Speeches in the National Assembly

LIMIT ON AMOUNT OUTSTANDING UNDER GUARANTEES GIVEN UNDER THE GUARANTEE OF LOANS (PUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND   COMPANIES) ACT – July 18, 2013
Ms. Teixeira: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, from the time I was growing up in Guyana I heard about hydropower and the potential of our country. This is an issue that has woven itself like a tapestry through the history of our country, through the political kaleidoscope of our country as well and our Members on this side have traced that and chronicled that in their speeches. Hydro-power has been a dream of Guyana and of our people for many reasons. In this modern world it is not even more critical and tonight we are on the cusp of I believe an important point in our country.
At stake now, at this moment, as we sit here, are three fundamental issues. One is that if this motion is defeated and not supported by the Opposition our country’s image, our reliability, our credibility, our maturity, our trustworthiness as a nation is in question and would have irreparable harm to us to attract investors to this country.
The second is in relation to the harm it will do to our people, their livelihoods and the future of our country and the ordinary living conditions of our people over many years to come.
The third issue is the damage that is being done to the political environment in which we are working. By the behaviour, what is irreparably harmed is the whole issue of trust and confidence.
I am proud, having grown up as a child hearing about hydro programmes. To be here at this hour – at least for me personally and the Members of the PPP, on this side – history will judge us as having stood on the right side and the just side of history and of our nation.
The three things that I mentioned are fundamentals. There is an Hon. Member of this House that likes to talk about collateral damage. These are the three collateral damages that we will face for years and years to come.
The Hon. Member, Dr. Ashni Singh, traced the discussions in 2012 prior to the Budget of 2012, the presentations with the presence of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) team and the Alliance For Change (AFC) team on Amaila and the second meeting, the second presentation, was in March, 2013. Then – there were meetings in between but I am specifically talking about where the subject was Amaila – in May the President invited the two parties to discuss the deadlines that we face with Amaila and the draft bill and the debt ceiling motion that would have to be brought. It is that meeting that Dr. Ashni Singh also refers to in terms of the enormous volumes of information that were shared because the complaint of the Opposition was that they were not getting certain things so everything they asked for they got. We also shared the draft Bill and the draft Motion; both of which were tabled on 13th June in this House. The agreement was, in the discussion between no less than the President and the Leader of the Opposition, regrettably, AFC did not come to the more recent meetings at all although the President personally phoned and spoke to the AFC’s Hon. Member Mr. Ramjattan and encouraged him to come. I want to remind this House that the bill and the motion were tabled on 13th June, this year, and at the Sitting on 27th June these two issues were supposed to come up to keep us within the June deadline of the IDB and it was the Opposition that asked to have more time and the matter be deferred. We agreed to defer the two items to the next sitting and, in fact, we went to 18th July, today’s date, to allow the opposition to have time from 27th July to 18th July, although they had advanced copies of the bill and the motion even before they were tabled. The Hon. Members were part of a team that were flown into Amaila and saw on the ground how complex, how complicated, how huge this project is for us as a country and how important. In this week, on 16th July, Tuesday, there were discussions with the APNU. The AFC did not attend. At that meeting we arranged for the IDB persons coming from overseas to meet with the APNU and AFC delegations on Wednesday night, last night, 17th July. I am aware of the contents of that conversation.
The meeting of Tuesday this week and the meeting of Wednesday this week gave no indication that there was any change or any position but the press kept covering, even on 15th July, Monday, that the Opposition “not rushing over Amaila steps, despite plea from Finance Minister” and one of the most favourite news papers of the Opposition, Stabroek News, 15th July, page 10, is where they said that they would not be rushed. Forget about last year. We have March of this year, May of this year, June of this year, July of this year and then we come to today. We then come to today and I am saying this for the record of the House because when people are saying that they did not have enough time we are talking about five weeks between when the bill and motion were tabled and the Sitting today and the meetings that were held in between and the conversations that were not part of meetings of honourable men and women in this House and outside of this House to try to convince each other that this was the right thing to do. The voices of labour and the voices of the private sector are calling on the Opposition to not let this issue fall. Today is the most interesting day of all. You were a big part of it, Mr. Speaker. You played a part and you played a good part and I hope that you will not face the consequences as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, Hon. Member Mr. Ramjattan gets very jealous when I give the Speaker kudos.  [Ms. Shadick: Envious.]   Thank you. Envious. Mr. Speaker, today when you invited us into your room and AFC and APNU, led by the Leader of the Opposition... It was the first time the AFC raised the link between...  [Mr. Ramjattan: Was that not a private discussion?]   ...the Local Government Bills... What is private? There is nothing private here. When you talk about not having time the public has a right to know. You are the ones talking about disclosure. You want open disclosure. Let us have disclosure. I seem to be irritating Mr. Ramjattan a lot, but I have a tendency to do that to Mr. Nagamootoo and Mr. Ramjattan and Mr. Ramkarran. Mr. Speaker, it is the first time we heard any link between the motion and the bill on Amaila and the Local Government bill. That is the very first time at 5.15 p.m. that link was first put on the table. Mr. Speaker, to your credit, Sir, and to Mr. Granger and to the Prime Minister, because when that issue was raised it looked like a no-go. When Mr. Granger said to the Prime Minister ‘Let us try to resolve this issue’ we took it seriously because it came from no less than the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and we respect that position and so we took it seriously. In the discussions where you played the role of trying to get the two sides to agree, Mr. Speaker, what did we propose? We proposed that if the Opposition give us the debt ceiling and the hydro bill we would agree with the Local Government Bills so, quid pro quo – this is Realpolitik. The response was that they want the Local Government Bills first and the hydro matters after but by their own action today they had moved the Local Government Bills off of the agenda. They moved it off the agenda. We went back... I am speaking from what we said. You can say what you said. Mr. Speaker, we then said, and you can carried the message that we are prepared today. If you support the two issues on Amaila we are prepared tonight to discuss Local Government Bills and finish them, whether it is tomorrow morning or not.   [Mr. Nagamootoo: You lay it now.]    No. This was at 5.15, 5.30 and 6.00 p.m. this afternoon. This was earlier this afternoon and, Mr. Speaker, they then responded with ‘No, you had to have the four bills first, then.’ We even proposed that if you want it in writing we can have it in writing. They did not want that either.
All the efforts to try to acquiesce to the demands of the Opposition, APNU and AFC, failed. The issue of trust and confidence that has been undermined in this House tonight and it is a sad day in terms of the body politic of this country when the politicians of this country, and in particular the opposition politicians are prepared to sacrifice a transformative project to improve and enhance Guyana towards becoming a modern society and a modern economy in which our people will live a better life.
I stand by the fact that the Opposition had more than ample time, more than forewarning, more than enough information to have made a judicious and prudent and wise decision on this issue that is before us tonight. It is a stain on the House and it is a stain on the Opposition Parties. I am satisfied as a Member on this side of the House that we at the last moment tried all efforts from 5.30 p.m. to when we reconvened at 6.45 p.m. to try to find compromise and that we were rebuffed and it failed. The country, our people, Guyana, the Guyanese people, will judge us tonight and we will all face the consequence. Thank you very much. [Applause]