| And while there were well wishes for the new senator - things got contentious when the Senate debated and passed the Briceno Government's General Revenue Supplementary Appropriation Bill #4. As we told you, this supplementary bill was to get parliament's approval for the 1.5-million-dollar ex gratia payment which was made to the stevedores.
As viewers are aware, this case is in court, and so, the Senate President wanted all of the Senators to strictly confine themselves to the contents of the bill. While enforcing that rule, she warned the Senators that their parliamentary privilege cannot be used to make comments that can later help or prejudice the case of the litigants who are in court.
Here's what happened when Senator Michael Peyrefitte, a former Speaker of the House, tried to make his contributions on the debate over this bill:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte - UDP Senator
"You see the last time, when we debated the last appropriation bill, you said you will hear the lawbreakers from over there, and he made certain pronouncements."
Hon. Carolyn Trench Sandiford - President, Senate
"Senator Michael Peyrefitte can stick to the content of the bill."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"I'll tie it in, Madam President. It's all related because they're doing here exactly what they criticized us for."
Hon. Carolyn Trench Sandiford
"Again, Senator Michael Peyrefitte, can we stick to the content of the bill."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"Madam President, I am sticking to the bill."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"Can we so do?"
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"I am, Madam President, with all due respect, and with all deference to you. I certainly won't punch the wall and blame the police, but with due respect, I think that whenever we discuss a bill, there is always a build-up discussion that would lead to the overall concept of what this is. What they're doing here, is coming to the Honorable Senate to provide for monies that have already been pledged."
Hon. Carolyn Trench Sandiford
"Senator Michael Peyrefitte, please be mindful of Section 2, and I bring it to your attention."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"I've not only been in the senate since 2017, but I'm also an officer of the court. I fully appreciate not discussing matters that would somehow make my pronunciations or presentations be prejudicial to a court process. If the government was so sensitive about the pronouncements in parliament concerning this appropriation, then maybe they should not have brought it. Since they want to respect the court so much and respect the process so much, then delay this until the court has completed its process, if you really care. The government has no business paying out money to 1 of 2 parties in a private dispute."
Hon. Carolyn Trench Sandiford
"Senator Michael Peyrefitte, can we."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"This has nothing to do with the case-."
Hon. Carolyn Trench Sandiford
"You are now speaking about parties."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"They think they are smart and we are stupid. They know that nobody in their right minds would go against stevedores getting 1.5 million dollars, but the argument has to be made, then why stop at the stevedores? Why not give the cane farmers 2 million? Why not give the citrus workers 5 million? Why not give other sectors of society money? Why not give back public servants their 10%. Why are you getting involved in private affairs? That's the policy that I'm debating, Madam President, not the case."
Elena Smith, the Senator representing Labour Unions and the Civil Society Steering Committee, also made a contribution to the debate on this bill, and here's how she explained why her constituents support it.
Hon. Elena Smith - Labour Senator
"We believe that the stevedores are deserving, and so if we have no issue in terms of this matter being addressed. I believe that maybe when there was the thought of privatization of the Port, we probably weren't thinking this far, and we weren't expecting some of-."
Hon. Carolyn Trench Sandiford - President, Senate
"Again, Senator, bring it to the bill and the content of the bill."
Hon. Elena Smith
"I'll do that, Madam President. But, I'm just trying to point out that we didn't look far down the road, and so, we're here now, to approve 1.5 million. And while some may say that's a lot, a huge amount, it may not be deserving, we believe that it is more than deserving because it will not cover what these stevedores will have to endure going forward. And so, I listened, Madam President, just a bit to what was said in the House, and I know that there were concerns when the matter was raised of it was the government abiding by the Finance and Audit Reform Act. As unions that have always worked to ensure that government is accountable and that the government does what is right, despite the fact we support, we have to remind the government that it ought to ensure that it abides by these acts, and do things when they're supposed to be done, and not have to come after the fact. I believe that as trade unions, the work that we have been doing - as I said, while we certainly approve, and we support, we have to make that reminder."
| 