Speeches in the National Assembly

LIMIT ON AMOUNT OUTSTANDING UNDER GUARANTEES GIVEN UNDER THE GUARANTEE OF LOANS (PUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND   COMPANIES) ACT
Minister of Finance [Dr. Singh]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the motion in my name published under the caption “Limit on Amount Outstanding under Guarantees Given under the Guarantee of Loans Public Corporations and Companies Act”, published on Notice Paper 195 on the 13th June, 2013. This motion is in fact one that is relevant to the matter just considered. That is to say the historic and transformational Amaila Falls Hydro-power Project, but before I proceed to the substance and merit of the motion permit me a brief reminiscence occasioned by immediate past developments in this Honourable House. I recall in the first budget speech that I presented before this House during the Tenth Parliament, which would have been budget 2012.
I recall acknowledging the new parliamentary dispensation and referring to the lofty expectations and optimistic anticipation that had been sounded and that were emerging from some quarters, but particular our friends on that side of the House. I recall making the point that whilst undoubtedly this new parliamentary dispensation presented opportunities for our country, I went on to say that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that it will not be without challenge. I made the point that we would be traversing previously uncharted waters that oftentimes our Constitution and legislative framework, which clearly had not anticipated this kind of configuration, would be put to severe tests. I exhorted my colleagues to be guided constantly in all the decisions that we make and in every vote that we cast in this House by that which is good for Guyana.
This reminiscence of mine, Sir, is inevitable, given the developments of today which can only be described as an watershed moment for this Tenth Parliament of Guyana, because what we witnessed on the matter of the Hydro-Electric Power (Amendment) Bill 2013, just a few minutes ago, was an example of that which is good for Guyana being in the most unfortunate manner cast aside by our friends on the opposite side of the House.  Instead that which is good for Guyana is being placed in the unfortunate and invidious position of being treated, in what our friends on that side of the House clearly believe to be, as a game of political football. Well, regrettably the well being of the people of Guyana should not be reduced in this manner, and cannot, and should in good conscience be treated in so flippant a design.
Reflect for a moment that all of us in this House have, at one time or another, advocated the harnessing of Guyana’s hydropower potential and indeed have  gone further and recognised the merits of the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project in particular, most of us. Recall that, as my colleague and friend to my immediate right, the Hon. Member and Minister Robert Montgomery Persaud said tonight, hydropower, and the harnessing  of its vast and phenomenal benefits, is not a creature of the imagination of the People’s Progressive Party; it is not an invention or a concoction of the PPP in Government. In fact, for generations, many generations before even the most elderly amongst us in this House...   [Mr. Nandlall: Mr. Greenidge...]    I am not looking in particular to the Member to whom the Attorney General is addressing his comment... even amongst the most chronologically senior of us in this House, have dreamt of hydropower being harnessed for the well being of our country.
In fact, it would be recalled that the People’s National Congress, in Government, in 1970s, itself, under the leadership, I believe he would have been Prime Minister of the time, of  Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, endeavoured the development of hydropower in the Upper Mazaruni,  project that for reasons, which, today, I will not dilate unduly, never ultimately saw the light of day. What matters is that the immeasurable benefits of hydropower were recognised even by our friends on that side of the House when they were sitting on this side of the House.
The virtues of affordable and reliable power, the advantages that would flow therefrom, are well known, have been widely documented and eloquently extolled by many before me, and I need not repeat them. Suffice it to say that when - I will not say if - we harness hydropower in Guyana that vast benefits will flow to each and every Guyanese citizen.
As a Member on that side of the House said, in one of the many consultations that we had with the Opposition on this project, the supporters of the People’s National Congress - the APNU, they are styled more recently - do not live in one side of the country whilst the supporters of the PPP live in the other side of the country. They lived in the same villages; they live in the same streets; they live next to each other; they are served by the same electricity grid; they work in the same businesses and offices and factories whose growth and production and productivity and profitability and expansion would so phenomenally in favourably influenced by affordable and reliable power. The injury, which is done, to this project, by withholding of approval for such a straightforward and uncontentious piece of legislation, does not harm or hurt the People’s Progressive Party or the People’s Progressive Party supporters. It hurts and harms each and every single Guyanese person, the APNU and the AFC supporters. I did not mention the AFC supporters, so few they are in number, but they live in the same villages and streets too.
Permit me to say, Sir, that this injury inflicted on the people of Guyana a grave injustice, committed on them by no less a collective than the APNU and the AFC acting in concert this evening. Why is it that this support for a project, which all of us recognised is to be so worthy...? Why is it that this legislation, which in its own right, its own merit, its own contentious...? I think Minister Robert Persaud said that it is almost not political. Why is it that this piece of legislation did not receive the benefit of the support of the APNU and the AFC?  It is because, Sir, of what can only be described as a retaliatory vote. It is a vote in retaliation, for what?  It is for the failed attempt  by the Opposition to derail and disrupt the time-honoured tradition of adherence to the Standing Orders and in particular as it relates to the allocation of time slots for the treatment and consideration of Government’s businesses on the Order Paper. It is a simple matter, such as that, that led to a failed and thwarted attempt to frustrate the Standing Orders and disrupt the sequence of business for today, and because this attempt was frustrated, and rightly so, a retaliatory vote was unleashed on the people of Guyana in the non passage of the Hydro-Electric Power (Amendment) Bill 0213...
Mr. Speaker: That may be so Dr. Singh, but the motion before us is for the increase of the debt ceiling. I have given you wide burst, because for 10 minutes you have dilated on the Opposition’s motive vis-à-vis the legislation. I think what is before us now is the motion standing in your name.
Dr. Singh: Thank you very much Sir. In your customary manner you clearly pre-empted my next remarks. We have, as a country, an obligation, a responsibility, to speak with one voice when it comes to matters of national importance. A project, such as this, which has certain critical prerequisites, we are asking the international community to support this project and the least we could  do is to speak with a single voice as a legislator. This was not accomplished in the case of the Hydro-Electric Power (Amendment) Bill, but there is yet time, before the vote is taken on the motion, which is currently before us, and I trust that the Opposition will benefit from the reawaken from its conscience received a message from any one or any number of the 750, 000 Guyanese persons who have waited for so long for hydropower. I trust that the Opposition Members would avail themselves of the opportunity that would be presented to them shortly to amend their ways to recant and to cast their votes firmly and decisively in favour of the motion before us.
In relation to this motion, it is in fact quite a simple, notwithstanding its several WHEREAS clauses. It, in fact, has only a single resolve clause which is really the substance and core of the matter. The Guarantee of Loans (Public Corporations and Companies Act) is an Act that permits the Government of Guyana to guarantee the discharge by a Public Corporation or company of its obligations:
“Under an agreement which will be entered into corporation with a lending agency in respect with any borrowing by that corporation is authorised by Government;
Undertake the repayments to a lending agency as such sums that a lending agency may advance to or for the benefits of Government;
Assume such other obligations as may be agreed between the Government and lending agents in relation to pursuant to any such agreement;”
And importantly for the purposes of this Act
“Borrowing by a corporation is defined to include obligations of the corporation in question to make payments to any person arising out of any contract lawfully entered into.”
It is well known that the Guyana Power and Light Inc. will be executing a power purchase agreement in the Amaila Falls Hydropower Inc. under which agreement Guyana Power and Light (GPL), as it is known so fondly or otherwise in Guyana, as it is known so popularly in Guyana, or widely, will be purchasing power from Amaila Falls Hydropower Inc. and will be paying for that power and will have obligations to meet, including, in particular, its financial obligation under that power agreement.
Under the transaction structure, which we are currently contemplating, in order to ensure that the other parties and partners to this transaction are satisfied of GPL’s ability to discharge its obligations to provide them with the necessary assurances required to conclude the transaction of this nature, and in particular to ensure the cost of the transaction, and in particular the cost of the financing is kept at its lowest possible, certain assurances are required of us as a Government, including an assurance, by Government, that GPL will meet its obligations under the contracts entered into within this transaction. For that purpose, the Government of Guyana is expected to issue a guarantee that GPL will discharge the said obligations.
In order to accommodate that transaction, it is necessary to raise the limit on the aggregate value of guarantees that can be issued under the Act of interest before us. That limit has last been set in 1980. In fact, I would make the point that in 1980 the limit was raised from G$500 million to G$1 billion. For the purposes of comparison, if one were to convert the guarantee limit in 1980 to United States (US) dollars, the equivalent of it would have been US$400 million in 1980. If one were to adjust that US$400 billion limit in 1980 by US inflation from 1980 to today, the inflation adjusted limit would have been - had the limit being adjusted by US inflation - the equivalent figure today of US$1.1 billion. We seek  to raise the limit, by virtue the motion before us, to an amount of G$150 billion equivalent to approximately to US$750 million, compared to, as  what I said, what the US inflation  would  be adjusted to, US$1.1 billion. This adjustment to the limit is intended for the purposes of accommodating, really, the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project - that transaction.
Let me say this, that if one was to examine this Government’s prudence in relation to the management of Guyana’s debt, external and otherwise, one would see outstanding results as a result or, as a consequence, of our sustained efforts and as a result of our discipline in managing the economy of Guyana.
Let us look at a few relevant indicators. In 1992, at the time that Mr. Greenidge demitted office...  [Mr. Nandlall]: It is with not presenting an Auditor General report.]     Total. I do not believe that matter has yet been resolved by the Parliament Office. It seems to have run into a brick wall. In 1992, total public debt of Guyana amounted to US$2.2 billion, of which 2.1 comprised our external debt. Today, our external debt has been reduced to $1.4 billion and our total public debt is to US$1.8 billion. Let us examine how that debt stalk and the debt service associated therewith translated into key ratios. At the end of 2012, Guyana’s public debt to gross domestic product (GDP)  ratio amounted to 64%, that is to say our public debt amounted to 64% of our GDP. At the end of 1992, after Mr. Greenidge’s tenure, Guyana public debt amounted to a staggering 602% of GDP. If one was to focus on external debt, at the end of 2012 our external debt to GDP ratio amounted to 48%. At the end of Mr. Greenidge’s tenure, Guyana’s external debt to GDP ratio was a staggering 561%. As it relates to our public debt to revenue, in 2012 our public debts to revenue ratio amounted to 285%. At the end of 1992 it amounted to 1641%. Our external debt to revenue ratio at the end of 2012 was 213%. In 1992 it amounted to 1531%. Our public debt service to revenue ratio amounted, this is total debt service to revenue, in 2012 to 9%. In 1992 we spent 111% of our revenues servicing our public debt. As far as external debt to revenue was concerned, in 2012, we spent 7% of our revenue servicing our external debt. In 1992 we spent a staggering 76%.
I could go on and indeed these statistics paint a patently clear and extremely compelling picture, a picture of sustained discipline during the post 1992 period under the tenure of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in Government, restoring our country to solvency, to credit worthiness and creditability in the international community. Today Guyana is held up as an example of prudent fiscal management, an unthinkable occurrence during Mr. Greenidge’s distinguished tenure of 1983-1992.
On the contrary, it is often said that those were the years during which Guyana descended into a pariah state. Today, as a result of a disciplined policy framework, sustained hard work, not only by the policy makers amongst us but the private sector, in which Minister Robert Persaud spoke of, whose members, everyday, save and invest and expand their businesses, who, everyday, borrow from the banks and expand...   [Mr. Greenidge: Money launderers.]   I hear Mr. Greenidge calling the private sector money launderers. What an insult to the hard-working private sectors of Guyana. There are hundreds of hard-working entrepreneurs in Guyana. What an insult to the hard-working private sector entrepreneurs of Guyana. Shame on you, Mr. Greenidge! [Interruption from the Government Members.]
Mr. Greenidge: Honestly, Mr. Speaker, do we have to...
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear, so I need to be told.
Mr. Greenidge: Do we have to listen to such rubbish and fabrications?
Mr. Speaker: What is your Point of Order, Mr. Greenidge?
Dr. Singh: You can storm out and have a press conference.
Mr. Speaker: What is your Point of Order?
Mr. Greenidge: The Point of Order is that at no point did I say anything about the private sector. I will reiterate what I said before, that this Government has managed a system of kleptocracy and also... [Interruption from Government Members.].... You wanted to know what I said. That is my point.  My point is that is what I said. Do not put words into my mouth.
Dr. Singh: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Greenidge spoke of kleptocracy. Let us pause for a moment..
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Minister...
Dr. Singh: Let us pause for a moment.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Minister, I did not hear Mr. Greenidge speak ...Was this statement made out of the House, about kleptocracy or...
Dr. Singh: He just said it there.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. One has to, of course, differentiate and distinguish between what is said whilst a Member is seated and what replies one wishes to bring whilst one is making one’s  address. One cannot respond... If that was so, Members on the other side would be responding whenever Mr. Neendkumar speaks and where would we be. I would urge you to move on with your motion.
Dr. Singh: As always, Sir, I would be guided entirely by your instructions.
Let me say this: The average Guyanese citizen or entrepreneur who goes into a bank and borrows money... Let us say that the average Guyanese citizen goes into a bank and borrows a million dollars, for argument sake - John Singh - that Guyanese citizen will either place that $1 million in a bank account and have it available for scrutiny and for all to see or he will use the proceeds of that loan to acquire an asset which would be visible. So he might purchase a motor car which will be visible or he might extend his home. So one might see a new wing, a new room or a new floor or storey or he might spend it on some pursuit for his family. His child might go to a university and get a degree. There would be evidence of the utilisation or accumulation of the proceeds of this loan. I spoke earlier of Guyana’s US$2.3 billion of debt accumulated by the end of Mr. Greenidge’s tenure. In other words, under Mr. Greenidge’s tenure from 1983 to 1992, total borrowing accumulated by Guyana was US$2.3 billion. Let us contrast with John Singh. Let us examine, Sir, what Guyana has to show.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Greenidge, I will not allow constant interruptions. I think we need to finish this and the debate is on.  [Ms. Ally: That is irrelevant.] Whether it is irrelevant or not, it is in the debate and the Opposition has chosen not to respond. I am asking you to proceed please, Dr. Singh.
Dr. Singh: Thank you very much, Sir. Mr. Greenidge is welcomed, of course, to participate in the debate at the appropriate time. Setting that aside for the moment, Guyana, having borrowed under Mr. Greenidge’s tenure US$2.3 billion...well by the end…
Mr. Greenidge: Mr. Speaker, I do object.
Mr. Speaker: What is your objection, Mr. Greenidge?
Mr. Greenidge: Mr. Speaker, there are Standing Orders here that are intended to protect Members from lies and fabrications!
Mr. Speaker: I heard...
Mr. Greenidge: I have a right to be protected!
Mr. Speaker: I heard...
Mr. Greenidge: You show me where US$2.3 billion was borrowed under my tenure.
Mr. Speaker: One second, Mr...
Mr. Greenidge: US42.3 billion was never borrowed by me.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Greenidge, may I be heard please? The Standing Orders are there to protect any improper...  [Mr. Greenidge: Except for me, it appears.]   If a statement is made that during the tenure of a Member, $10 million is borrowed, I do not see how that imputes anything.
Mr. Greenidge: It is untrue.
Mr. Speaker: Then you have to prove that it is. To stand up and say it is untrue is not an objection I will allow.
Mr. Greenidge: Let him show where it is.
Mr. Speaker: You have to bring proof to show that it is untrue. I will not allow that kind of interruption any longer.
Dr. Singh: Thank you very much, Sir. Let me continue with your permission. By the end of Mr. Greenidge’s tenure, Guyana had accumulated US$2.2 billion of public debt.  [Mr. Greenidge: That is a different point.]  If you had permitted me to finish the point... By the end of Mr. Greenidge’s tenure, Guyana had accumulated a total debt of US$2.2 billion.
Let us examine what Guyana had to show for it. Did we have any money in the bank like John Singh? Absolutely not. On the contrary, Guyana virtually had no external reserves; we had no money in the treasury; the fiscal deficit was climbing rapidly. Did we have any physical assets to show for it? The physical infrastructure was in collapse. Our schools, our hospitals and our roads were in decay. Were we providing any services to our people? Our education system was in collapse; our public healthcare system was in collapse. In short, Sir, there was nothing to show for the US$2.2 billion of debt that was accumulated. Mr. Greenidge has the audacity to come to this House and speak of kleptocracy. 
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Dr. Singh, I urge you now to move away from that line of your argumentation and speak to this motion. Let us avoid becoming personal and stick to the motion at hand.
Dr. Singh: Certainly, Sir. The point is that this Government has a demonstrated track record of responsible and prudent fiscal management. That is why we are able to today attract some of the most credible international partners on a project such as Amaila Falls Hydropower Project.
We speak of a commitment to attracting investment to our country. Who are the investors involved in the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project? The private sector investor in this Project is, as is widely known, a company by the name of Sithe Global, a fully owned subsidiary of the Black Stone Group. It is well known in the international investment community as the premiere global investment and advisory firm with total assets under management of US$218 billion. This is a firm with a presence in 24 offices around the world. It employs, through its various operations, a total of 730,000 persons.
A major international investor is saying to the international community that it would like to invest in Guyana; that it believes Guyana is a good destination for our investment dollars; that it sees an opportunity for us in Guyana and it wants to make the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project a reality - a major international investor. Which patriotic Guyanese or which Guyanese person claiming to be a patriot would take an action that would appear and be inimical to the attracting of such a major investor to Guyana? One cannot possibly claim to be a patriot, one cannot possibly claim to be a champion of foreign direct investment or one cannot possibly claim to be committed to inward investments in our country if one will frustrate the attempts of such an investor coming to Guyana.
Do you know what it would do to our country for a major investment firm such as this to come to Guyana? The signal that this would send to the international investment community and the benefits that would flow therefrom cannot possibly be measured or anticipated today. One investment project such as this will result in hundreds if not thousands of foreign companies saying “If Black Stone will come to Guyana, so will we.” Yet, this Opposition cannot see the merit of taking all necessary steps to attract this major investor to Guyana. I say to this Opposition today, “Shame on you!”
We, as the legislature in this country, should be doing all that we possibly can to attract investors like this to Guyana. We should be doing all we possibly can to attract investors like this to Guyana, not chasing them away like the Opposition is trying to do. There is something called cutting off your nose to spite your face.   [Mrs. Lawrence: It is to spoil your face.]   …or spoil your face.
Black Stone coming to Guyana and making Amaila Falls a reality would transform Guyana and, perhaps, with the People’s Progressive Party / Civic (PPP/C) in office, might make the PPP/C look good. One cannot help wondering if there is an attempt by this Opposition to frustrate this project for the sole purpose of ensuring that this project does not become a reality under the PPP/C Administration. One cannot help wondering that.
I would not ascribe or attribute any motive. I do not want to presume what the intentions of our Friends on that side of the House are, but the question has to be asked: with a project such as this, why would the Opposition take steps to attempt to frustrate it and deny the people of Guyana the indisputable benefits that would flow therefrom? One cannot help asking why this Opposition would take this step.
The Inter-American Development Bank, the premiere development institution in the Western Hemisphere, the premiere development partner to countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, China Development Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in China, in fact a company that is majority state owned in China with over US$687 billion in loans, an institution that is looking for good lending opportunities around the world and that has identified Guyana and the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project as a worthy partner... That says something, Sir.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us what I would say is an important and historic opportunity. This dream of generations has never before been closer to realisation. I will add that no effort was spared to ensure that our Friends on that side of the House were kept involved and informed at every stage of preparation for this eventuality. If I were to cast my eyes back to just perhaps last year, in March, 2012, no less a person than His Excellency the President convened a meeting at the Office of the President and invited the Opposition to attend. All of our technical staff were made available to make this presentation. I will say that the Leader of the Opposition very graciously attended and participated fully at that meeting. Thank you very much for doing so.
A comprehensive presentation was made on the project and the President, at the end of the project, said, “You may have questions. You can ask them now. I am aware that you may wish to consult with your technical advisors and others. Feel free to go away. Take a copy of the presentation and return to us at any time, but, obviously, as soon as you possibly can any questions that you might have.” I do not believe that we have, to date, received any questions in response to that invitation.
Indeed, one year later, a follow-up presentation was made on the 7th March that first meeting was on 14th March, 2012 - to provide an update, no questions having been received. We did not sit on our laurels and assume that the Opposition was so pleased with the project that they had no questions to ask. Instead, we thought it was necessary and appropriate to invite again the Leader of the Opposition and his team to a follow-up presentation to update them further. A follow-up presentation was made and the same invitations extended, “Any questions or clarifications that you have, we would be happy to provide it.”
In June, 2013, comprehensive compilations of relevant agreements, the three commercial agreements, the implementation agreement, the power purchase agreement and the assignment of receivables agreement were shared with our Friends on that side of the House. Again, I do not believe that we have received any questions in relation to this documentation. I make this point to say that this conversation did not start from today. I can see from the agitation that this revelation is causing some embarrassment on that side of the House, because for more than one year the Opposition has been engaged by the Government on this matter and we have shared the documentation with them.   [Lt. Col. (Ret’d) Harmon: You are ashamed that it is only now you are bringing it.]   It is not only now. I can see the consternation arising from the evident embarrassment that after one year of engagement this Opposition still claims they do not know anything about Amaila and that they are being hurried. [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Okay Members, let us settle down please.
Dr. Singh: Thank you, Sir. I can understand why an Opposition that claims they are being hurried would be embarrassed by the revelation that for more than one year we have been speaking with them. So, I will repeat the dates. His Excellency the President met with them on the 14th March, 2012. He met with them again on the 7th March, 2013. We shared documentation with them on the 10th June, 2013. On the 14th June, 2013, documentation including the economic and financial evaluation study and other documentation were shared with the Opposition. On the 22nd June, 2013, our Friends on that side of the House visited the Amaila Falls access road. [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, could we allow the Minister to complete his presentation please?
Dr. Singh: I could go on, Sir, to chronicle the exhaustive attempt made by this Government to ensure that our Friends on that side of the House were kept informed. Yet, conveniently and perhaps opportunistically they say they do not know anything about Amaila.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Minister, you have one and a half minutes within which to complete.
Dr. Singh: Certainly, Sir. I do not believe I will need the half.
We have before us a historic and transformational project. I would say that the Parliament of Guyana should not miss the opportunity presented to us. Amaila Falls Hydropower Project is good for Guyana and it is good for all Guyanese. If we want history to judge us as responsible Members of Parliament, we must vote resoundingly in favour of this project.
I thank you very much, Sir. [Applause]

Dr. Singh (replying): Mr. Speaker, mine will be brief remarks simply really to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their very emphatic words of support and to acknowledge the many partners that have worked with us in bringing Amaila Falls so close to being realised. I would like to think that the project is still alike and would not have breathed its last but I will say that it certainly have suffered a tremendous blow as a result of this House proving itself unwilling this evening at the occasion on behest of the Opposition vote proving itself unwilling to express its wholehearted and unqualified support for this project. We will of course need to reflect on the implications of tonight’s developments. We will remain engaged with the partners, including, importantly, our international partners who have so resolutely stayed with this project over the years and navigated it over one hurdle after another, recognising its merit for the people of Guyana. It is unfortunate that our colleagues on that side of the House were not like-minded in this regard tonight. I would have liked to have thought that history would have judged us to be on the right side tonight and that would have been on one side, together, saying emphatically that Amaila is good for Guyana and that we support it. Regrettably that was not to be but I do derive some comfort that those of us on this side of the House could be so coherent and emphatic in the evident merits of our position and I hope that those words, even if they did not manage to sway the vote earlier tonight. I hope that there is still some room for them to sway the second vote about to be taken and, indeed, all of our actions subsequent to tonight. We remain firmly of the view that the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project is good for Guyana and we urge all stakeholders in Guyana to continue to support the project in the outstanding manner that they have done and finally I urge our friends on that side of the House to rethink and reconsider their position on this matter. I now, with those words, commend the motion standing in my name to this honourable House for consideration and eventual vote. Thank you very much.