In last year’s Standing Finance Committee examination of the 2016 Budget, new Finance Minister Colm Imbert appeared to have enjoyed himself in Parliament, rebuking questions from the Opposition on the Budget.
His haughty anthem in that year’s Standing Finance Committee meeting—where Opposition MPs usually grill Government on Budget items—had been, “Ask yourself, you were in Government when (X or Y) took place!”
For this year’s Committee analysis of the 2017 Budget—which started Thursday—Imbert, who’s been in charge of Finance for the past year, obviously couldn’t say the same thing. His was therefore a slightly warmer response this rounds.
Receptive at the start fielding questions in mild tones from Opposition MP, he assisted several UNC MPs “No problem... go ahead.... let me clear this up...”
But by 2.26 pm, it had worn thin.
“Come on—we only just start!” Imbert reverted to usual tones on an Opposition query from UNC’s Ganga Singh.
Yesterday’s Day Two of Committee deliberations, was however slightly better. National Security Minister Edmund Dillon handled questions on Ministry matters on his own. And Imbert only jumped in to assist a few times.
Still, Opposition MPs got their points in, critiques, suggestions and all.
“...Evasive Minister, very evasive,” admonished UNC’s Tim Gopeesingh when one of Dillon’s answer was a tad brief for his liking.
“We’re not computers, madame chair,” Opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar remarked to the chairman when she missed querying an item. With 40 sectors to analyse over the five days of meetings, Committee chairman (House Speaker Bridgid Anisette-George) intended to ensure they kept up. Close to noon, she signalled, “This (National Security) is a big item, lunch will depend on completing it...”
“....You can’t intimidate (us), or deny lunch,” UNC’s Singh reminded. And so they didn’t complete Security before lunch.
The SFC stage was though, a milder format than the Lower House’s Budget debate, concluded last Wednesday. There, both sides had had ample opportunity (such as 55 minutes per speaker allowed) to slug away at each other.
The exchanges had been anticipated: Government still looking backward, blaming the past PP for their current predicament mixed with to some extent justifying current moves after a year in the “saddle.”
Opposition, with cannon fodder based on the Government’s first year, still forced to defend its tenure.
All highlighted by revelations of past and present doings. Probes were promised (and threatened by Government). Probes were pronounced necessary (and demanded by Opposition). If it came to that, both sides abused Parliamentary privilege. Names were called of persons known and unknown, who were not Members of the House.
Between the to-in and fro-ing emerged lesser (or not) stellar moments.
PNM’s Marlene McDonald on Tuesday, throwing the considerable full weight of her anger at the UNC behind her caustic comments against same. Berating UNC’s Suruj Rambachan (whose chair was later seen turned with back towards her direction).
But she still earned a good natured blown kiss from UNC’s Gopeesingh at session’s end.
The Speaker piloting new-style rebukes to some Opposition MPs saying, “You’re experienced enough to know...”
Employing diplomatic eviction notice, instructing UNC’s Rudy Indarsingh to take “a little walk” (out of the chamber) since it was “close to dinner time.”
And once in a while, bringing the rod down with a stern “Members!”
The Speaker coached charges in Parliamentary terms, instructing UNC’s Singh to use a different word than “raided” in his reference to certain past PNM doings.
She was called out on it a moment after by UNC’s Roodal Moonilal who requested she ask same of PNM’s Stuart Young when he employed the same word on past PP doings.
Budget debate spotlight however came for Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, not with Opposition quips about his renewed jet locks. But via the unfavourable microscope focused by Moonilal on pictures of children alleged to be Al-Rawi’s using high powered weapons.
Moonilal’s contention regarding breach of the law for weapons to be in the hands of minors, appeared to trigger an issue for Al-Rawi—Cabinet’s legal adviser.
Amid assorted questions, including whether the weapons were loaded, the influence of the Firearms Act (5) on the matter, what input if any by Special Branch, if the AG has to resign—the outcome remains ahead with army and police probes. Al-Rawi, however, won’t be back for next week’s SFC’s continuation. He left for London yesterday.
