provide a facility that would cater for workers in the oil industry, and it was a very

visionary, you know, initiative in its time. And I think that the Government should

think carefully as to whether the hospital should be abandoned, as opposed to

strengthening and retaining that hospital, in terms of a part of the health sector, and

especially for catering for those who may suffer injuries, and in terms of, in the

industrial sector from Point Lisas straight down to Point Fortin.

So, I encourage and urge the Government to review the situation with regard

to that hospital. The future of the hospital, which has provided tremendous service

over the years, and it has an extra 50 beds that can be added to the health system.

And, of course, there is also the issue, and if one looks at the Petroleum Vesting

Act, in addition to the Augustus Long Hospital, there is also the issue of eight other

health facilities, they are termed “dispensaries”, in the Petroleum Vesting Act, the

Second Schedule and they are now health facilities that cater overall for the needs

of about 20,000 patients per year from Petrotrin.

The expenditure of $250 million per year was mentioned. I think, you

know, it was mentioned in the context of it being exorbitant. I am not sure, and I

ask whether a cost-benefit analysis has been done. Because, when one looks at

$250 million being spent on 20,000 patients per year, it really works out to about

$12,000—just over $12,000 per patient. And the question really is whether that is

cost-effective. There are issues, and I see the Minister of Health is listening.

There are issues as well, Minister. I know there are issues of inefficiencies, and so

on, in that hospital. And again, it might be an opportunity to review how the

hospital is run, with the intention of increasing the efficiencies.

What was also important is that in 2013, you would be very well aware that

194




UNREVISED

a new operating theatre, state-of-the-art operating theatre, was added to that facility

and there is the potential for that hospital to, rather than be in a situation where the

workers lose their jobs, it can also be a situation as a revenue earner, in terms of

engaging private patients, something that is already being done in that facility. So,

you know, I would urge the Government to look carefully as to where the future of

that hospital goes. And, of course, the concerns with regard to what will happen to

the plant, the equipment, on the 1st of December.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know, I just wanted to mention that. As I said,

there are issues with the hospital. I am sure that, you know, like other aspects of

the Petrotrin operation, there are management issues that can be straightened out,

that can be tightened, to make it a leaner, more efficient organization. They can

look at the income-generating potential, but it does have a role going forward, in

terms of—even specializing can be a facility for industrial medicine, and so on. So

there is a lot of potential. I do not think it should just be abandoned and left alone

and it will add to the health sector.

I just wanted to also raise a few issues with regard to the impact of the

closure of Petrotrin on my constituency of Fyzabad. As you would know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the oil industry and the struggles of the working class in Trinidad

and Tobago have very strong roots in Fyzabad, and today really represents a very

sad day in the lives of many of my constituents who either would have depended

directly for their livelihood from Petrotrin or indirectly, through the operations of

Petrotrin.

In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would allow me, historian Prof. Bridget

Brereton, in chapter 11 of her book entitled A History of Modern Trinidad—and

that chapter is entitled “Oil and the 20th Century Economy”—spoke/recalls a

195




UNREVISED

spectacular fire in 1929, at a runaway well at Dome Field in Fyzabad that killed 16

people. So it is a very sad event but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say that in the context

that the people of Fyzabad, some 90 years later, must be feeling a similar pain, a

turmoil of another kind in the oil industry, but equally devastating has hit them

again. So, you know, I just wanted to draw that example.

9.30 p.m.

And, of course, we have had quite a bit of the history of the oil industry

starting in Fyzabad—I will just mention this because I think it is important to

understand where we came from, where the oil industry came from in terms of how

we go forward, and whether we are making the correct decisions by destroying

and, you know, fractionating to use an industrial term, the industry.

So, in fact, we had in 1913, we had Trinidad Leaseholds began drilling at

Forest Reserve in 1913. And in 1914 the company had constructed the refinery at

Pointe-a-Pierre with a direct line from Forest Reserve well, to Point Fortin. So the

questions that arise in the minds of the constituents of Fyzabad, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, would be the impact of the closure, and besides the direct economic

impact which many of the constituents are facing, there are other issues that have

been raised and these are issues that are related to how Petrotrin will function

going forward, in terms of, Petrotrin has always been a very good corporate citizen

for the constituents of Fyzabad. And, in terms of providing a lot of amenities and

support for the community.

And I just wanted to pick a few points and ask directly, or perhaps the

Minister or those who speak on the other side can, you know, talk about. And I

raise these issues in view of the worsening crime situation, the worsening

economic situation, and whether the community is going to get the same sort of

196




UNREVISED

support that was given before. And one of the first issues would be the

continuation of the Petrotrin Fyzabad—the Club. Because that has been a source

of support to the residents of Fyzabad. There is also the issue of the Apex

playground which has been maintained by Fyzabad, one of the recreation spots,

and very important to encourage sport and recreation and to keep the young people

occupied.

Another issue would be the support for the Siparia Deltones Steel Orchestra,

a very important landmark in Fyzabad and Siparia and which depends quite a bit

on the support from Petrotrin. And perhaps most importantly will be the support

for the Siparia Police Youth Club, which is now dwindling or has not been coming

forward. And again, of course, the police youth clubs play a very important role,

you know, in guiding the young ones going forward.

There have also been the questions with regard to the safety and security of

the wells and the pipelines, very extensive pipelines and wells and so on, within

the community of Fyzabad. The maintenance of many of the roads, have

traditionally depended on Petrotrin and whether that is going to continue going

forward.

There is also an issue that I hope can be addressed and that is the issue of

what we call the Field Road that can take you from Fyzabad to Point Fortin. It

really cuts down the journey from Fyzabad to Point Fortin by almost half an hour

and whether that road is going to remain open for motorists and for those who want

to make that journey. And whether consideration can be given to even making that

a public road, depending on what the availability and what the land use is going to

be for that road passing through the community.

I am also very concerned as well with regard to the issue of regular fuel not

197




UNREVISED

being available. I hope that that is not the case, because if that is the case it is

going to affect the fishermen in the Otaheite area of the constituency and indeed all

areas where fishing is a big issue.

So, those are some of the issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to issues

in the constituency. I would also be interested to hear what sort of, you know,

projects might be planned for Fyzabad in lieu of the closing of the refinery and the

loss of the jobs and so on. So, I am hoping that we can get some answers from the

other side, especially with regard to the future of the medical plan or actually the

details of the medical plan, and the future and the plans for the Augustus Long

Hospital so they can bring some sort of comfort for those who will be affected by

it.

So, I am hoping that the Minister of Health might be able to respond and

give some clarity and give some comfort to the patients who currently depend on

that, on that—[Crosstalk and laughter]—I see that the Minister of Health is

preparing to respond.

So, with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you again for the

opportunity and look forward to some answers. Thank you. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Rodney Charles (Naparima): [Desk thumping] Thank you very much, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. I rise to engage the debate on this the Miscellaneous Provisions


2018. Coming after my leader, the Member for Siparia, she has brought the

conversation and the discourse to such a level, such a high, where she articulated

some of the issues with the legal aspects of the Bill and I

think—and clearly, we have on this side, the intellect available on this side, way

surpasses what we have grown accustomed on the other side.

198



Mr. R. Charles (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: She said they are eating upstairs.


Hon. Member: They have biscuit and cheese. [Laughter]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Go ahead, Member.

Mr. R. Charles: I would like say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we rise here as

patriots, as citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, in standing in defense of the people

and the best interest of our country. [Desk thumping] And, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

we are not afraid to stand alone. We are not afraid to stand alone. For it is said:

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death”—we—“will

fear no evil.”

And the reason why we stand alone is because, as my colleagues have said on our

side, this is a dark day in the history of our country.

This is a day when five—depending on who you listen to, between five thousand

and 10,000 of our citizens, many from the constituency of Naparima, directly in

Pointe-a-Pierre and other constituencies, we feel the burden, we feel the heart ache,

we feel the pain and the suffering of our citizens. [Desk thumping] And therefore,

when we speak and the Prime Minister wishes to clothe us in the raiment of

antagonist, people who are opposing for opposing sake, we oppose because we

stand in defence of the democracy of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to indicate that fundamentally we do not

trust what we hear on the other side. There is a fundamental issue of trust. We hear

information and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not sure whether—what credence to

place on the information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will speak specifically of the procurement supply of

refined products. We heard one thing from the side opposite and the facts do not

199




UNREVISED

support the positions taken by the statements we hear.

About one month ago, I listened carefully to the Minister of Energy and

Energy Industries, trying to provide the country with assurances about the supply

of fuel to citizens and giving the assurances that we should not be worried.

Specifically I heard the Minister tell the country and I want to quote him:

“Our first shipment of”—and I am quoting the Minister of Energy and

Energy Industries—

“Our first shipment of imported products will come in on the 17”—of

October—“that will supplement. And as we phase out the local supply there

would be a continuous”—supply—“of imported products.”

I want to tell this country tonight that while the Minister was speaking, I had in my

hands e-mails dated 05 October, 2018, from Petrotrin, the same day that the

Minister was telling us when the shipment would come, where Petrotrin was

saying that it had not yet evaluated the bills for the supply of fuels. Let me repeat,

Petrotrin had not yet evaluated the bids and yet he was giving us assurances that

we would have imported products here in Trinidad by the 17th of October.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Lies.

Mr. R. Charles: And this is what the e-mail stated. Remember this is the same

day that the Minister is telling us that the first shipment is arriving.

Now, subsequent to the issue of the RFP, Request For Proposals for the supply of

products to Petrotrin, there are three parties which have made it to the final round

for consideration for final negotiations and the three potential suppliers according

to the emails are: bp North American Petroleum, a division of bp Products North

America Incorporated; Trafigura Limited and Castleton Commodities International

LLC. So, Petrotrin is still negotiating for the supply of fuel, no buyer chosen as

200




UNREVISED

yet, no sale confirmed, but the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries could tell

the country the date the fuel is going to arrive in this country, and that is why we

cannot trust the Members of the other side. [Desk thumping]

The process that ought to be followed is that after the bills are evaluated

Petrotrin would negotiate with the supplier for the best price. Because we are not

buying one shipment of fuel, an agreement has to be drawn up and approved by the

legal department and that agreement has to get the approval of the board.

So I want the Minister to smile and tell us when these things were done, and

who was responsible for compliance with the settled company policy. This is a

scandal of immense proportion. [Desk thumping] “Petrotrin still evaluating bids,

but de Minister already know when de ship arriving”—and the question arises:

Who are they trying to fool?

So, tonight I want to ask the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries a few

questions, and perhaps he could respond at some point in this debate. The first

question: Who evaluated the bids for the supply of fuels to Petrotrin? Second

question: What was the process used to evaluate the bids that were received by

Petrotrin? Three: When was the order placed for the supply of fuels? Four: What

was the price paid and who negotiated the price with the supplier? While

thousands of people in this country are wondering how they will feed their children

next month, how they will pay their bills, how they will pay their loans, how they

will look after their mothers and fathers and their children, how they will pay their

mortgages, this Government is smiling because they know “the business fix

already”. Giving us assurances, even before they have the fact.

The Attorney General has a famous saying that this Government will follow

the money, so the question we ask in this whole process of getting fuel to Trinidad

201




UNREVISED

and Tobago, I want him to follow the money and give us the information because

this is taxpayers’ money.

The second point I want to raise—it is the question in terms of the question

of trust—is the way this Government has proceeded to treat labour. This Petrotrin

Vesting Bill is perhaps the most blatant example of this Government’s anti-worker,

anti-people stance. If there is one lesson to be learnt here by workers—and I want

all the workers of Trinidad and Tobago to pay attention, it is that you cannot trust

the Member for Diego Martin West, the Prime Minister. Here is a man who sat

with the union, broke bread with workers, engaged in discussions and

negotiations—over ten meetings, according to one participant—bartered with them

for their trust and their support, and when they gave him the power, when he had

the power to improve the tripartite relationship in the country, when he had an

opportunity to build consensuality and national consensus in the petroleum sector,

whilst in their embrace, he stabbed them in the back.

In every dealing with workers and workers’ representatives, this

Government has acted in absolute bad faith. For three years this Government and

the board of Petrotrin engaged with the union, mamaguying the workers of

Petrotrin. And you know what hurts, I have spoken to some Petrotrin workers and

up to today they do not really believe that they will be sent home. They know it

has been stated that by November 30th, that will be the last day of operations and

somehow they cannot believe that this callous Government could send them home.

Some of them in their 30s—I know of one who is probably about 35 years old,

married, two children, an NHA house, and he—I am told, he has not yet accepted

that he is going to be out of a job. He is refusing to accept that.

So, the unions in good faith signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the

202




UNREVISED

company. This MOA signed on April the 3rd, 2018, between worker

representatives and Petrotrin representatives and witnessed by Petrotrin’s

consultant, Mr. Shafeek Sultan-Khan said, inter alia, I quote:

—the union and the company have agreed to meet and

“resolve…the…organizational structures, work processes, skills,

competencies and manpower requirements…and ensure”—the—“survival,

sustainability and profitability”—of the company.

That was April the 3rd of this year. So, in April there is mutual trust to work and

ensure the survival of Petrotrin, that is April, but by August we are told there will

be no more Petrotrin by the end of the year.

We cannot trust this Government, this Government—and I do not like to say

it—this Government has no shame. They will sit, hold meetings and then “lick

you up” before the ink is dry on the agreement. I have sat with the Government in

committees, we have told them subsequently, come and engage us, we are willing

to suspend everything to discuss the nation’s business and we say that and like it

falls on deaf ears. They will write you, right after and maintain their position that

we must work according to their schedule and according to what they want.

Well, I want to tell this Government that particularly, when it comes to a

three-fifths majority, we will not be bullied. We will engage respectfully, but you

must treat us with the necessary respect.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: And you must bring good law.

Mr. R. Charles: And my leader reminds me: and they must bring good law.

[Desk thumping] Again, with the hundred amendments we made to the FATCA

legislation which they admitted improved the legislation, that was only done

because we had to take them, screaming and kicking, to a joint select committee to

203




UNREVISED

work out the nation’s business and produce good law.

So we cannot trust this Government. They were talking to the union, setting

them up, mamaguying them up, but sometimes, sometimes, you know, I read—my

son gave me Terrence Farrell’s book to read. And the name of the book is We like

it so. I tell Trinidad and Tobago it is time to stand up, we deserve better. [Desk

thumping] The unions are now learning late in the day that they were mamaguyed,

and they themselves cannot believe that this Government that prides itself on being

patriotic, could do that to 5,000 workers.

I sometimes ask the question, if we had done that, if the UNC Government

had sent home 5,000 workers—

Hon. Member: There would have been a riot.

Mr. R. Charles:—there would have been riot in the country.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: They like it so.

Mr. R. Charles: But the Trinidad—and the people, who tell us quietly to fight for

them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, please.

Mr. R. Charles: I cannot help but believe that we like it so. We should not

tolerate the idiocy that passes for governance in Trinidad and Tobago, especially

after 2015. So while the union was of the view that they were engaging in

meaningful discussions, the administration, the board of Petrotrin secretly

established a committee. They give no details on the membership, we have seen no

terms and conditions of engagement.

So, this committee head hunted, interviewed, negotiated and hired a man to

run a company which had not yet been formed to manage the replaced subsidiary

companies that we are here today discussing.

204




UNREVISED

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: As I said, and break the law to do so.

Mr. R. Charles: And in the process, I am reminded they broke the law. They are

probably now in some corner somewhere trying to remedy the mischief that they

had perpetrated on this Parliament. But you see I have a fundamental problem

with this incarnation of the PNM. You see, I listened to the Prime Minister and he

is of the view—he operates in a transactional mode. There are problems we cannot

run the—where there is no money, they kept asking us for US $100 million today,

200 tomorrow and what not. We cannot manage and therefore the only option

according to him is to shut down the company. What was missing was the

philosophical strategic thinking, the all-encompassing framework of philosophical

underpinning as would occur with a normal PNM government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the 1970s, I was a witness to what took place with

the creation after 1970, of a plethora of state enterprises: Caroni (1975) Limited,

NP was 1972 and BOLA, the Bank of London and Montreal, become NCB and

there were companies formed, all based on a philosophical ideal that is consistent

with a normal PNM.

Hon. Member: Penny bank.

Mr. R. Charles: Penny bank. Those were the days of the intellectual PNM—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member for Couva South, please. I will not tolerate.

Mr. R. Charles: Mr. Deputy Speaker, those were the days of the intellectual

PNM, the real PNM, not this bastardized version of the PNM. [Laughter] Those

were the days of that party led by the erudite Eric Williams. The current

philosophy, the current what we call transactional pragmatism of this PNM does

not serve our national interest. Clearly, there were other options. What we have

witnessed here today is restructuring by “vaps”, it is shrouded in secrecy,

205




UNREVISED

developed in concert with the business elite to break the backs of the trade union

involvement. It is a repudiation not only of Eric Williams but of the patriots like

Butler, Cola Rienzi, George Weekes, Errol McLeod and all that they stood for.

So, the question we ask, does this vesting legislation deal with the

fundamental challenges that we face as a country? Challenges of innovation,

challenges of state enterprise reform and review. Does it deal with

entrepreneurship, diversification, sustainable development, middle-class

expansion, does it in anyway prepare us for the digital world of the future. It is a

transactional arrangement to meet a perceived problem without a strategic

intellectual underpinning. Does this create sustainable jobs? If so, how many and

in what parts of the energy sector? Does it leverage our competence and our skills

in the energy gained over 100 years? Does it leverage us in a way that would

prepare us to take advantage of opportunities even in the energy sector? Nothing

at all to do with sustainable development or sustainable fuels development of the

kinds of energy that will drive the globe into the 21st Century.

So we come here and we read—and I will just say it is confusing. Schedule

5, Assets, Property and Rights Transferred to Guaracara Refining, and when you

read it you realize this thing is not written for the layman, it is not written for the

owners of the energy sector of Petrotrin. It speaks and I quote, to show the

obfuscatory language:

“The right, title, claim or interest of PETROTRIN in all property, rights and

other things of every kind, real or personal, moveable and immovable,

corporeal or incorporeal in possession or in action comprising all…assets of

the refinery operations of PETROTRIN being a portion of the

Pointe-a-Pierre Refinery and shown unshaded on the map marked ‘Map

206




UNREVISED

C’…”

It goes on:

“The Pointe-a-Pierre Refinery, its lands, tank farms, piping, pipelines and all

machinery and equipment, roads and drains and relevant real estate

associated with its operations located at Pointe-a-Pierre Refinery Site and

shown on the Map C.”

What does this mean? Is it the blind leading the blind?

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Yes.

Mr. R. Charles: Does this include the sites adjacent to the Refinery including the

Augustus Long Hospital and the Guaracara Park?—and the GTL and the

incomplete office that cost us, I am told today, more than $100 million? How are

these—we talk about subsidiaries, how are these interacting with the holding

company? When you remove all these assets from Petrotrin what will be the assets

that will reside in the entity called Petrotrin. Will the removal of all refinery and

exploration production assets and terminalling operations not render Petrotrin

essentially closed?

But we are not sure whether it is closed, we hear it is closed but it is not closed.

We know it is closed but 5,000 workers went home. Reminds me of my brother

when he was five years old and we were a little older than him, and he wanted to

be a doctor and he would dress up in this medical outfit and he would take a

crapaud and operate on the crapaud and then he will come and announce to all of

us, the operation was successful but the patient died. [Laughter] “It close, it eh

close”, but 5,000 people get letters to go home.

And talking about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they promise that they will deal with

the fence line communities. They would provide supportive institutions,

207




UNREVISED

mechanisms that would provide jobs. You see, this Government does not

understand that it takes an all of government approach to improve our society. So,

they do not understand, we come here to pass the crime Bill and they do not

understand that if you lay off people in Petrotrin, then what is going to happen to

the line in Marabella? What is going to happen to the young boys who have no

hope in Battoo Avenue in Marabella? They do not see a connection with laying off

people and increased crimes, as far as they are concerned it is a transactional

analysis and the output of that analysis, and at the end of the day whatever

happens, happens, “who vex lost”, that is the attitude of this—and I will contrast it

later on with Eric Williams.

So, they talk about three new subsidiaries, who will be on these boards? We

are talking, these boards should be up and running by December the 1st. We have

days—have they appointed this boards?

Hon. Member: Two weeks ago.

Mr. R. Charles: How many jobs will be created in these companies for PNM

boys and girls? What steps are being taken to ensure that the staffing of these

companies will not be overwhelmed with political interference? And political

interference has been the reason why Petrotrin is in the problem that it is in today;

[Desk thumping] political interference. So the closure of Petrotrin is a recipe for

failure and is inconsistent with the various reports and my colleagues mentioned

them, not the Lashley report, not the McKinsey report, not the OWTU report.

And even today we have not been given a firm answer by this Government, of who

closed it down; whether it was the board, whether it was the board of Petrotrin,

whether it was the Cabinet or the Prime Minister. But every time we ask a

question about Petrotrin and AV Drilling, the Prime Minister, responds—“he does

208




UNREVISED

get vex, challenge you to the pavement” and tell you that is a matter for the board.

But, suddenly the nexus of power shifts to suit the convenience of the

circumstance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this exercise today does not make sense. It is

inconsistent with PNM philosophy as articulated in perspectives for a new society

which they have not read, which is a fundamental revision of the “People’s

Charter” which they have also not read, so I will tell them.

10.00 p.m.

The “People’s Charter” was about industrialization by invitation, whereas

the “Perspectives for the New Society” spoke about the citizens of Trinidad and

Tobago owning the commanding heights of the economy. That philosophy, that

PNM philosophy, spoke to people’s empowerment. That is the father of the

nation; the father of the nation. It spoke to people empowerment. It spoke to

national control of the commanding heights of the economy. The empowerment of

the citizenry to man these industries, and we see they are going out of their way,

breaking the law to bring a foreigner. We have nothing against the foreigner, but

the process must be lawful. [Desk thumping] So we have—the “Perspectives for

the New Society” spoke to a redirection of the economy and the national assets to

serve the interests of the citizenry.

“Perspectives for the New Society”, the PNM document, also spoke to the

Government holding shares in trust, not to be used as they see fit, but in sacred

trust for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. And it went on further to say at the

appropriate time these shares should be divested to create a shareholding

democracy. You see where Eric Williams is brilliant, and if he were to come today

he would not sit on that side, he would probably sit here, because Eric had—he

209




UNREVISED

saw a country run by massa, and as he said in his document, before they jump up,

massa is not a racial document, it is an economic construct that speaks to

empowerment in Trinidad and Tobago and not in the Metropole in London and

Washington. So Eric Williams wanted power here. He wanted power to create—

first, it was the multinationals, he brought bp, British Petroleum, and I worked

there. The Articles of Association, wherever there was British Petroleum, he put

National Petroleum, so we followed their prescription, because at that time he felt

that was the way to go forward.

So it was about moving the fulcrum and direction of power from massa to

the children of slaves and indentured immigrants. So Petrotrin therefore is a

visible, iconic symbol of our aspiration to become a First World economy. [Desk

thumping] It is a symbol of the statement that we are in charge now, and the world

must deal with us. The 1972 White Paper, number two on public sector

participation in industrial and commercial activities supported this philosophy. So

in the OWTU’s alternative plan to save Petrotrin, the trade union presented its

proposal which supported two recommendations contained in the Lashley report.

These were, one, they need to correct asset integrity issues, such as leaking pipes

and storage tanks, and to divide Petrotrin into three divisions, Trinmar—well, that

is one division—land and exploration and production, and the third division was

refining and marketing. The PNM appointed the current board of Petrotrin which

assumed office in 2017. I repeat again, I repeat that neither the OWTU, neither the

Lashley report, neither the McKinsey report, and even the board, based on the

statement of Mr. Espinet, recommended closure of Petrotrin. So the question we

ask: Where did this come from? Who did it and what were the guiding principles

of this recommendation to close down the refinery?

210




UNREVISED

So, you see, there is a disconnect between either the board and the PNM and

the various consultants who reported to the organization. The union told us that

they were surprised when, at a meeting on the 28th of August, they were presented

with three options, business as usual, one; reduced operations, two; or closure of

the refinery, and according to the union option three was selected. No detail, no

explanation or information about how the decision was made. And we are at a loss

here today. All the discussions and all the toing and froing, we have not heard a

rationale, crafted in a philosophical idea of where we want to move as an economy

in Trinidad and Tobago, and how does this action fit in. It is like an action taken

“adhocratically” by itself, and we have to kind of figure it out, suspend our logic,

because we have been talking on this side about the digital economy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, your 30 minutes has expired. You have an

additional 15. You care to avail yourself? Member, you care to avail yourself?

Mr. R. Charles: Yes, thank you.


Mr. R. Charles: So now we have approximately 9,000 workers without jobs, an

average of five persons per family, so we are talking about 45,000 persons

impacted. We have created essentially a rust belt in the southern communities.

We in Naparima are still recovering from the closure of Caroni (1975) Limited in

2003, now Petrotrin, so where is, and I ask again, the promised help for the fence

line communities; 20,000 employees, retirees being affected by medical services

and facilities being severely curtailed?

The decision will threaten the country’s largest pension fund. When

actuaries do an analysis of a pension fund, they do it as a running organization, an

ongoing organization. When 5,000-plus employees go and impact on that pension

211




UNREVISED

fund, it could collapse. You will not have workers putting in, contributing to the

pension fund, and everybody will be taking out from the pension fund. Let me just

make a point. If you retire at 50, at age 50 you will get half of your entitlement.

You will lose 5 per cent for every year prior to 60. If you retire at 35 your pension

contributions are frozen and you will have to wait until you are 60 years to get

payments. Think about a young person with mortgage, family debts, and having to

wait until age 60 to get benefits. What is going to happen to the areas of culture,

community, empowerment, education that will be impacted by the closure of

Petrotrin? The Petrotrin Siparia Deltones, Petrotrin Hatters—[Interruption]—and

my friend spoke about some of these, these will be impacted. There is going to be

a dearth of cultural activities. The President of Pan Trinbago is a captain, or she is

involved with Petrotrin Katzenjammers Steel Orchestra in Tobago. She may very

well be the president without a band. The Bill is going to have repercussions on

our youth. Now, what they have done is created three more state enterprises—

Hon. Member: Four.

Mr. R. Charles:—four more state enterprises. The state enterprise model is

failing everywhere. The state enterprise model, as we know it in the past, is

failing. Brookings Institution is an organisation, a think tank, they say, and I am

quoting:

“It is no accident that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have been at the center

of many of the world’s biggest corruption scandals—from Brazil’s ‘car

wash’ money laundering scandal involving Petrobras to devastating mining

deals in the Democratic Republic of Congo. These companies sit at the

intersection of complex, billion-dollar commercial activities and the

dealmaking and rent allocation powers of the state and political elites. Their

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2018/03/brazil-car-wash-scandal-180307105602756.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2018/03/brazil-car-wash-scandal-180307105602756.html

212




UNREVISED

missions often include a broad mix of contradictory goals. And they too

frequently operate opaquely, subject to political manipulation and free from

strong oversight.”

So we are creating four state enterprises, and the problems that we have alerted to

about state enterprises we are not seeing any countervailing policies to deal with

the issues, particularly of political interference.

The OWTU picked this up in page 10 of their proposal. They said:

The absence of transparency is patent and glaring. It is an example of bad

governance on steroids. We need not emphasis the well-known point that if

a process is flawed the outcome of that flawed process will most likely also

be flawed, and that is what is happening at Petrotrin.

That is what the OWTU said, and that is consistent with what the research is

saying.

Mrs. Persad Bissessar SC: The American Ambassador said something.

Mr. R. Charles: The American Ambassador, Joseph Mondello, speaking at

AMCHAM’s 22nd HSSE Conference and Exhibition on the 24th of October, he

said:

“Unlike other countries, the United States does not have state-owned

enterprises that I can direct to invest in Trinidad and Tobago.”

And he says:

“…that is a good thing”.

For one:

“Firms owned and backed by governments are incompatible to free

markets.”

So we see why the Minister of Energy and Energy Industries will come and tell us

213




UNREVISED

one thing about the supply, and the thing has not been working.

Ambassador Mondello further stated:

“As we have seen time after time throughout the world, state-owned

enterprises invest abroad in ways that are clearly not transparent, clearly not

market-driven, and clearly not designed to benefit the peoples of the

countries in which they invest.”

Even the Public Utilities Minister in the Guardian, on the 31st of December, 2017,

he said the Water and Sewerage Authority is:

“Cash-strapped…”—and—“…overstaffed by 2,000 workers”.

He went on to say that the overstaffing has put:

“…a heavy financial burden on the State-owned company, which has been

saddled with a $5 billion debt.

As a result, Mr. Le Hunte said WASA will have to be restructured and a

strategic plan developed to make a sustainable and viable entity.”

We are not saying that there is anything wrong with having four state enterprises

additionally, but we need to be sure that we are not creating four times the

problems we had with Petrotrin. Petrotrin’s problem, as my colleague from

Oropouche East pointed out is—a significant part of that was political interference

in the management and operations of Petrotrin—Malcolm Jones—that created a

debt in the vicinity of excess of $3 billion.

In the feature address at the Ministry of Finance’s 2017 annual State Boards

Corporate Governance Seminar at the Hyatt, Dr. Rowley himself identified

problems. He is creating state enterprises but he knows that there are problems

associated with them. He said:

“Most of the commercially oriented state-owned enterprises have

214




UNREVISED

accumulated significant losses…”

—and he goes on and on, and on. There are:

“Instances of weak project planning, questionable procurement and

procedures, and poor financial management practices are all too prevalent in

the sector.”

So there are problems that needed fixing, not creating more state enterprises to

perpetuate the same issues over and over. Stupidity, we are told, is doing the same

things over and over and expecting a different result. Will we not have a

Parliament in six years or so, down the line to articulate the problems in these four

companies that we are told today even do not have a fundamentally legal basis for

existing. It is just a matter of time before these three companies become a burden

to Trinidad and Tobago.

If only this PNM Government would actually follow the prescriptions of its

founding father when he spoke of divestment of state enterprises to create a

shareholding democracy. Under the UNC, under the leadership of Kamla

Persad-Bissessar, and they do not like to hear it but we will tell them, under the

UNC we implemented the long awaited IPO for First Citizens Bank in the amount

of 20 per cent of shareholding. In August 2013, we raised close to $1.05 billion

via the FCB IPO. We also were involved with the IPO with Phoenix Park Gas

Processors Limited.

Mr. Lee: The First Energy.

Mr. R. Charles: Right, the First Energy Company. This contrasted significantly

with the NIF where moneys were essentially borrowed from citizens without them

having equity in the company. The fundamental difference with us is that we want

to empower the citizenry by giving them shares in the company, as shares in

215




UNREVISED

companies. When, on the other side, when they sell shares, it is solely to raise

money to feed the voracious appetite of Zacchaeus.

Hon. Member: Who is that?

Mr. Persad-Bissessar SC: The tax man.

Mr. R. Charles: Our short immensely disliked callous and cruel tax collector. So

divestment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, again—[Interruption]

Mr. R. Charles: I have not called any names.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:—I think you should—you are making an implication and I

think you should rephrase or refrain and move on.

Mr. R. Charles: Okay. [Crosstalk] So when they said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Members, listen—

Mr. R. Charles: Yes, I am going to rephrase it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:—I have ruled, I need no additional comment. Proceed.

Mr. R. Charles: You told me to rephrase it. No.

Mrs. Persad Bissessar SC: Someone else. “

Mr. R. Charles: Oho. I will rephrase. When we sell it is to empower, when they

sell it is to raise revenues.

Mrs. Persad Bissessar SC: Taxes.

Mr. R. Charles: Taxes to deal with the shortfall in the budget.

So divestment is the direction—is one of the directions we need to consider.

It was the original prescription of empowerment, foreigners own, Government

owns in trust, citizens own, subsequently. And the globe is replete with examples.

Margaret Thatcher rescued the British from the economic malaise of the 1970s.

She believed that the private sector was more efficient because it has a profit

216




UNREVISED

motive and pursue greater efficiency than Government-owned industries. She

came to power determined to revive the stagnant British economy with market

based reforms. Her government deregulated, cut marginal tax rates—they cut tax,

eh, cut tax—repealed exchange controls and tamed militant unions. But it was

privatization that became her most important and enduring economic legacy

spurred by the success of her reforms. So we have endless companies in the

United States. We have a number of companies. Eric Williams demonstrated—

Eric Williams, compared to this PNM, demonstrated a considerably more people-

centred strategic approach to the country’s worst energy crisis. He put people first.

I worked in Trintoc in 1981 and for 18 years in NP, and he operated on the

principle no worker must lose their jobs, unlike this Government that is sending

home 5,000. So within NP we had Shell workers, ex Shell workers, ex Texaco, ex

ESSO, ex bp workers. It was so strange, you could be doing the same job with

somebody but because he came from Texaco his retirement age was 65, whereas if

you were in NP it was 60.

So while I personally benefited from Eric’s enlightened strategic approach,

this generation of workers suffer immensely from the cluelessness, incompetence

and bankruptcy of ideas of this bumbling PNM administration. These companies

will not serve. These companies they are about to establish will not serve our

national interest. Any layman can understand that it is more costly to have four

boards than one. We are unclear about what assets, what specific assets; and the

cost of these assets will remain in Petrotrin. We are not sure, but we know, that the

debt will remain on the Treasury. It is the same old, same old, in the context of the

creation of the past oil companies, heavily political with no arm’s length

relationship with the politicians, and therefore will soon be corrupted. It is a plot

217




UNREVISED

to destroy the unions and the working class. It is a plot to make a wasteland out of

south Trinidad and environs. It is a plot to weaken the middle class, called a buffer

group between the haves and the have-nots. It is part of the inexorable thrust to

make us a dictatorship.

The question has been asked before, and I will ask it: Why was the first

person employed on the new board a foreigner?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Two minutes, Member.

Mr. R. Charles: Two minutes. So, what we are doing is the recolonizing of our

patrimony, back to square one. The creation of a plantation economy where we—

[Interruption]

Hon. Member: Massa is back.

Mr. R. Charles:—massa is back—we buy everything, we consume what we do

not produce and we produce what we do not consume. We are back to massa, so

essentially “massa day” is not done. And it is not a racial concept. We now have

highly paid massas. We now have highly paid massas without a Butler, without a

Cola Rienzi, without a George Weekes, without an Errol McLeod, and what we

have is a clueless PNM without an Eric Williams. But you see, as they said,

Terrence Farrell said, we like it so. So when they come and they tell me why I am

not marching, I will say, I will not, I will work for you, I will represent you, but

remember when 2020 comes the time has come for us to restore Trinidad and

Tobago to good governance under the leadership of the Member of Parliament for

Siparia. [Desk thumping] So Trinidad and Tobago, the 5,000 employees, hold

strain, pray to the Lord, whether you are a Hindu, Bhagavad Gita; whether you are

a Christian, whether you are a Muslim—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, listen, wait, hold on.

218




UNREVISED

Mr. R. Charles:—the time is coming when we will resolve the problems.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, listen, one second, you have been continuously

doing it during your speech, you are not to create any displays as you go along.

[Crosstalk] I recognize the Member for Chaguanas East. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Fazal Karim (Chaguanas West): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, for the very kind courtesy of allowing me to say a few words on this very

important aspect of our nation’s economy. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to start by

commending the Leader of the Opposition, [Desk thumping] [Crosstalk] the

Member for Siparia who has really—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Members, listen, I have ruled—[Interruption]

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: You see “dem kinda” crosstalk is not called for.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: The Deputy Speaker is on his legs, Siparia. Siparia, the

Deputy Speaker is on his legs. [Crosstalk]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, Members. Please, Member for Siparia, I have ruled

and the Member has started his contribution, let us move on. I have recognized

that Member and he shall proceed. And, again, please Members, let us proceed in

silence.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to

rise a second time, and I want to repeat, as I was saying—I know that the Member

for San Fernando West will say that it is a format, but it is a necessary and very

worthy format to commend and congratulate [Desk thumping] the Member for

Siparia who has caused some unease in the House this evening and has allowed for

some deliberations that may not have been necessary, or seem to be necessary.

Her contribution was excellent, erudite and very learned. [Desk thumping] Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wish to also commend all those who have spoken before me,

219



Mr. F. Karim (cont’d)

UNREVISED

and particularly my eight colleagues on this side of the House for their excellent

contribution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, much has been said about the Bill that is before us, the

vesting Bill 2018, the Miscellaneous Provision (Heritage Petroleum, Paria Fuel

Trading Company Limited, and Guaracara Refining Company Limited, Vesting)

Bill, 2018, but before I get into the substance of my contribution, I just want to

make some comments about the contributions that were made before. I asked for a

copy of the Hansard from the Minister of Finance when he spoke early this

evening, and when I was reading the first couple of pages, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it

seems to me—this is my opinion—that this statement was almost an admission or a

confession, or an indictment on the Government of the People’s National

Movement. Everywhere you would have read in this, and I can make reference to

the statement—this statement that was made by the hon. Member for Diego Martin

North/East, where he gave figures with respect to the different projects in Petrotrin,

and where they rose in excess of billions of dollars of cost overrun, for example,

the gas optimization programme which had a cost overrun of $8 billion—

[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: I rise on Standing Order 55(1)(b). This is the third speaker to read

the same figures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, I would just need to hear the figures—

[Interruption] Members, please, I will need to hear the figures that you were going

to quote and then I will be able to rule accordingly. So, you have not entered into

the figures as yet, so let me just hear what you have to say.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just

making reference to the figures in terms of cost overruns at the Petrotrin company,

220




UNREVISED

and these were figures that were mentioned by the hon. Minister of Finance earlier

today. And while other colleagues might have said it, I am saying cost overruns.

So I will just indicate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am allowed to speak, that I am

making mention of the fact that there were several cost overruns at the Petrotrin

company.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me just, since they are getting a little bit anxious, let

me just, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to quote the Member

for Diego Martin North/East, and this has not been repeated, incidentally. I am

saying this first time, and I am quoting this. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to quote, to

recap—this is the hon. Minister of Finance:

“What we are doing today is almost identical to what was done in the early

1990s…”—[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: I rise on 55(1)(b). This is the fourth speaker to in fact quote the

same thing. [Crosstalk]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, Members, again, listen, in all fairness I will need to

hear the point that you were heading into in order for me to determine the ruling. I

am not going to anticipate or prejudge what the Member is going to say. [Desk

thumping] Members, I do not need no encore. So, again, proceed Member, and I

will determine.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker,

let me make it abundantly clear, no one on my side passed this paper to me. I

requested this from the Hansard, and I am reading from the Hansard, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, [Crosstalk] and I continue with your permission. When you look at the

Petrotrin Vesting Act and you look at the Heritage and Paria Vesting Bill, it is the

exact same approach. These are the words of the Member for Diego Martin

221




UNREVISED

North/East. [Interruption] I am not repeating. [Crosstalk] In referring to that

point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me just say, to conclude this matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, one second. Again, Member, I will have to ask

you to move on to your next point in terms of the repetition of what has been said

previously in the House in this particular debate.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me just conclude

this part by saying that what we are witnessing today, what we have heard today

from the other side, is not anything else about corporate restructuring. It is

corporate repetition. And I will tell you why I say that—[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Standing Order 55(1)(b), Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for

Naparima just said that. [Crosstalk]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member, one second. [Crosstalk] Members, it is late in

the evening and we need to ensure that the people’s business is dealt with tonight.

So, again, Member, you would need to move on to your next point, accordingly.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Crosstalk] Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am reading from a document that gives—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One second. Member for Siparia—

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: I could now leave?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yeah.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: First he had asked me to stay.


Mr. F. Karim: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am reading from a document entitled,

1993, “The Establishment of Petrotrin”, and I quote:

“After an unprecedented period of transformation which has seen the oil

company move from a state-enterprise slated for divestment to one which

222




UNREVISED

just recently paid its first-ever dividend to its shareholders, Petrotrin has

moved to consolidate its profit-making position by acquiring Texaco’s

minority stake in the oil producing company, TRINMAR.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point I am making here is that—

Mr. Al-Rawi: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask the source of this quotation?

Mr. F. Karim: Yeah. The source I indicated—

Hon. Member: Caribbean Airlines flight to Tobago.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. F. Karim: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the source is “Petroleum Company of

Trinidad and Tobago Limited, Down Memory Lane, The Evolution of Petrotrin”.

Hon. Member: By whom?

Mr. F. Karim: I just wanted to indicate—the point I am making to you is this. I

raise this matter to say that this action that was taken to bring Petrotrin into being

is now 25 years old. It was 25 years ago and the question I am raising, I am

asking, we are here today and what will we see for the next 25 years in terms of the

history of this company? So since you want me to get into some other matters, I

would like to raise some of the following matters with respect to this Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is clear that based on the direction that the

Government has taken, this is an obvious step—and we would have indicated

that—to vest the assets of Petrotrin and its predecessor companies into new

entities.

Secondly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the document they are going to vest

certain assets—the Government that is—however, because the assets of Petrotrin,

Trintopec, Trintoc, PSAEL are so vast and diverse, it is very important to detail,

perhaps as we would have heard before, in a schedule, what assets would remain.

223




UNREVISED

This may have been said before, but it needs to be repeated, what assets will

remain with Petrotrin, for example the medical facility which I would not go into

detail, that was spoken about by my colleague from Fyzabad; the golf course; the

sports club; real estate; residential buildings. But may I add something that was

not mentioned at all by anyone with respect to the assets that might remain, and we

would need to identify what we are going to do with that. For example—the trade

school. Petrotrin—[Interruption]

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Petrotrin was well-known since the early days of the Board of Industrial Training

as one of the outstanding trade schools in this country, together with T&TEC and

Shell and Caroni Limited. Subsequent to that trade school it was replaced by the

MIC Institute of Technology, where the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre was the

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, in addition to the assets that we would want to hear

about—would be the schools, the educational facilities which are resident within

the boundaries that we have been so given in the Bill demarcating the geographic

area, and one of those institutions would be the primary school. The question

always important for us to ask ourselves is: What is going to happen to the primary

school? What is going to happen to the students who are attending these schools?

What is going to happen to the teachers? We are aware of the fact that this may be

discontinued. As we have seen now from the Bill, the assets and so on are going to

be transferred. But what is of concern as well is these students are going to find

great difficulty, especially when they have to move mid-stream in the academic

year, to find places in other schools. I wish to also indicate that the failure to detail

such things may cause some of them to fall through the cracks, and may be of

224




UNREVISED

benefit to other persons.

Madam Speaker, I wish to also mention—and mention was made of this in

terms of the liabilities, both in terms of the ageing infrastructure with exploration

and production on land and on offshore wells—the trunk pipelines are in a derelict

state, the offshore platforms and the risks. The question was asked before, and I

will simply say in cursory, although it is very important, will the Heritage

Petroleum carry this liability or will it be a legacy issue for Petrotrin? What about

these liabilities?

Madam Speaker: Member for Chaguanas East, the issue about the assets and

liabilities have been raised by many of the speakers, regardless of how we

determine it, whether it is the plant, whether it is the liabilities under the contract,

whether it is the schools, whether it is the lands. Issues about the assets and the

liabilities in my view have been dealt with extensively, and therefore I would ask

you to move on to your other point please.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You will recognize that

it is sometimes very difficult coming after many speakers not to avoid, and I am

going to go into other—[Interruption]

[Madam Speaker rises]

And I will now go into some other areas that may not have been mentioned.

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns about this decision is the whole aspect

of talent acquisition, that is, I want to frame my contribution to some extent now in

terms of the human resource assets. And the question with respect to talent

acquisition is: Is the process transparent to the public on how applicants will be

selected for advertised positions? The hon. Member for Siparia raised the issue

about the Chief Executive Officer, and asked the question in terms of the

225




UNREVISED

Petroleum Act, whether the advertisement was made in accordance with the law

and whether the appointment was made. So that one wants to know what

processes are being used to acquire applicants, and when is the expected date for

the vacancies to be filled.

We would have seen the advertisement. It would have said applications are

closing, I think it is sometime around November 19th, in the most recent ones, and

of course we would want to have an idea—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1). This was raised

by several speakers. Nearly every speaker raised the issue of—[Crosstalk]

Mr. Lee: We never heard the November 19th.

Madam Speaker: Member, I will give you a little opportunity. As you said, the

Member for Siparia said, so it came from you, but I am going to give you a little

opportunity to tie up what you are going to say there about the advertisements, and

therefore as you also indicated it is very difficult when you speak late in the day to

try and break new ground. So, minded by that, I will give you a little leeway and

then move on to your new point please.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just raised the matter of

filling the vacancies, but I also want to raise another matter with respect to

retaining the talent. I do not think we have heard or seen anything at all in terms of

what plan is there to retain the talent and experience of the workforce in moving

forward. And I do not think anybody on that side or even on our side here has

raised this matter.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1)(b). Pointe-a-Pierre

raised that issue of whether we will be bringing back persons who were already in

Petrotrin. [Interruption] You are not the Speaker. Pointe-a-Pierre raised that issue

226




UNREVISED

already, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have said repeatedly in here, just as you have pointed out,

Naparima, if we go eye for eye all of us would be blind. Member for Chaguanas

East, while you may be saying it in a different way, one speaker spoke about—and

it is the same point just flipping—show me one person who has been re-employed.

That might not be the exact words, but that was really the point, and it is really the

same point just being flipped. So, again, while you might be talking about

retaining the talent pool, the other person spoke about the same thing, but in terms

of you are not really bringing anybody back.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I now move to the point

of continuous learning and development, and I do not know if anybody has raised

that. I do not remember hearing that. Continuous learning—[Crosstalk]

Hon. Member: “Me, I said nothing about dat. I doh even know what is dat.”

Mr. F. Karim:—and therefore I raise the issue of knowledge management.

Hon. Members: New ground; “nobody raised dat.”

Mr. F. Karim: What process in terms of knowledge management is being

developed to ensure that there is a transparent knowledge transfer process in place,

and that persons are held accountable for such?

Madam Speaker, I want to raise the issue of succession planning; I did not

hear that this evening either.

Hon. Members: “Nah, nah, dat is new ground.”

Mr. F. Karim: But maybe some of them—[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Speaker, 55(1)(b), please. The entire successorship issue

was dealt with.

Mr. Charles: By whom?

227




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Member for Chaguanas East, please continue.

Mr. F. Karim: Madam Speaker, I think what is—well anyway, I will just

continue with my contribution. I think the next point I was going to go on to is in

terms of the whole concept of performance management. How will key indicators,

performance management indicators, be defined? The reason I am raising some of

these things—[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Standing Order 48(1). Madam Speaker, I rise on Standing Order

48(1), confidently so.

Dr. Moonilal: You missed “yuh” flight.

Madam Speaker: Member for Chaguanas East, I will give you a little leeway

with respect to that point. Let me hear where you are going with that.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I think I better move on

to some very new points.

I want to raise some points with respect to the implications and the way

forward. I think one of the things that people are concerned about is that the

closure of the refinery at Pointe-a-Pierre will result in inflation. Now some may

say it is not going to be closed—[Interruption]

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Result in what?

Mr. F. Karim: Inflation, I will tell you—I do not think anybody said that.

[Interruption]

Hon. Member: No, nobody said that, but she will find a way somehow—get up,

get up.

Mr. F. Karim: Inflation—as a matter of fact, I know that reference was made to

fence line communities. I am not going to go into that direction, because I know

that was made before. I think what is going to happen as well is that we are

228




UNREVISED

concerned about the fact that the unemployment rate will increase.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Unemployment was dealt with; the impact of unemployment

on crime, instability. Inflation was raised in the sense of having to import things

and all of that. So unless you are coming, and your Whip I guess is also cautioning

you in terms of not making a comparison with the model. Yeah, you said Sandals,

but it was coined in another way, if I remember well, by Oropouche East when he

spoke about the development model. So I think we have put some parameters over

ground that has been covered.

Dr. Moonilal: “I doh remember dat.”

Madam Speaker: Oropouche East, you do not recall that? I am sure Hansard

will remind you. Continue, Chaguanas East.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I want to raise the issue that was raised—well, an article actually. I found a

very relevant article, “The Human Resource Implications of Plant Shutdowns” by

Jeanne Prial Gordus, from the Annals of the American Academy, in case you are

asking for the quotation. One of the things is that there are number of questions

that the article suggests that we should be concerned about. That is, when a plant

shuts down, what choices—

Mr. Al-Rawi: What is the article?

Mr. F. Karim: “Jezzanages!” [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Members, I mean it is late in the day, and maybe your

behaviour is really showing that it is late in the day for all of us. Okay? So I am

going to ask everybody to please pull themselves together, maintain their decorum

and let us be serious about what we are doing. Please continue Member for

229




UNREVISED

Chaguanas East.

Mr. F. Karim: Madam Speaker, I have never gotten up so many times in a

contribution in this House like today, and I think my colleague from San Fernando

West wanted to know what I was quoting from. The article is entitled, “The

Human Resource Implications of Plant Shutdowns”. It is from the Annals of the

American Academy, and the author is Jeanne P. Gordus. Therefore, among the

questions that were raised in an article such as that, that I think might be instructive

for us in Trinidad and Tobago, as we examine what is happening at Petrotrin is:

When a plant shuts down what choices will the displaced worker have? That is, if

they cannot retire, and one of the things—[Interruption]

Mr. Deyalsingh: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1)(b), the unemployment

has been dealt with extensively by all speakers opposite.

Madam Speaker: Now, the point I wanted to make is this, in a way even though

we have dealt with Petrotrin, what is before us, and think it is more a question of

relevance, is not plant shutdown. This is really four or three new companies so

that unless you are going to show the relationship between that with what we hear,

I will more think that I will would want to stop you on Standing Order 48(1).

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was talking about in the

situations where you will have, even if it is temporary, like in the case of the

refinery that is now going to be moving, mothballing towards the new Guaracara

refinery, there will be some implications there in the interim, because not everyone

will be returned to work. The question has to be: Well, what will the human

resource programmes be? That is another question that is of relevance to those

persons who may not be re-absorbed into the organization.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1)(b), that was dealt

230




UNREVISED

with.

Madam Speaker: Yes. Chaguanas East, please come now with something I think

that does not fall into any of the categories. I am willing to hear you, but please.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Maybe I will just want to enumerate

some of the things that are of concern in a situation like this, and that is: Has there

been sufficient job search assistance in the labour market for those persons?

Mr. Al-Rawi: Standing Order 55(1)(b).

Hon. Members: Who raised that one?

Mr. Al-Rawi: The EAP assistance, the job research; please Madam Speaker.

Siparia has covered it, Naparima has asked about it, Pointe-a-Pierre asked about it.

Madam Speaker: Chaguanas East, please move on.

Mr. F. Karim: Madam Speaker, I am not going to give up because of the—[Desk

thumping]

Hon. Member: Never surrender.

Mr. F. Karim: I think one of the concerns that was raised—and again I am saying

this in terms of the retraining programmes. I am not going to go into any long

explanation about these. I think one of the things that was being looked at as an

innovative strategy was collective bargaining rights, and that may have been

mentioned in terms of collective bargaining.

Madam Speaker: Succession, somebody dealt with that. Somebody dealt with

that with the legislation; successor rights. I think that would have been Couva

South.

Mr. F. Karim: On this same item, and I do not think this was mentioned before,

whether there should be a concern in the future for the unemployment insurance

for workers.

231




UNREVISED

Mr. Al-Rawi: No man, that was dealt with before.

Mr. F. Karim: Madam Speaker, as I just want to now go down to conclude

almost—but as I go towards the end because a lot of things may have been—and I

do not want to run afoul again repeatedly.

Hon. Member: “Doh apologize.”

Mr. F. Karim: I think some of the things that we would want to look at in terms

of the new organization is how do we ensure that we do not return to a place like

this in the next 25 years? [Desk thumping]

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: That was raised. [Interruption]

Madam Speaker: You see, the thing about it is that I may not have been sitting

here, but I think that is the point on which you opened in terms of 25 years ago,

and what will happen in the next 25 years to ensure we do not walk down the road.

You started on that note. I heard that.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Laughter] Let me just say for

allowing me to continue, I just want to indicate that there are five—in an article

again I came across—it really recommended five big ideas for the oil and gas

organization of the future and as we are looking at these new organizations and

these companies, I wish to indicate that from the readings and the research I would

have done from one of the articles, and if you wanted me to quote the article, it is

from McKinsey & Company, Oil and Gas, article September 2016. It is entitled,

“The Oil and Gas Organization of the Future”. They are saying that we see five

big ideas for how organizations can adapt. Number one, organizational agility,

which will include fluid teaming, loose hierarchies, rapid prototyping and so on.

The second point that they make for the organization of the future is digital

organization, new classes of jobs—[Interruption]

232




UNREVISED

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 48(1). What is the

relevance of this?

Madam Speaker: Okay, so I cannot hear everybody at the same time. Is it that

Arouca/Maloney is rising on a matter, raising a Standing Order? Please, let me

hear.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: I am rising on a matter of relevance, Ma’am.

Madam Speaker: Member for Chaguanas East, I do not know where you are

going with this, if you are saying that these are how these companies should be run

in the future. I do not know, but I think the companies are now being vested with

assets. So we are not looking at the companies themselves but the vesting of the

assets. So I think you are on a very fine line, and unless you can quickly show me

the relevance I will have to again rise on that Standing Order.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just indicating for the benefit

of the future.

Madam Speaker: I am just so sorry. Maybe we are all really just taking a lot of

exercise. Your original speaking time is now up. You are entitled to 15 more

minutes.

Mr. F. Karim: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I may have stood up here for at least

half of that original time.

Let me just conclude by saying that from all accounts and from the

contributions that have been made on this side, it is very clear that this vesting Bill

appears to be nebulous. It is deficient. It is illegal in terms of the regulation that

we are supposed to follow with respect to hiring. It is incomplete, and it is of

concern to us on this side. It appears to be premature anticipation with respect to

appointments, and it certainly impacts upon the people, productivity and national

233




UNREVISED

performance of Trinidad and Tobago.

Madam Speaker, finally, I wish to join with all my colleagues on this side

and our very distinguished leader to say that we do not support this Bill in its

present context, and we look forward to improvements in its kind. I thank you

very much.

Ms. Ramona Ramdial (Couva North): [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam

Speaker. Let me just say that I have a few points, mostly rebuttals from earlier

speakers on the Bill. I think today is not the hon. AG’s day at all. I want to start

by drawing on a point that he bought to the House here. He talked about the

revenue, the $21 billion he spoke about that we had in 2015 revenue that went

down to $8.7 billion. He accused of us of being intellectually lazy—to $400

million, yes. He accused of us of being intellectually lazy. I did some research

while I sat here and I listened. According to the 2016 EITI report the Government

revenue from energy moved from $21 billion in 2015 to $8.7 billion in 2016, a

decline of 58.5 per cent. However, this Government often refers to a 96 per cent

decline in oil and gas revenue, and they like to blame this solely on accelerated

capital allowances that were introduced in 2014 by the then People’s Partnership

Government. Where does this 96 per cent come from? This 96 per cent comes

from considering a narrow definition of energy revenue which is limited to the

supplemental petroleum tax, the SPT. [Interruption]

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Standing Order 48(1).

Madam Speaker: Please continue.

Ms. R. Ramdial: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the definition of “energy

revenue” which is limited to the supplemental petroleum tax or the SPT, the

petroleum profit tax, PPT, and the Unemployment Levy, UL. According to the

234



Ms. R. Ramdial (cont’d)

UNREVISED

2016 EITI report these three taxes went from $8.5 billion in 2015 to $403 million

in 2016. This is a 95 per cent fall which is close, of course, to the 96 per cent the

Government speaks about. However, the $21 billion is a broad energy revenue,

and the $400 million that the Attorney General referred to is just from these three

taxes. So again I want to highlight that the hon. Attorney General, whilst today is

not his day, he has also mislead the House with respect to these revenues, [Desk

thumping] and again laying blame on a previous People’s Partnership Government.

Madam Speaker, I move on to the hon. Member for Diego Martin West who

spoke earlier also. The Member spoke about a $2.7 billion pay-out package to

former employees of Petrotrin. Let us just go with the figures, 4,500 according to

what the Government has been saying earlier on—4,700, thank you. Whilst it is

we have a 1,000 of those employees who will be rehired, and I think rehiring has

started, 1,001—yes, rehiring has started—what happens to the remainder of the

workers? You talk about a 27 billion pay-out package, but how long is that going

to last for the individuals? How long is it going to last? So the Prime Minister

gets up here playing victim saying to the population and—[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: 55(1)(b). Siparia’s entire argument. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: I think, Couva North, you will have a bit of a difficulty in

developing that, because a number of speakers spoke with respect to that balloon

figure, one, people getting lump sum if they are only 30-year-olds, how long it

would last, whilst some people will get, others may not get because they may not

qualify. So a lot of people spoke about focus on the individual rather than on the

big figure, which is precisely the point you are making.

Ms. R. Ramdial: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that guidance, but again I just

want to draw reference, because it came from the Member for Diego Martin West,

235




UNREVISED

and again as previous speakers and as you directed here just a minute ago, that

these workers will not be able to survive on just a pay-out package.

Madam Speaker: What I have asked you to do is to move on to your next point.

Thank you very much.

Ms. R. Ramdial: My other point is also, the hon. Member for Diego Martin West

got up here and accused we politicians—because all of us here in this House are all

politicians—and accused and used it as an excuse that we were being political and

politicizing the whole issue of the shutdown of Petrotrin, so that we can go on

about fearmongering amongst the former workers. I want to say that as our

political leader stated earlier, and as we all agreed, they are in fear. They are going

to be losing their jobs within the next two weeks. They are in fear, they are living

in anticipation—[Interruption]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Standing Order—I rise on Standing Order 55(1)(b) again.

[Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Couva North, if you could please move on to your other point.

People talked about fear, about fear being justified and all of that. So please move

on to your next point.

Ms. R. Ramdial: Yes, Madam Speaker. My third point that I have to raise, that I

did not hear anyone speak about earlier, is that of the area, the Wild Fowl Trust,

what is going to become of the Wild Fowl Trust. I did not hear it.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Standing Order 55(1)(b), Caroni East raised it.

Ms. R. Ramdial: No!

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes! To the point where the Member for Diego Martin

North/East—

Ms. R. Ramdial: He did not raise it.

236




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Both of you cannot be standing at the same time.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Speaker, 55(1)(b). Caroni East properly raised that.

Member for Diego Martin North/East even had to correct him and say it is the

Wild Fowl Trust. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: My concern is that, are we going to sit and deal with every area

of land that falls under? Because we spoke about all the various in terms of assets,

things that come within the geographic area of the lands. Are we going to then

therefore deal with each? Because my view is that the point has been raised under

the wider point. One, what is the geographic area, what happens within to certain

things within the geographic area. Your point about the Wild Fowl Trust is similar

to the point that Chaguanas East was raising with respect to the schools in the area.

Somebody raised the hospital in the area; same kind of point. So unless you are

coming with a different point, I would say that that point has generally been

covered.

11.00 p.m.

Ms. R. Ramdial: All right, Madam Speaker. Well, I guess that would be

addressed by the Minister of Finance in his winding-up with respect to these

specific areas that we have highlighted. So, the Wild Fowl Trust is one such area

that we would like to know under which company is this going to be vested. In

addition to that, Madam Speaker, a lot of soon to be retrenched Petrotrin workers

have visited my office, constituents of Couva North, and they have, of course,

raised the issue of the ads for the vacancies that have gone out.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1)(b).

Ms. R. Ramdial: Madam, I am not finished.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: We talked about the ads and the vacancies.

237




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: And I am going to give you a “lil” opportunity to develop what

your constituents have come and said.

Ms. R. Ramdial: And they are saying that the ad of course is very vague and that

some of the positions that are up for—to be refilled, that they have not been

confirmed. There are thousands of workers who have been confirmed in positions.

And therefore because they have not been confirmed in those positions, to apply

they are saying that they are not going to be given a fair advantage to compete with

others for those positions. And therefore, clarity needs to be given to these

workers in terms of filling these vacancies.

Another issue with respect to the ads for the vacancies are the job

descriptions that are being put out there. They are saying it is not streamlined with

some of the positions that exist, especially under that of the Heritage Company

Limited. In addition to that, some of the families who visited my office, and I

know for a fact two particular families, because of this propaganda by the

Government that has been spewed where they are saying that all of the workers

would be going home with healthy packages, and they are not going to have to

worry about suffering and all that kind of thing, that they have now become

targets. The criminal elements have now targeted them and there are at least two

families from within the constituency [Desk thumping] who have already been

attacked and robbed because of this propaganda being spewed by the Government.

So, I want to advise that whoever is speaking on behalf of the Government and

trying to advance their argument out there, not in here, but out there, to be

cognizant and mindful of how that message is sent because everybody listens at the

end of the day, Madam. We all know how the criminal element operates in this

country.

238




UNREVISED

So, those are some of the issues that I wanted to raise, and with that I thank

you, Madam. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Minister of Finance. [Desk thumping]

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker. Madam Speaker, I will attempt to answer the relevant points raised by

Members opposite. There were many points that were not relevant so it is a “lil”

difficult, but I would try my best.

One Opposition Member alleged that the Government is shutting down Petrotrin.

In fact, many Opposition Members, hon. Members opposite alleged incorrectly and

inaccurately that the Government is shutting down Petrotrin. This is entirely

untrue. The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, this is a restructuring exercise,

which they know. The Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, in particular, raised an issue

which has already been addressed by the hon. Prime Minister that the need for

government guarantees only arose over the last six months because of the news and

the publicity given the imminent shutdown of Petrotrin. That is entirely untrue.

The hon. Prime Minister made the point, and I will now read a part of the letter that

was not focused on by the hon. Prime Minister. In the letter from the then

chairman of Petrotrin in March of 2016, the chairman of Petrotrin at the time, Mr.

Jupiter, made the point that financing of our imported crude cargoes has become a

challenge. At this time our actual short-term trade facilities available, US 861

million, of which US 564 million is utilized. Of the 300 million unutilized only 60

million is accessible, because lenders have either withdrawn—for example,

Madam Speaker, BMP, more recently Deutsche Bank, have withdrawn a portion or

all of their facilities, City Bank, Scotiabank, Mercantil Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui

Banking Corporation, et cetera.

239




UNREVISED

So, in March of 2016, the Chairman of Petrotrin, not Mr. Espinet, was

writing the Minister of Finance indicating that their bankers were withdrawing

financing facilities for Petrotrin, and thus they would be unable to purchase crude

and essentially shut down and be unable to pay salaries. So this is not something

that occurred in the last six months. This is something that occurred within six

months of us coming into the Government, and something had been subsisting for

years but had been hidden by the former administration.

Another point being made by the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre—

Mr. Lee: You are being repetitious though.

Hon. C. Imbert: How can I be repeating? I am responding. I “cyar” repeat

myself. Madam Speaker, another point made by the Members opposite, which I

have to debunk, is that the Government is abandoning the liabilities of Petrotrin.

Who will pay? We heard that from a whole series of contributors on that side.

The Member for Caroni East, the Member for Tabaquite, the Member for Pointe-a-

Pierre, and so on. Who will pay? The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, there

is a holding company, and that holding company will own four companies;

Heritage Petroleum, Paria Trading, Guaracara Refining and Petrotrin itself. That

holding company will own all of the assets and liabilities of the current Petrotrin.

The holding company will decide how it will treat with the liabilities in terms of

the revenue streams that will be coming to either Heritage Petroleum or Paria

Trading as the case may be.

All of the liabilities will remain the liabilities of the holding company and

the subsidiary companies inside of there. If this were not so, top financial

institutions such as Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley would not even have agreed

to listen to the Petrotrin team far less agreed to refinance the US $850 million

240




UNREVISED

bond. And just for a matter of information, Madam Speaker, I am advised that

only the short-term debt of Petrotrin totalling approximately $400 million will

remain with Petrotrin, and the other liabilities will be transferred to Heritage

Petroleum. But the fact is, the holding company will own all of the assets and

liabilities of the current Petrotrin.

Madam Speaker, that was Pointe-a-Pierre. Tabaquite—the hon. Member for

Tabaquite made the astonishing claim in this House, the inaccurate, untruthful,

wrong, and false claim the refinery made a profit of $400 million in seven months.

Madam Speaker, the information I am about to read into the record is already in

the public domain, but I think it is necessary to repeat it. And the Member for

Tabaquite and other Members said this was published in the Guardian. The

financial accounts of the refinery are not published in the Guardian, have never

been published in the Guardian. Because what Petrotrin did is Petrotrin published

consolidated accounts. It published the accounts of integrated companies, its

exploration and production arm, and its marketing and distribution arm. Petrotrin

has never published the accounts of the refinery as a separate entity. But, as any

oil company is required to do, because it is integrated into production and refining

and marketing—[Interruption] Madam Speaker, come on, Naparima is just

making too much noise.

[Interruption]Madam Speaker, I beg you.

Madam Speaker: Minister of Finance.

Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Am, Minister of Finance, if maybe you will direct your

attention a little more this way you will be able to rise above the distractions.

Hon. C. Imbert: I will try my best, but that monotone is terrible. So, let me put

241




UNREVISED

into the Hansard record what is already in the public domain. Petrotrin has kept

separate books for its refining operations and for its exploration and production

operations. These are internal to the company. They are not published in the

Guardian.

And, as I have already said publicly, these are the results of the refinery, and

I shall start with the year 2012. In 2012 the refinery lost $772 million; in 2013 the

refinery lost $2,288 million or $2.29 billion; in 2014 the refinery lost $2,638

million or $2.64 billion; in 2015, the last election year, the refinery lost $2,720

million, $2.72 billion; in 2016 the refinery lost $1,330 million, $1.33 billion; and in

2017 the refinery lost $1,685 million, $1.7 billion. Those are facts. This

information has been given to me by the accounts department at Petrotrin. This is

a true record of the losses of the refinery since 2012. If you add it up, 772, 2.3,

that is over $3 billion, 2.6 over $5.6 billion. Add 2.7, you get 8.5 billion; add

another 1.3, 9.8; add another 1.7, you get 11.4. $11.4 billion in losses in the

refinery from 2012 to 2017. Those are the facts. Not any fanciful thing that

somebody say in the Guardian. Really ridiculous, Madam Speaker. So, those are

the facts.

The Member for Tabaquite also queried, using inaccurate data, what would be the

US dollar earnings from the new companies. Well, I have the projections. The net

foreign exchange earnings of the restructured Petrotrin is estimated to be US $316

million per year. US $316 million per year. This is made up of US $1 billion. US

$1.022 billion from sales of crude oil, US $809 million from sales of refined

products in the region, and US $128 million from sales of refined products through

bunkering. When you look at the foreign exchange outflow—that is the inflow,

US $1.959. These are projections done by the experts that Petrotrin has hired to

242




UNREVISED

advise it. US $1,959 billion coming in. And going out, importation of refined

products, US $720 million for local use, importation of refined products for

regional use, US $799 million, and importation of refined products for bunkering,

US $124 million. A total of US $1.643 billion with a net foreign exchange

earnings of US $316 million. We have used the figure of US $200 million,

because we have decided to be conservative but these are the actual projections of

the analysts and the experts hired by Petrotrin, Madam Speaker. So that deals with

that. So that US $200 million is net, net of all expenses, net of all outflows of US

dollars.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Naparima indicated that there is no way

that the sour crude produced by Petrotrin has any value.

Mr. Charles: I said that?

Hon. C. Imbert: Yeah man.

Hon. Member: Again?

Mr. Charles: I say so?

Hon. C. Imbert: Yes.

Hon. Member: You said that.

Hon. C. Imbert: Yes. And, Madam Speaker, I think—[Interruption]—Madam

Speaker, and several speakers on that side expressed a scepticism with respect to

whether the crude produced by Petrotrin could in fact be sold at any sort of

attractive price, any sort of valuable price.

I think it is necessary, Madam Speaker, to educate Members opposite.

Members opposite have a little bit of learning. Not a lot, a little bit. Let me advise

you, Madam Speaker, what sour crude is. Sour crude is oil that has a sulphur

content in excess of 0.5 per cent. And let me tell you, Madam Speaker, the

243




UNREVISED

countries in the world that produce sour crude: Dubai, Oman, the whole OPEC,

Ural, Saudi Arabia, Iraqi, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Venezuela, Colombia,

Ecuador and Russia. The major oil producers in the world produce sour crude.

And I have the actual figures for our crude that were received by Petrotrin. They

received an average price of US $64 per barrel over the last couple days. US $64

per barrel at a time when West Texas Intermediate was trading in the range of US

$60 to $61 per barrel.

So, in fact, Petrotrin has achieved a sale of our crude at a price that is

approximately $3 more than the world price of West Texas Intermediate. And to

make the point, it is time to debunk this nonsense about sour crude. If the major

oil producers in the world, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraqi, Kuwait,

Russia—Russian Federation, one of the largest producers of oil in the world. If all

of these countries produced sour crude, then where are they selling it and who are

they selling it to? And you would be surprised, Madam Speaker, you would be

very surprised to learn that when you look at the actual prices—let me give you the

prices today: The price of WTI was in a range from $55.84 to 56.22; the price of

Ural’s crude oil, which is Russian crude, was $65.41—[Interruption

Hon. Member: Sour crude.

Hon. C. Imbert: Sour crude, almost $10 more than the price of the West Texas

Intermediate. If you go further—but they do not know. They have a little bit of

knowledge, but not much. The price of Dubai crude oil, which is sour crude, sold

at a price of $63.98 today, almost $8 more than West Texas Intermediate. “Who

paying dat?” Who paying for Ural’s crude oil?—one of the largest exporters of oil

in the world, the Russian Federation, they produce Ural sour crude. [Interruption]

And I am hearing from the other side, “Who paying for dat? Who paying for dat?”

244




UNREVISED

These are the posted world oil prices.

Mr. Charles: Would you give way?

Hon. C. Imbert: No. Oman’s crude oil today, $64.49, almost $9 above the price

of West Texas Intermediate, Madam Speaker.

OPEC Basket, these are all, Madam Speaker—all that I am calling out here

are world categories and world prices of particular crudes produced in particular

regions of the world. The OPEC basket, $67.01. So, Oman’s $64.49, Dubai 33—

63 and 98, Ural 65 and 41, and WTI 55.93. All of the oils that I have called out

there, they just do not know any better. OPEC basket, Oman, Dubai, Ural, are all

sour crudes with a sulphur content in excess of 0.5 per cent. But you have to hear

this stuff from them, and others who should know better, and say that our oil has

no value because it is sour crude.

Mr. Charles: We did not say no value, less value.

Hon. C. Imbert: Madam Speaker, I reiterate. I reiterate, Madam Speaker, that the

price received by Petrotrin for its first shipment of crude oil averaged in excess of

US $64 per barrel, at a time when WTI was trading at $61 per barrel.

I have received this information from the accounts department of Petrotrin.

As Corporation Sole I requested the information and I received it. Now, what did

the hon. Member for Caroni East have to say? We should have been given audited

financials for Petrotrin and a complete list of assets, and that is an insult not to be

given this information, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as I was listening—yes,

in the Bill—to the hon. Member, I really wondered whether the hon. Members

opposite bothered to do any research at all because if the hon. Member had gone to

the Petroleum Vesting Act, the Petrotrin Vesting Act of 1993, Chap. 62:07 and had

read what properties and rights were transferred, what the hon. Member would

245




UNREVISED

have seen is in that vesting Act of 1993 the following was transferred. All oil

mining leases and licences and freehold petroleum rights held by Trintoc and

Trintopec. All producing and non-producing oil fields, inclusive of oil wells, tank

farms, gathering stations, equipment, machinery, et cetera. All the rights, title and

interest of Trintoc and Trintopec in the shares of Trinmar, Trinidad and Tobago

Marine Petroleum, Trinidad Northern Areas Limited, and so on.

The Pointe-a-Pierre and Point Fortin refineries is the whole thing; Pointe-a-

Pierre and Point Fortin refineries. They did not itemize a single thing in the

refineries. They just said, “We are transferring the Pointe-a-Pierre and Point Fortin

refineries”. The Pointe-a-Pierre hospital, those dispensaries owned by Trintoc and

Trintopec, and real estate upon which these properties are located. That is the First

Schedule of the Petrotrin Vesting Act of 1993. There is no quantity surveyor

inside of there. There is no microscopic examination required. Let me look for a

copy of the Bill. Yeah, I have a copy of the Bill.

What are we doing, Madam Speaker? We are, amazingly, transferring all

mining leases, production sharing contracts, [Laughter] petroleum licenses,

farmhouse, lease operatorships, production services contracts, joint operating

agreements, oil sale contracts, all pipeline—[Interruption]

Hon. Member: Plagiarism.

Hon. C. Imbert: It sounds like plagiarism in truth. All pipeline and other licenses

issued under the Petroleum Act, all producing and non-producing onshore and

offshore oil fields, the crude oil pipeline and the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery, all rights

and title of Petrotrin in the shares of Point Fortin LNG exports, et cetera, the

harbours infrastructure and all machinery and equipment, et cetera, and other

things associated with the exploration and production operations at Petrotrin.

246




UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, it is almost identical; almost identical. In 1993 we did not

have any 100 page Bill which lists every pump, every bolt, and as my hon.

colleague indicates, every blade of grass, every block, every sheet of galvanize,

and every barrel of oil that was in Trintoc and Trintopec. All they said is they are

transferring the whole Point Fortin refinery and the whole Pointe-a-Pierre refinery

from Trintoc and Trintopec to Petrotrin. And what are we doing? We are

transferring and distributing among the various new companies, Heritage, Paria, et

cetera, various assets of Petrotrin, and we are describing them using legal

terminology in exactly the same way that was done by this Parliament in 1993. So

therefore that point made by Caroni East, I am afraid, was a non-point.

The Member for Caroni East also accused the Petrotrin board of criminal

conduct when it borrowed its bond, when it went and raised its bond at 9 per cent,

and alleged that in 2007, or whenever it was, that the market rate was 1 per cent.

And he said because the market rate was 1 per cent when Petrotrin borrowed at

nine, that was a criminal act. The Attorney General has made the point that the

prime rate in Trinidad and Tobago at that time was 11.75 per cent. The Member

for Couva South got up in an attempt to rebut, and said well the rate was 6.4 per

cent, not realizing he was actually rebutting the Member for Caroni East who said

it was one. But the fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, what my learned or

unlearned friends opposite have not understood, is that the US $850 million bond

that Petrotrin raised at 9½ per cent was unsecured. Unsecured! It was not

collateralized, Madam Speaker. No assets of Petrotrin were charged to that loan.

And when you are borrowing in an unsecured manner—is only the cash flow of

Petrotrin that was used to repay that bond. No assets.

The refinery was not pledged to it. The lands of Petrotrin were not pledged

247




UNREVISED

to it, and therefore, with the prime rate at 11.75 per cent for a secured loan, and the

Wall Street loan rate in America, for American companies, for a secured loan at

6.4 per cent, I think Petrotrin did quite well to get an unsecured loan of that

magnitude, almost TT $6 billion at 9½ per cent. I think they did quite well. And

therefore, I reject the statements made by the hon. Member for Caroni East that it

was criminal. It was not criminal at all. It was actually quite a good move. In

fact, we were quite surprised when we started to look at the transfer of assets, and

we were a little concerned that the assets were being cumbered. We were very

surprised to learn that none of the assets are encumbered. No mortgages, no liens,

no charges. So, I think it is terribly unfair, and as the hon. Prime Minister made,

some of these people are no longer with us, and it is terribly unfair to malign

deceased persons for no reason in that terrible way.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about how much money the

employees who are being terminated at Petrotrin are going to get. The Member for

Oropouche East would have us believe that most of them would get only $80,000,

and be pauperized. Madam Speaker, I have the actual figures, and the average pay

out is in excess of $500,000 per employee.

Hon. Member: Average, eh.

Hon. C. Imbert: The average is in excess of $500,000 per employee. And there

are a number of persons who are getting in excess of $2 million. It seems to me,

Madam Speaker, that Members opposite do not understand the concept of average.

The average pay out is in excess of $500,000. And therefore that cannot be a few.

That is at least half. That is the concept of average, Madam Speaker.

[Interruption]

I am looking now, Madam Speaker, at other points made. The Member for

248




UNREVISED

Chaguanas East made no points. The Member for Naparima made no points. The

Member for Couva North made no points. So, let us now go, Madam Speaker, to

the points made by the Member for Siparia. The Member for Siparia made two

interesting points. Two interesting points. The first point was, that by Legal

Notice No. 27 dated February the 12th 2015, my predecessor in the Ministry of

Finance signed a vesting order and caused to be published a vesting order, vesting

the lands owned by Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises used for exploration and

production in Petrotrin. So, the hon. Member for Siparia said that what we are

doing here is nonsense because the lands already belong to Petrotrin, and that the

Bill is flawed, the drafting is bad, fire the Attorney General, and so on. The

Member for Siparia made a big song and dance about this issue, a big song and

dance, and indicated that this information, this brilliant legal point, was given to

her by Sen. Saddam Hosein, a brilliant legal scholar who is obviously far more

versed in law than the hon. Member for San Fernando West. And, we were told

that what we are doing is illegal, it is nonsensical, and so on, and so on, and so on.

11.30 p.m.

What are the facts, Madam Speaker? When we looked at the 1993 Act, the

Petrotrin Vesting Act, and we looked at the Second Schedule, what does the

Second Schedule of the Petrotrin Vesting Act of 1993, Chap. 62:07 say? The

Second Schedule is exceptions. The Second Schedule was created to empower the

Minister of Finance at some point in time in the future, by way of section 6 of the

Act, to vest all or some of the matters listed as exceptions. And the exceptions

included all the real estate holdings of Trintoc and Trintopec, and included

Pointe-a-Pierre residential area, clubs and recreational facilities, beach camp, et

cetera. That is the first part of the Second Schedule of the Petrotrin Vesting Act.

249




UNREVISED

These are exceptions, where the Minister in the future would be empowered under

section 6 of the Act to come with a vesting Order to vest all or some of these things

in Petrotrin. And part 2 reads as follows:

“2. All agricultural holdings namely the share of—

(a) Trintoc Agricultural Company Limited;

(b) Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited.”

So what the hon. Minister of Finance and the Economy, my predecessor did, was

cause to be published, Legal Notice No. 27, 12th February, 2015, and it says:

“The Petrotrin Vesting Act, Chap, 62:07…

Made by the Minister of Finance and the Economy under section 6 of the

Petrotrin Vesting Act”—and it goes on to say:

“…that the assets listed”—are—“hereinafter mentioned”—are—“transferred

to and vested in Petrotrin:”

—and it has a Schedule with a series of parcels of land. And when you add up all

the sizes of all the parcels, you get a total of 3,024 acres.

Mr. Al-Rawi: 724.

Hon. C. Imbert: Sorry, 3,724 acres. And it also said that the lands to be retained

by Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises totalled 1,397 acres. So, in this vesting

Order of February 2015, the Minister of Finance at the time purported to vest in

Petrotrin these lands. When one looks at our Bill, what does our Bill say? Our Bill

says in Schedule 2 that:

“The right, title, claim or interest of the PSAEL…”—

Madam Speaker: Hon. Minister of Finance, your original 30 minutes are now

spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes to wind up your contribution.

Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do wish to avail

250




UNREVISED

myself of the additional 15 minutes. So that in our Bill, in our Schedule 2, we are

seeking to vest in the Heritage Petroleum Company, the:

“Assets, Property and Rights”—to be—“Transferred to Heritage Petroleum

The right, title, claim or interest of the PSAEL Lands used for exploration

and production operations, consisting of 1,829 acres located in Coora and

Quarry and shown shaded on the map marked ‘Map A-1’ below, and 1,896

acres located in Palo Seco and shown shaded on the map marked ‘Map A-2’

below.”

When you add the two together you do get 3,725 acres.

So the hon. Member for Siparia did the addition, came up with 3,725 acres

and then looked at the Order that the previous Minister of Finance had made, her

Minister of Finance which said 3,724 acres and the hon. Member for Siparia

concluded that we are speaking about the same land. Well there is a problem,

Madam Speaker, that is how they operate. But you see unfortunately in the

Petrotrin Vesting Act of 1993, it empowered the Minister to vest all agricultural

holdings, namely the share of Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited.

Now, Madam Speaker, the definition of an agricultural holding is a unit

production and it can refer to land because land produces agricultural products.

However, a share is a unit of ownership, that is an equal proportion of a company’s

capital. So in the Petrotrin Vesting Act, we have two contradictory words and

phrases. We have that the Minister can vest agricultural holdings, namely the

share of the Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited at bare minimum. This is

ambiguous and at worst, it is just wrong. Because it makes no sense to have these

words strung together, all agricultural holdings namely the share of Palo Seco

Agricultural Enterprises Limited.

251




UNREVISED

So our learned Attorney General, who is a little more learned than the legal

advisors of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, [Crosstalk] quite appropriately and

correctly advised that in this legislation, Madam Speaker—because the possibility

that the legal Order done by my predecessor is void, null, ultra vires and of no

effect—because the Minister of Finance under the Petrotrin Vesting Act is not

empowered to vest the lands of Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited in

Petrotrin. He is empowered to transfer the shares of Palo Seco Enterprises

Limited.

So, our Attorney General, in the event that what the previous Minister of

Finance did was void in law and therefore Palo Seco lands have not been vested in

Petrotrin, it does not matter what this Order says, because if the Minister of

Finance does not have the power to do this then this is of no effect. So what our

Attorney General has done in their avoidance of doubt and to plug any lacuna or

loophole that could exist and probably does exist, Madam Speaker, is included in

this vesting Bill that the PSAEL Lands as set out in Schedule 2 are hereby

transferred to and vested in Heritage Petroleum.

So therefore, Madam Speaker, it does not matter. Because in 3(1) it says:

“All of the assets of Petrotrin relative to the exploration and production

operations described in Schedule 1 are hereby transferred to and vested in

Heritage Petroleum.”

So if the hon. Member for Siparia is right, although she is terribly wrong,

then if these are Petrotrin assets then they are going by virtue of section 3(1). But

because we are very aware of the ambiguity in the Second Schedule of the

Petrotrin Vesting Act, where they mixed up agricultural holdings and share we

have decided to add a 3(2); it covers everything. [Desk thumping] That is legal

252




UNREVISED

drafting for you, not that foolishness that took place before us. [Desk thumping

and crosstalk] And now let us go to the other allegation made by the hon. Member

for Siparia.

Mr. Deyalsingh: Amateurs.

Hon. C. Imbert: Yes, amateurs. Let us go to the other allegation may by the hon.

Member. [Crosstalk] The hon. Member for Siparia also complained that Petrotrin,

[Crosstalk] in recruiting Mr. Wiley to be the CEO of Heritage Petroleum had

breached the Petroleum regulations, particularly, the Regulation 42. And, Madam

Speaker, the problem with that is that you have to read the Regulation 42 very,

very, carefully. Because if you do not read it carefully you could get set up, you

could set up yourself. Because what the Petroleum Regulation No. 42 says, is this:

A licensee shall—

“(f) minimise the employment of foreign personnel, ensure that such

employees are engaged only in positions for which the operator

cannot, after reasonable advertisement in at least one daily newspaper

circulating in Trinidad and Tobago, find available nationals of

Trinidad and Tobago having the necessary qualifications and…”—so

on.

The Petroleum Regulation No. 42 refers to a licensee. Heritage Petroleum is not a

licensee.

Hon. Member: Is not a licensee. Amateurs.

Hon. C. Imbert: Because Heritage Petroleum does not have a licence to operate

and to explore and produce petroleum, Madam Speaker. And if the hon. Member

was properly advised by her legal advisors she would have—the hon. Member,

would have been aware of section 28, Regulation 28, which states as follows:

253




UNREVISED

“Unless the licence otherwise provides, an assignment or transfer to another

person of the rights acquired and the obligations undertaken shall not be

valid without the previous consent in writing of the Minister…”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Say that again.

Hon. C. Imbert: “Unless the licence otherwise provides, an assignment or

transfer to another person of the rights acquired and the obligations

undertaken shall not be valid without the previous consent in writing of the

Minister…”

So, in order for Heritage Petroleum to become a licensee, the Minister of

Energy and Energy Industries must grant consent in writing to Heritage Petroleum

to allow the assignment of the petroleum licences, currently held by Petrotrin to

Heritage Petroleum, and that has not yet occurred, Madam Speaker. That cannot

occur. So Heritage Petroleum is not a licensee and this Regulation 42 with respect

to the advertisement in a daily newspaper applies only to a licensee. So there is no

breach whatsoever of the Petroleum Act or the Petroleum Regulations.

So, Madam Speaker, I think I have addressed the only two important points

made by the hon. Member for Siparia. [Crosstalk] In the first instance, we are of

the firm view that the Petrotrin Vesting Act of 1993 was badly drafted, and in

particular, the Second Schedule, Part II of the Second Schedule did not give the

Minister of Finance the power to vest lands belonging to Palo Seco Agricultural

Enterprises Limited in Petrotrin. It only gave the Minister the power to vest the

shares in that company in Petrotrin, Madam Speaker. That is our opinion. And

that is why we have done it in this way. We have covered both bases; we have said

all lands belonging to Petrotrin are vested and all lands belonging to Palo Seco

Enterprises are vested. So whichever the situation is and there is always going to

254




UNREVISED

be some smart lawyer—after we do this, I could see a smart lawyer on the other

side, [Crosstalk] one of them, who has advised—

Hon. Members: He is a “smart man” lawyer.

Hon. C. Imbert: Sorry, [Laughter] Let us not say it. I could see a lawyer on the

other side—I apologize for describing one of their lawyers as smart, I could see a

lawyer on the other side coming and—after we take that basket and we fall for that

bait and we take out that section and we amend it in accordance with what the hon.

Member for Siparia has recommended, a lawyer coming and saying, these lands

are not vested in Petrotrin, because the Petrotrin Vesting Act is invalid and the

Minister does not have the power to do this. And this has happened to us.

We had a situation where the former administration did not do what was

necessary under the Children Act. The former Government. And as soon as we

came in, they sued us for not doing what was required to be done under—in other

words, they sued us for proclaiming the Act without doing what is necessary

because they are the ones who did it. They are the ones who did not do what is

supposed to be done. They did not do what was required but they come and sue us.

So you think we are going to take that bait from them. We know that there is

ambiguity in the Petrotrin Vesting Act. We know that the words do not make any

sense. [Crosstalk] We believe that the former Minister of Finance could not vest

Palo Seco lands in Petrotrin and therefore we are not taking any chances. We are

plugging [Desk thumping] every loophole and we are leaving nothing for them to

come and undermine and upset the restructuring of Petrotrin, Madam Speaker.

[Crosstalk]

Now let me just close, let me just close. I know you all are embarrassed.

[Crosstalk] Let me just close. You thought you had some big points, eh. I know

255




UNREVISED

you are embarrassed. Let me move now to the Wild Fowl Trust. I heard the hon.

Member for Couva—I cannot remember who it was, the Member for Couva

North?—whoever—one of the hon. Members opposite raised some concerns about

the Wildfowl Trust. I want to state on behalf of the Government that instructions

have been given to Petrotrin and its associated companies that the Wild Fowl Trust

will be preserved and supported exactly how it was in the past. [Desk thumping]

The companies will continue to provide the Trust with a subvention, use of

the land on which the Trust is located, waiver of utility charges and all of the

support that is provided to the Wild Fowl Trust now and has been provided in the

past will be provided in the future. I am giving that commitment. I am authorized

to give that commitment on behalf of the Government. So that puts that to rest,

Madam Speaker.

So I believe I have covered all the points. There are only two points that

they made on that side, only two, that we broke the law; that we are vesting lands

in Heritage that do not belong to Palo Seco; that is not true, we do not believe that

to be so. We believe that what their Minister did was flawed, invalid and wrong.

And they say we are breaking the law with respect to the recruitment of Mr. Wiley.

That is palpably false. Heritage Petroleum is not a licensee and the regulation

quoted by the hon. Member was with respect to a licensee.

So, Madam Speaker, I think we are have captured everything that is required

to be captured. All this Bill is doing, just like the 1993 Vesting Act, is vesting

certain assets of Petrotrin in various companies which will all be state enterprises,

wholly owned, controlled by the Corporation Sole, Madam Speaker; they are all,

all four companies are wholly owned state enterprises, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Al-Rawi: As the one was before.

256




UNREVISED

Hon. C. Imbert:—as the one was before, Madam Speaker. So that this Bill

simply transfers assets from one state enterprise to another state enterprise. It is as

simple as that. Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Excellent. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Deyalsingh: Well done.


Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a committee of the whole House.

House in committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble approved.

Question put and agreed to: That the Bill be reported to the House.

House resumed.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided: Ayes 21 Noes 12

AYES

Robinson Regis, Hon. C.

Al-Rawi, Hon. F.

Imbert, Hon. C.

Young, Hon. S.

Deyalsingh, Hon. T.

Hinds, Hon. F.

Mitchell, Hon. R.

Cudjoe, Hon. S.

257




UNREVISED

Garcia, Hon. A.

Crichlow-Cockburn, Hon. C.

Forde, E.

Dillon, Hon. Maj. Gen. E.

Webster-Roy, Hon. A.

Gadsby-Dolly, Hon. Dr. N.

Mc Donald, Hon. M.

Francis, Hon. Dr. L.

Jennings-Smith, Mrs. G.

Olivierre, Ms. N.

Antoine, Brig. Gen. A.

Leonce, A.

Smith, D.

NOES

Lee, D.

Charles, R.

Rambachan, Dr. S.

Karim, F.

Newallo-Hosein, Mrs. C.

Gopeesingh, Dr. T.

Gayadeen-Gopeesingh, Mrs. V.

Indarsingh, R.

Padarath, B.

Bodoe, Dr. L.

Ramdial, Ms. R.

258




UNREVISED

Singh, G.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

The Minister of Planning and Development (Hon. Camille Robinson-Regis):

Thank you very kindly, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this

House do now adjourn to Friday the 23rd day of November, 2018. Madam

Speaker, ordinarily that would have been Private Members’ Day, but I note that the

Opposition, in their normal manner, lack the diligence to ensure that they had a

Motion—

Hon. Members: “Ooh!”

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis:—ready for Private Members’ Day. [Crosstalk] There

is a Motion that will be ready?

Mr. Lee: Yeah.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Where is it? It is not on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lee: Ask the Clerk of the House.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Madam.

[Madam Speaker confers with the Clerk]

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to advise that the Motion will qualify on

the 25th of November.

Hon. Members: “Ooh nooo!” Again. Powder puff.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, in their normal incompetent way,

[Desk thumping] there is no Motion on the Order Paper or a Motion that qualifies

for Friday the 23rd day of November, 2018. No Motion. And you know, Madam

Speaker, the Opposition always insists on their Private Members’ Day.

259

Adjournment, 2018.11.14

UNREVISED

Unfortunately, there is no Motion that qualifies.

Madam Speaker, as a consequence of that the Government will proceed with

the Income Tax (Amdt.) Bill. [Desk thumping] And that is the business that we

will be doing next Friday, Ma’am, at 1.30 p.m. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, [Crosstalk] the question is that this House do

now adjourn to Friday the 23rd November, 2018, at 1.30 p.m. All in favour say,

aye, any against—

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, the very kind Government has

determined that we would like to make a correction for the date for the

adjournment. May I have an opportunity to speak with the Member for Pointe-a-

Pierre, please? Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Just now. I believe I have already put the question.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Yes, Ma’am, but we need to revisit the question.

Madam Speaker: All right, so basically what you are asking is to vary the

Standing Orders?

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Yes, Ma’am.

Madam Speaker: You all agreed?

Mr. Lee: Yeah, we all are. I have to go behind? [Laughter]

Hon. Members: “Ooh goood.” Careful.

Mr. Lee: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am so very delighted that at 12.03 a.m. we could have such a

spirit of congeniality, okay. So that you all need—

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Just a minute.

[Pause]

Madam Speaker: Leader of the House.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam

260

Adjournment, 2018.11.14

UNREVISED

Speaker, after very intense discussions—

Mr. Lee: Behind.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Behind.

Hon. Member: Behind closed doors.

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: It was not closed doors. Yes, Madam Speaker, the

adjournment is to the 23rd day of November, 2018, at 1.30 p.m. At that time we

will start the Planning and Facilitation of Development (Amdt.) Bill and if time

permits we will complete committee stage of the Income Tax (Amdt.) Bill.


House adjourned accordingly.

Adjourned at 12.08 a.m.

20181114, unrevised house debate - parliament of …that a bill to vest certain assets of petroleum...

Documents