.....whenever one sees the name Barendra Sinanan. the expression 'teats on a bull' readily springs to mind....this emasculated clown is bereft of any trace of integrity or shame....

Expected! The man is a weasel, how you think he have that job so long, he is a PNM employee not a government employee.

Even if it satisfied all three criteria, would Barenda have allowed it? Not on your nelly.

Did anybody expect anything different from this PNM speaker????

STIFLE THE OPPOSITION -

The following attempts have been made to silent the opposition,

1) Deny them Members Speaking time once a month.
2) Use the majority to send them to the privileges committee.
3) Uses of various standing orders to block motions.
4) Use political interference in the Judiciary to target the leader.
5) Effectively disband Integrity Commission in order to avoid scrutiny.
6) Refuse to answer questions on the order paper for months.
7) Refuse to respond to queries about State Enterprises.

This is tantamount to CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

Just got this on Facebook, This is as real as it gets, How this man have his job - Mr Speaker you have been exposed- Today is a sad day for Trinidad and Tobago, Here we bluntly see political control of the system by the PNM and Manning.

The public needs to take this one in...

Honourable Speaker,

I hereby seek leave under Standing Order 27(2) to raise, at the next
sitting of the House of Representatives, a matter concerning the privileges
of the House of Representatives.

1.On Friday September 11, 2009 the Honourable Prime Minister and Member for San Fernando East, Patrick Manning, made an official statement regarding the cost of the national Performing Arts Centres in the House of Representatives.

2. This brief statement was made in response to my own comments during debate on the Act to Appropriate Finances (Get the real names) where, as per the Hansard record, this was what was said, and I quote:

Dr T. Gopeesingh:
Mr Speaker, Udecott’s involvement in another project again. Udecott has been involved in the North and South Academies of the Performing Arts. That budget has climbed from the initial budget of $216 million to $864 million as at December 2008. (interruption). These are the answers to questions that we asked in Parliament and this is one of the answers that came out of Udecott. The Academies for the Performing Arts budget is now projected to cost $1.2billion.
Mr Manning:
Mr Speaker just for the record, both of the Academies for the Performing Arts Centres were priced at US$100m; US $60millioon for the one in North Trinidad and US$40million for the one in South Trinidad. Those are the figures.

3.On Monday September 14, 2009, in his contribution to the same Act to Appropriate Finances, the Honourable Dr Keith Rowley, Member for Diego Martin West, said, and I quote the Hansard record:
Dr K Rowley:
Mr Speaker I was surprised in the Budget debate after all that has transpired in that Commission of Inquiry; it is on the Internet, the public is scandalized. My colleague, the Member for Caroni East, was talking about that galvanized mausoleum they are building by the Princes Building Ground. (laughter) It looks militant; aeroplane engine as absolutely nothing to do with Trinidad and Tobago, not ship, shape nor Bristol fashion to do with Trinidad and Tobago.
He was talking about the cost of it and the Prime Minister got up and interrupted him and put in the Parliamentary record that it is costing US$60 million. The Prime Minister is head of the Cabinet and this matter has been one of great contention and yet in Hansard we are being told it is US$60million.
Mr Speaker, I want to go back again to the record arising out of the Commission of Enquiry because it takes a Commission of Enquiry for you, the parliamentarians, Cabinet Members and people of Trinidad and Tobago to know how your money is being spent. This document the first page there is a table, you see this table Mr Speaker, the first item on this table submitted to Professor Uff is the North Campus of the Performing Arts which is the one on the Princes Building Ground; Shanghai Construction Group, contract date May 12, period, 20 months. It should have finished January 07, this year, it is rescheduled to finish September 12 this year which was a couple days ago, it should be finished. But the relevant point I am making is that the original contract value is $441million and that is not US$60million. This is what Udecott is saying to a Commission of Inquiry, yet we are being told in parliament that it is US$60million, $441 million, and the projected completion is $468million and likely to rise beyond that.
I am asking, who is misleading the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago? Why is the Prime Minister ending up in a situation where he can get up in the Parliament to contradict a Parliamentary colleague and put the wrong figure on the table when this document is available?

Words Complained Of

4. In his statement (which was made in response to my statement as an official contradiction of my comments, and therefore, a laying of facts in the esteemed chambers of Parliament and the Hansard records) the Honourable Prime Minister referred to the cost of a major project undertaken by the State (the North performing Arts Centre),

Misleading the House

5. Further, in his statement, the Honourable Prime Minister conveyed
information to the house that was inaccurate in a material particular and which he [the Honourable Prime Minister] knew or ought to have known was inaccurate as Head of the Cabinet who would have been privy to the details and cost of such a major project undertakne by the State, as well as been privy to the very public information coming out of the Commission of Enquiry; the Honourable Prime Minister misled the House as identified
and particularised aforementioned statement in Parliament

6. The Honourable Prime Minister further did not contradict Dr Keith Rowley when he said that Udecott had confirmed the cost of the said project was way above the figure quoted by the Honourable Prime Minister

Parliamentary Practice and Procedure

7. Section 55 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago provides:

"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and
standing orders regulating the procedure of the Senate and House of
Representatives, there shall be freedom of speech in the Senate and House
of Representatives."

8. By virtue of the said section 55 (1), a Member of the House and Senate
enjoys freedom of speech in the House but such speech must not breach the
rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the House.

9. Apart from the privileges/immunities of freedom of speech, our
Constitution and Standing Orders do not itemize privileges and/or contempts
but same direct us to those of the UK House of Commons. In this regard:

(i) section 55 (3) of our Constitution provides that:

"in other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House and
of the members and committees of each House shall be such as may from time
to time be prescribed by Parliament after the commencement of this
Constitution and until so defined shall be those of the House of Commons of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members and committees at the
commencement of this Constitution"

(ii) Standing Order 91 of the House of Representatives, in cases
where a matter is not provided for in our Standing Orders (as in this case)
provides that:

"resort shall be had to the usage and practice of the Commons House of
Parliament of Great Britain".

Misleading the House

10. Further, the relevant practice of the Commons House of the Parliament
of Great Britain is that a Member of Parliament who deliberately misleads
the House of Commons commits a serious breach of privilege and contempt of
Parliament. See: Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 23(superscript: rd)
Edition, page 132, which states that:

"The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as
a contempt."

12. The footnote reference on the said page 132 to C.J. (1962?1963) at page
246 indicates that such conduct, in addition to being a contempt, has been
held to be a breach of privilege.

13. As identified and particularized in paragraphs 7 to 9 hereinabove, the
Honourable Prime Minister in his statement conveyed information to the
house that was inaccurate in a material particular and which he [the
Honourable Prime Minister] knew or ought to have known was inaccurate and
thereby the Honourable Prime Minister misled the House.

In the circumstances, it is my respectful view that there are valid reasons
to question whether the Honourable Prime Minister has committed a breach
of privilege and/or contempt of the House of Representatives by:

(i) disobeying Standing Order 36(10) and/or by

(ii) deliberately misleading the House

in the manner as set out hereinabove.

Interesting! So this is what this is about? Hmm