293
Leave of Absence
Friday, December 18, 2009
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, December 18, 2009
The House met at 1.30 p.m.
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have received communication from the hon.
Nizam Baksh, Member of Parliament for Naparima, requesting leave of absence
from today‟s sitting of the House, likewise the hon. Kelvin Ramnath, Member of
Parliament for Couva South, for today's sitting of the House. The leave which
these Members seek is granted.
PAPERS LAID
1. Audited financial statements of the Caribbean Media Group Limited for the
financial year ended December 31, 2008. [The Minister of Finance (Hon.
Karen Nunez-Tesheira)]
To be referred to the Public Accounts (Enterprises) Committee.
2. Freedom of Information Act, 1999 annual report to Parliament for 2008. [The
Minister of Information (Hon. Neil Parsanlal)]
3. Annual audited financial statements of the Youth Training and Employment
Partnership Programme (YTEPP) for the financial year ended September 30,
2007. [Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira]
To be referred to the Public Accounts (Enterprises) Committee.
4. Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on the
financial statements of the Deposit Insurance Corporation for the year ended
September 30, 2008. [Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira]
5. Second report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
on the financial statements of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the
year ended September 30, 2002. [Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira]
6. Second report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
on the financial statements of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the
year ended September 30, 2003. [Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira]
Papers 4 to 6 to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
294
Papers Laid
Friday, December 18, 2009
7. Annual audited financial statements of the Trinidad and Tobago Film Company
Limited for the financial year ended September 30, 2009. [Hon. K. NunezTesheira]
8. Annual administrative report of the National Insurance Property Development
Company Limited for the period 2005 to 2008. [Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira]
9. Annual administrative report of the Ministry of Education for the fiscal year
2005 to 2006. [The Minister of Education (Hon. Esther Le Gendre)]
SPECIAL SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS
(PRESENTATION)
Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation (Inc’n) Bill
The Minister of Social Development (Hon. Amery Browne): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present the First Report of the Special Select Committee appointed to consider
and report on a Bill for the incorporation of the Trinidad and Tobago Football
Federation and for matters incidental thereto.
Status Of Children Bill
The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Colm Imbert): The Fifth
Report of the Special Select Committee appointed to consider and report on a Bill
relating to the protection of children and for matters related thereto.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Colm Imbert): Mr. Speaker,
the Government is in a position to answer questions Nos. 109 and 111 today and
we request a deferral of the other questions on the Order Paper, please, for two
weeks.
The following questions stood on the Order Paper:
Johns Hopkins University/Hospital
(Terms and Conditions of Arrangement)
8. Could the hon. Minister of Health state:
(a) whether there is any formal arrangement between the Government of
Trinidad and Tobago/Ministry of Health and the Johns Hopkins
University/Hospital for the provision of services to the people of
Trinidad and Tobago; and
(b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, could the Minister state the
terms and conditions of the arrangement? [Dr. H. Rafeeq]
295
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
Registered Private Hospitals
(Details of)
25. Could the hon. Minister of Health state:
(a) how many private hospitals are registered under each of the (6) classes
of private hospitals according to the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago,
Chap. 29:03, section 8;
(b) the date the licence was issued for each; and
(c) what was the last date an inspector or inspection team inspected the
hospital as required according to sections 18 and 19 of Chap. 29:03 of
the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago? [Dr. T. Gopeesingh]
Summit of the Americas
(Details of Cost)
58. Could the hon. Minister of Finance state:
(a) The budgeted cost for the Summit of the Americas?
(b) Whether there were any cost overruns? and
(c) If the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, how much did the overruns
amount to and the areas where they occurred? [Mr. V. Bharath]
Pre-Summit Preparations
(Details of)
64. With respect to the pre-summit preparations could the hon. Minister of Trade
and Industry and Minister in the Ministry of Finance please advise:
A. The number of personnel who were hired;
(i) to clean the area along the route travelled by the summit
participants; and
(ii) paint the curb walls and road barriers along the route? and
B. Whether this work was done by existing CEPEP and URP workers?
[Mr. J. Warner]
National Flag
(Details of)
110.
With respect to the national flag located at the Hasely Crawford Stadium
could the hon. Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs state:
a)
the dimensions of the National flag;
296
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
b)
the cost of the flag, flagpole and any cost associated with the erection of same;
c)
the name of the supplier of the flag and flagpole; the procedure for the
procurement of this particular flag and flagpole; and
d)
whether there are any recurrent costs associated with the flag; if the
answer is in the affirmative, please state the costs? [Mr. J. Warner]
Questions, by leave, deferred.
Quasi State Enterprises
(Details of)
109. Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West) asked the hon. Minister of Finance:
With respect to the following state or quasi state enterprises:
UDeCott
Home Mortgage Bank
TTMF
NIB
NIPDEC
A. Could the hon. Minister of Finance state, for each agency/company:
i. the total monthly emolument package attached to the position of
Executive Chairman/Chairman namely-: salary and perquisites;
ii. the other financial beneficial considerations attached to these
positions (including housing, transport, overseas travel, entertainment
and medical allowances/facilities);
iii. the provision for any bonus payment relevant to these positions and
the basis for such payments as they exist in any of these
agencies/companies;
iv. the actual sums of any bonus paid to the holder of these offices in
these companies for each year from 2006 to present?
B. With respect to UDeCott, could the Minister indicate:
i. when was the post of Executive Chairman first introduced;
ii. whether the contract of the incumbent in this position was
recently renewed;
iii. the date of the last renewal of the contract of the incumbent; and
297
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
iv. an indication of the change in the terms and conditions of the
current contract compared with the previous?
The Minister of Finance (Hon. Karen Nunez-Tesheira): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. Member for Diego Martin West should be aware, in August 2006, the
Cabinet of which he was a part, agreed to the establishment of the post of
Executive Chairman of UDeCott.
This decision was informed by the need to advance the developmental
objectives of the Government and in particular the expeditious and cost-effective
implementation and delivery of a number of critical projects consistent with our
Vision 2020. The projects being implemented by UDeCott are critical for national
development and the successful delivery of same is dependent to a significant
degree on the delivery model methodology employed and the manner in which the
projects are managed and monitored.
The present Executive Chairman was a member of the Working Committee
set up by the then Cabinet in 1993, to advise on the establishment, role,
resourcing and setting up of an urban development company in Trinidad and
Tobago. He was a member of the initial Board of UDeCott, which was established
in 1993 and its three-year terms were renewed successively, including under the
former UNC administration‟s six years in office.
Under his stewardship, UDeCott was able to deliver a number of major
development projects throughout Trinidad and Tobago, including relocation and
outfitting of new offices for the Red Cross; the Hyatt Hotel in Port of Spain
International Waterfront Centre, which was used during the recently concluded Fifth
Summit of the Americas and CHOGM; the Los Iros Bridge built by local contractors
within budget and three months ahead of schedule; the Prime Minister's Residence and
Diplomatic Centre; the completion of the offices at Alexandra Street/St. Clair Avenue,
on behalf of the then Ministry of Public Administration and Information; and the
National Academy for the Performing Arts.
In addition to these achievements, UDeCott has delivered valuable additions to
the nation's housing stock, including the Green Street Housing Development; the
Oropune Housing Development; the Lady Young Road Apartments, Morvant; and
the Olera Heights Housing Development.
This brings me to the question of remuneration as linkage to performance. In
Trinidad and Tobago, the compensation package for the position of an executive
chairman in any state or quasi-state enterprise is determined by the Public Sector
Negotiations Committee, but compensation received by a chairman is determined
298
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
by Cabinet in accordance with the guidelines provided by the State Enterprises
and Statutory Agencies Classification List.
During the period September 01, 2006 to September 30, 2009, the monthly
salary earned by the Executive Chairman of UDeCott was $85,000 as set by the
Public Sector Negotiations Committee and as October 2009, the salary was
increased by the Public Sector Negotiations Committee to $90,000 per month.
The other financial beneficial considerations attached to the post of Executive
Chairman of UDeCott, which have remained unchanged from 2006, are as follows:

Provision of a motor vehicle not to exceed $425,000 (exclusive of
motor vehicle tax);

Housing allowance of $6,000 per month;

Telephone allowance of $500 per month for a land line, plus overseas
calls supported by documentary proof;

Provision of a cellphone with a monthly allowance of $500 per month;

Entertainment allowance of $2,000 per month;

Group life plan with coverage of up to two times annual basic salary;

Health Plan—membership in the corporation's health plan and an
annual executive medical not exceeding $2,500 in value; and

Gratuity equivalent to 20 per cent of basic salary earned over the
period of employment, subject to deductions for tax purposes upon
successful completion of the terms of engagement.
That is the position with UDeCott.
The Home Mortgage Bank—the monthly fee attached to the position of
Chairman of the Home Mortgage Bank is $14,375. These fees became effective
on July 01, 2008. Other financial beneficial considerations for the post of
chairman are annual foreign leave; foreign travel, which is an annual entitlement
of $46,000; and a motor vehicle.
With regard to these benefits, the current chairman has not availed himself of
the use of a company vehicle or payments in lieu thereof and has not received any
payments to date, for foreign travel. There is no provision for bonus payment for
the position of chairman and there have been no bonus payments to the holder of
this office from 2006 to present.
299
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Finance Company Limited—the monthly fee
attached to the position of Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Trinidad and
Tobago Mortgage Finance Company Limited is $9,000, which comprises a base
salary of $8,000 and a travel allowance of $1,000. There are no other financial
beneficial considerations attached to the position of chairman. There is no
provision for bonus payments for the position of chairman. There have been no
bonus payments to the holder of this office from 2006 to present.
The National Insurance Board—the monthly fee attached to the position of
Chairman of the National Insurance Board of Trinidad and Tobago is $10,000.
The other financial beneficial consideration attached to the position of chairman is
a monthly travelling allowance in the sum of $1,000. There is no provision for
bonus payments for the position of chairman. There have been no bonus payments
to the holder of this office from 2006 to present.
NIPDEC—the monthly fee attached to the position of Chairman of the National
Insurance Property Development Company Limited (NIPDEC) is $9,000, which
comprises an $8,000 director fee and a travelling allowance of $1,000.
Additionally, directors fee are applied per board sub-committee meeting
attended in the sum of $500 per meeting. From January 2006, to date, the total
received by the Chairman for attendance at sub-committee meetings was $4,000,
representing attendance at eight meetings. The other financial beneficial
consideration attached to the position of chairman is a monthly travelling
allowance in the sum of $1,000. There is no provision for bonus payments
attached to the position of chairman. There have been no bonus payments to the
holder of this office from 2006 to present.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the salary being paid in the private sector,
to persons in similar positions with comparable experience and expertise is in
excess of the amount indicated and typically includes additional benefits such as
profit sharing. In fact, it is instructive to note that in the private sector, for
example, the monthly salary of the CEO of one of the major and well-known
construction companies, including perks, was in excess of $200,000 per month. In
the case of CEO for banks, it is in the excess of $100,000 per month, excluding
perks and other beneficial considerations.
1.45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, Members on the other side are well aware of the rates being paid
in the private sector to suitably qualified persons with the necessary level of
experience and expertise, especially in the financial sector.
300
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
Mr. Speaker, as far back as 1999, the gross earnings received by Mr. Vishnu
Ramlogan, while he was President of Tidco, for the period 1999—2001,
amounted to $3.1 million or an annual average in excess of $1 million.
Hon. Members: What?
Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira: Mr. Ramlogan also received fees in respect of his
service on a number of state boards including Chairman of First Citizens Bank.
The annual fee was $42,000 and travelling allowance was $4,800 per annum. The
other state boards on which Mr. Ramlogan served from 1997—2001 were:—

As Deputy Chairman of National Gas Company, he received a fee
$15,600 and $2,400 travelling allowance per annum.

As Chairman of National Energy Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago
Limited, he received a fee of $42,000 and $4,800 travelling allowance per
annum.

As Chairman of Phoenix Park Gas Processors Limited, he received a fee
of $12,000 and $4,800 travelling allowance per annum.

As Chairman of First Citizens Holdings limited, he received a fee of
$12,000 and $4,800 travelling allowance per annum.

As Director of Trinidad and Tobago Export Trading Company Limited,
he received a fee of $12,000 and $2,400 travelling allowance per annum.
Mr. Speaker, another example is Mr. Donald Baldeosingh, who served as chairman
of Petrotrin from February 22, 1996—November 2000, and also sat on a number of
state boards during his tenure. As chairman of Petrotrin, Mr. Donald Baldeosingh
received a monthly fee of $3,500, an entertainment allowance of $1,500 per month, a
company vehicle, housing allowance, credit card and medical insurance. For the period
January 2000 to November 2000, the remuneration paid to Mr. Baldeosingh was
revised to such an extent that he received a total of $151,946.69, comprising a
chairman's fee of $38,500, telephone, including cellular of $31,927.80, entertainment,
including credit card of $41,518.90 and chauffeur fees of $40,000. The other state
boards on which Mr. Baldeosingh served from 1996 were:—

Trintoc with a director's fee of $11,000 and $4,400 travelling allowance
totalling $15,400 per annum. That was in 2000.

Trintopec with a director's fee of $11,000 and $4,400 travelling allowance
totalling $15,400 per annum.
301
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009

Trinserv with a director's fee of $11,000 and $4,400 travelling allowance
totalling $15,400 per annum.

Trintomar with a director's fee of $14,933.33 per annum.
Mr. Speaker, when the position of executive chairman was created in 2006,
Cabinet agreed that the terms of employment of the holder of the office be
determined by the Public Sector Negotiating Committee (PSNC). One of the terms
agreed by the PSNC was that the holder of the office would be entitled to annual
bonus payments ranging from ½ to 3 months salary, based on the achievement of
organizational targets.
Mr. Speaker, it is to be noted that the holder of the position of Executive
Chairman in UDeCOTT has served in that position since 2006, and notwithstanding
the contract terms set by the PSNC regarding the payment of annual bonuses, it is
to be noted that in 2006, no bonus payments were made; in 2007, no bonus
payments were made; in 2008, no bonus payments were made; and in September
2009 a payment of net $95,625was made representing a bonus payment of 1½
month's salary for the year September 01, 2006—August 31, 2007.
With respect to UDeCOTT, as I indicated previously, the post of executive
chairman was first introduced in August 2006. The contract of the Executive
Chairman of UDeCOTT was renewed in September 2009. Finally, the changes are
as follows: The basic salary was increased by $5,000 per month and the housing
allowance was increased by $1,000 per month.
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Dr. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Madam Minister, thank
you for the information on Mr. Baldeosingh and Mr. Ramlogan and so on, but
would you also be able to tell us how much one Karen Tesheira made on the
board of Tidco? [The Minister stands]
Mr. Speaker: Take your seat please. You can sit down. Further supplemental.
Dr. Gopeesingh: Could the hon. Minister confirm or deny whether Mr.
Malcolm Jones from Petrotrin was receiving over $100,000 and Errol Grimes
more than—
Mr. Speaker: Likewise, you need not answer. Are there any further supplemental?
[Interruption]
302
Oral Answers to Questions
Friday, December 18, 2009
Purchase of Marine Vessel
(Details of)
111. Mr. Winston Peters (Mayaro) asked the hon. Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs:
Could the Minister state whether or not the Ministry of Sport and Youth
Affairs has purchased a marine vessel?
B. If the answer to (A) is in the affirmative, please state:
i)
the purpose for which this vessel will be used;
ii) the cost of the vessel;
iii) the name of the supplier of the vessel;
iv) the recurrent cost associated with the maintenance of the vessel;
v)
the process for the procurement of this marine vessel?
The Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs (Hon. Gary Hunt): Mr. Speaker,
the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs has not purchased a marine vessel. The
Trinidad and Tobago Power Boats Association (TTPBA) is a national sporting
organization registered with the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs since 1987.
In fiscal 2006, it was granted funds in the sum of $216,384 as its annual
subvention. The TTPBA has advised that part of the funds was utilized to purchase
a marshal‟s safety vessel and safety equipment.
The TTPBA, on its own volition, affixed a sign on the vessel which says:
Courtesy of the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the answer to part A of the question, part B is not applicable.
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
(APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY MEMBER)
The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Colm Imbert): Mr. Speaker,
having regard to your decision to recuse yourself from the deliberations on a
matter currently before the Committee of Privileges namely, the inaccurate and/or
distorted reporting of the proceedings of the House of Representatives involving
Caribbean Communications Network Limited TV6, I beg to move that in
accordance with Standing Order 90(1) that this House agree to suspend Standing
Order 75(2) which states:
“The Speaker shall be a Member, and the Chairman, of the Committee of
Privileges.”
303
Committee of Privileges
Friday, December 18, 2009
Question put and agreed to.
Hon. C. Imbert: Mr. Speaker, I further beg to move that Miss Pennelope Beckles,
Deputy Speaker, be appointed as chairman of the Committee of Privileges for the
matter involving Caribbean Communications Network Limited TV6 only, and that the
House agree to appoint hon. Kennedy Swaratsingh, Member for St. Joseph, as a
temporary Member of the Committee of Privileges to replace the hon. Barendra
Sinanan, Speaker of the House, during consideration of this particular matter.
Question put and agreed to.
PROPERTY TAX BILL
Order for second reading read.
The Minister of Finance (Hon. Karen Nunez-Tesheira): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
That a Bill to make provision for the assessment, rating and taxation of land
and for matters incidental thereto, be now read a second time.
Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this Bill, I seek the leave of the
House to debate together with this Bill, the Valuation of Land Act, Chap. 58:03
and to validate certain actions of the Commissioner of Valuation.
Agreed to.
Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move that the following Bills
standing in my name be read together, as agreed, since they contain substantially the
same provisions on a complementary of each other in the valuation and tax assessment
of properties in Trinidad and Tobago; that is the Property Tax Bill of 2009 and the
Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill, 2009.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill before this House would bring into operation, with effect
from January 01, 2010, the new reformed measures governing the taxation of
properties in Trinidad and Tobago.
The Lands and Buildings Taxes Act, Chap. 76:04 and Part V of the Municipal
Corporations Act, Chap. 25:04 will be repealed and replaced with this new
legislation. Neither the Property Tax Bill nor the amendment to the Valuation of
Land Act require the support of a special majority of either House of Parliament,
since pursuant to section 6 of the Constitution, the new law contains provisions
which do not derogate from any fundamental right to an extent which the existing
law did not previously derogate. In other words, the provisions of this Bill have
304
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
been saved under the Constitution Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the 2009 budget
statement on September 22, 2008, and I quote:
“The Government is committed to making the tax administration system as efficient
and user-friendly as possible. Part of the tax reform initiative is the reform of our
property tax regime which is antiquated, inefficient and lacking in equity.”
I also indicated on the same date that is September 22, 2008, that the proposed
new tax regime would take effect from January 01, 2010. To this end, we have
engaged in a comprehensive communication strategy which commenced in
September 2009, aimed at sensitizing the population to the new measures to be
implemented and the effects on taxpayers.
Some examples of the media used in the communications campaign were meetings
and presentations to various associations including the Trinidad and Tobago
Manufacturers Association, the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and
Commerce and non-governmental organizations such as the Inter-Religious
Organization and the Trinidad and Tobago Association of Retired Persons. Public
meetings were held in areas such as Sangre Grande, Mayaro, Diego Martin, San
Fernando, Tunapuna, Penal and Debe.
Advertisements were placed in the newspapers and on radio and television.
Ministry of Finance personnel made appearance on television talk-show programmes
over the period September—November, 2009. Brochures were distributed through
TTPost to 226,000 households in Trinidad and Tobago, and were also available at
district revenue offices. A hotline was also established to answer concerns of citizens
on the property tax system.
Mr. Speaker, the Property Tax Bill is intended to give effect to the reform of the
administration of property taxes, part of a wider Government institutional reform for
our nation. This Bill signals the implementation of a modern and efficient system for
the valuation and assessment of properties for the purposes of taxation.
Mr. Speaker, in the real estate appraisal sector, property taxes may be calculated
using the capital value or the rental value method. The rental value method is adopted
in many countries as the preferred method of appraisal, because there is more evidence
of the rental value of property and less evidence on the value of the sale of properties,
that is, less evidence of the capital value.
2.00 p.m.
This is the case with Trinidad and Tobago where, in every area of the country there
are properties in rental occupation. However, there are several pockets of the country
where sale transactions or capital value transactions are over two years apart.
305
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Government Revenue Management Software, the new property tax software
can, however, accommodate the switch from rental value to capital value as a basis for
calculating the property tax if a decision is made in the future to apply this method of
appraisal.
Mr. Speaker, there are several distinct features of the new property tax reform.
First, it addresses the inequities in the current system. Under the current system
there are a number of inequities which have arisen as a result of a non-revaluation of
properties. These inequities, produced by variations in tax liabilities, are more than 100
per cent for similar residential buildings. For example, a building constructed in 1970
may attract a tax liability of 96 cents under the Lands and Buildings Taxes Act of 1920;
whereas, today, a similar building in the same locality as a result of revaluation by the
Commissioner of Valuations over the years may attract a tax liability of $284 under the
same Lands and Buildings Taxes Act. These inequities are even more prevalent in the
boroughs and cities under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1990, where similar
residential buildings are charged different rates of tax on the annual taxable rate. For
example, Point Fortin properties attract a rate of 2 per cent; San Fernando, 8 per cent;
Chaguanas, 10 per cent and Port of Spain, 10 per cent.
In addition, persons who have constructed buildings without applying for a
mortgage and are currently under the land and building system still pay $10 for the land
only since the buildings are not on the assessment rolls. Similarly, people who have
extended their homes to, perhaps, twice the original size after an assessment has been
carried out are still paying the original tax liability since they have not been reassessed.
Mr. Speaker, one may well ask, how did this situation arise? In this context it
is instructive to review some basic concepts. The property tax on a lot of land is
derived by finding the annual rental value of the parcel of land which would
include any building, plant and machinery on the land. This is termed, the
valuation exercise. Thereafter, the relevant rate of tax is applied to the annual
taxable rate found. This is termed, the assessment of tax exercise. Currently in
Trinidad and Tobago the tax assessment component is governed by different
pieces of legislation, resulting in two different systems of tax assessment. This has
resulted in two major deficiencies.
First, the property tax administration is not as efficient as it could be, and second,
there is a lack of equity in the treatment of taxpayers. I will explain: The valuation of
property in the nine regional corporations and Tobago is still governed by the Lands
and Buildings Taxes Act of 1920 and for properties in these areas, the last global
determination of property values was conducted in 1948. In the municipal corporations
306
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
which are governed by the municipal corporations‟ legislation, more recent valuations
were done between 1975, in the case of Port of Spain; 2004, in the case of San
Fernando and 2008, in the case of Point Fortin.
The valuation for properties for the whole of Trinidad and Tobago is outdated
and the list of assessed properties is incomplete. The valuing of properties has
been no easy task. Each corporation has had to rely on Valuation Division of the
Ministry of Finance, and trained staff to hire specialist staff, valuators and
information technology software specialists to conduct these affairs. Quite apart
from the very significant disparities in the valuation dates, there is also a
significant difference in the assessed tax rates applied.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of the nine regional corporations, that is Diego Martin, San
Juan/Laventille, Tunapuna/Piarco, Sangre Grande, Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo, Siparia,
Debe/Penal, Princes Town, Rio Claro/Mayaro and Tobago, the Board of Inland
Revenue applies the Lands and Buildings Taxes Act of 1920 to collect property taxes.
The property taxes are currently charged as follows: A flat tax rate on the land and a
rental rate on each building independent of location; in respect of land zero to 10 acres,
$10 per acre; 11 to 100 acres, $15 per acre; over 100 acres, $20 per acre. With
regard to the building, the tax is fixed at 7½ per cent of the annual ratable value,
that is the annual rental value.
For industrial properties, the rate is fixed at 6 per cent of the installed cost of the
plant and machinery and associated buildings. As I said before, properties located in the
nine regional corporations and Tobago pay a rate of tax between $10 and $25 per acre
of land with a 7½ per cent tax on the annual rental value of the building of the building,
with the last assessment dating from 1948. [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. K. Nunez-Tesheira: The two cities, Port of Spain and San Fernando and the
three boroughs of Chaguanas, Arima and Point Fortin, collect property taxes or house
rates as they are called under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1990. Under this Act,
property tax rates for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural lands range
from 10 per cent in Port of Spain to 2 per cent in Point Fortin.
What that means, is that you can have similarly constructed houses within a
relatively small geographic location, paying rates or property tax simply because
one falls within the boundary of a municipality and the other comes under the
jurisdiction of a regional corporation—I should say paying different rates of
property tax. The Property Tax Bill will address this inequity by unifying taxes
across the board regardless of the location of the property.
307
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
The taxes will fall into four categories or properties based on usage: For
residential, the rate as announced in the 2010 budget of this Government will be 3 per
cent of the annual taxable value; the commercial will be 5 per cent; agricultural 1 per
cent and industrial 6 per cent.
A second protocol feature of the property tax reform exercise as indicated
earlier is the adoption of a property tax appraisal system based on the rental value
or appraisal method used under the Municipal Corporations Act.
This method of calculating taxes is modern and suitable for Trinidad and Tobago
and was arrived at after substantial consultation with valuators and experts in the field.
Annual ratable and annual taxable values are synonyms and for greater clarity annual
taxable value will be used in the new Property Tax Bill. Although the rate of 3 per cent
is far below 7½ per cent applicable under the Lands and Buildings Taxes and the
average of 8 per cent under the Municipal Corporations Act, most properties with the
notable exception of Point Fortin in 2008 and San Fernando in 2004 have not been
recently appraised.
As a result the rate of tax is applied to an old valuation. In other words, the
more recent valuation of property will yield a higher value, and consequently
when the tax rate is applied it will result in a higher quantum of tax payable. It is
on understanding of this a decision was made to lower the rate of tax to be applied
to 3 per cent across the board.
Mr. Speaker, the third reform initiative of the new property tax measures is
the establishment of a single tax assessment and collection agency, that is the
Board of Inland Revenue. The specialized task of valuing all properties should be
conducted by one agency applying the same principles for the entire country.
The consequential amendments to the Valuation of Land Act will provide
Trinidad and Tobago with a single agency for the determination of property values
for the purposes of taxation. The Tax Administration and Collection Agency will be
the Board of Inland Revenue and will be empowered to assess taxes based upon
valuations of properties assessed by the Valuation Division. There will no longer be
several agencies throughout Trinidad and Tobago employing time, effort and
resources for the task of determining property values and assessing taxes.
Trinidad and Tobago will benefit from economies of scale as the required
software purchase and maintenance will be the responsibility of the Valuation
Division for the valuation part of the exercise and of the Inland Revenue Division
for the tax assessment part of the exercise.
308
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
Mr. Speaker, the fourth major initiative of the property tax reform is the
implementation of the proposed new property tax information system. The property tax
information system will improve and streamline the systems of assessment,
management and collection of property taxes throughout the country through the
Valuation Division and the Board of Inland Revenue of the Ministry of Finance, and
eventually, the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority.
These features include the following:

it will use information technology to implement a modern and efficient
property tax system resulting in a virtually paperless transaction;

it will provide a uniform information system for the management of
property throughout the country. The new system will facilitate the
efficient determination and collection of property taxes and other charges;

it will provide the citizenry with a reasonable up-to-date reference map;

it will homogenize the property tax system throughout the country making
assessment and collection more efficient, transparent and user-friendly.
The system will interface with the surveys and mapping division of the
Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources to get information on
parcel index, maps, roads and buildings in Trinidad and Tobago associated
with each hereditament or property; and

it will interface with the Town and Country Planning Division of the
Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment to get land use,
planning and development information for each property.
A fifth initiative of the property tax reform is the creation of a modernized payment
system. Currently, what is required to make payment of one's property takes in the
borough, city or district revenue office where the property is located. Under this new
system property owners can now pay their taxes at banks, TTPost, 15 district revenue
offices in practically the same way that they pay their T&TEC and WASA bills. So, for
example, if you live in San Fernando but own property in Port of Spain currently you
have to go to the Port of Spain office to pay the taxes. This inconvenience will now be
a thing of the past. In addition, under the new system, the Property Tax bill will be
mailed to all property owners much in the same way as you get your electricity or water
bill. The bill will be sent by mail by March 31st of each year.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, currently you have to go into the district revenue
office to find out your tax liability.
309
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
The sixth initiative of the property tax system will allow for prepayments and part
payments thus enabling taxpayers to pay their property taxes in instalments. Under the
present system taxpayers are required to pay the whole amount of the tax annually.
A seventh significant initiative of the new property tax system is the provision
of the deferral of the payment of property taxes on the grounds of financial
hardship as set out in clause 23 of the Bill. This allows for persons who are in
receipt of certain public grants—the public assistance grant, the disability grant,
the Senior Citizens Grant or the Trinidad and Tobago Conditional Cash Transfer
Card from the State as well as those who do not receive an annual income
exceeding the maximum amount specified under the Senior Citizens Grant Act—
to apply for a deferral of their property tax obligations.
Under the current system there is absolutely no provision for deferral of taxes
on the ground of financial hardship. It should be pointed out that the Government
has put measures in place to ensure that customer bills from the Water and
Sewerage Authority are not affected by the new annual taxable rate.
The Property Tax Bill repeals and replaces the Lands and Buildings Taxes
Act, 76:04 and Part V of the Municipal Corporations Act. Although the Bill
contains a number of new provisions it is not complex in nature.
I wish to draw the attention of Members to the following main provisions. The
Bill contains seven parts and 57 clauses.
Part I of the Bill contains four clauses and provides for preliminary provisions.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the short title of the Act for which this is the Bill.
Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the Act, that is January 01, 2010.
Clause 3 provides for the interpretation of certain words and phrases using the Bill.
Clause 4 provides that the Act would bind the State.
Part II of the Bill contains five clauses and provides for the creation and
maintenance of the assessment roll.
Clause 5 of the Bill would provide for the establishment of a roll to be known
as the assessment roll which sets out the tax assessed on a particular property
based on a valuation done by the valuation division.
Clause 6 of the Bill would provide for the contents of the assessment roll. It
recognizes the nexus between the assessment roll under this Act and the valuation roll
under the Valuation of Land Act and the application of deductions and allowances.
310
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
2.15 p.m.
Clause 7 of the Bill would provide that production of an extract of the
assessment roll may be used as sufficient evidence of the making and validity of
valuations and annual tax return therein.
Clause 8 would allow for errors on the assessment roll to not vitiate any
assessment of tax or affect in any way the tax liability of an owner.
Clause 9 would prescribe land not on an assessment roll would still be liable to
assessment.
Part III of the Bill contains 12 clauses and provides for the assessment of land
under the Act.
Clause 10 would provide for the raising, levying and collecting of taxes on all land.
Clause 11 would provide that the annual taxable value of land should be
payable in accordance with the First Schedule.
Clause 12 would require that the valuation roll be used for the purposes of
assessment of taxes of land under this Act.
Clause 13 of the Bill would provide for the calculation of the annual taxable value
clause.
Clause 14 would empower the Board to make deductions and allowances in
respect of voids resulting in loss of rental equivalent to 10 per cent of the rental
value. The clause goes on to empower the Minister to amend the percentage by
Order, such Order being subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament.
Clause 15 would deem the owner of land liable to taxes assessed under this Act.
Clause 16 would set out the category of land which is exempted from taxation under
this Act. The clause is quite wide and expands the existing list of exemptions as follows:
“land used exclusively as a church or churchyard, and every cemetery or burial
ground that is enclosed and actually require used and occupied for the interment of
the dead, but not land that is rented or leased by a church or religious organization
to a person other than another church or religious organization;
school buildings, offices and playgrounds of schools within the meaning of
the Education Act”—are exempt;
“lands attached to, or otherwise actually used in connection with and for the
purposes of a place of learning maintained for educational, philanthropic or
311
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
religious purposes, the whole profits from which are devoted or applied to
such purposes;”—are exempt;
“land owned, occupied and used exclusively by an incorporated charitable
institution;”—is exempt;
“land of a designated class that is declared by the Minister”—of Finance—“to
be exempt wholly or partially from taxation under this Act;
land belonging to and in occupation of the State or its servants for public
purposes”—is exempt;
“land used for the purposes of public hospitals, public asylums and all
almshouses and institutions for the relief of the poor, whether publicly or
privately administered;”—are exempt;
“lands belonging to and occupied by the University of the West Indies or its
servants;
land belonging to and occupied by the Council of Legal Education;
land owned or occupied by a foreign government or international organization
of which Trinidad and Tobago is a member;
land belonging to a tertiary learning institution owned or managed by the
State;
land belonging to the University of Trinidad and Tobago; and
land belonging to the College of Science, Technology and Applied Arts,
(COSTAATT).”—is exempt.
Mr. Speaker, paragraphs (k), (l) and (m), the last three, are the new exemptions. At
the committee stage, I will propose the inclusion of another exemption at paragraph (n)
in respect of land belonging to the University of the Southern Caribbean.
Clause 17 of the Bill will require the board to cause a notice of assessment to
be served on, or delivered to, the owner or occupier of land. The clause goes on to
provide for the method of service of a notice and the contents of the notice.
Clause 18 would allow for the liability to pay tax to be not affected by
inaccurate or incomplete assessments, absence of assessments, errors of form of
description.
Clause 19 would provide for where there is an omission from the assessment
roll and for where construction is completed after the completion of an assessment
roll. The clause would make provision in such circumstances for the proration of
the taxes assessed under this Act.
312
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
Clause 20 would require the board to notify the Commissioner of Valuations
of any alterations in respect of land so that such changes could be recorded
accordingly in the assessment roll by the board and in the valuation roll by the
Commissioner.
Part IV of the Bill would contain 10 clauses and set out the procedure,
objections, relief, revaluation and appeals under the Act.
Clause 21 of the Bill prescribes the procedure to file objections to assessments.
Clause 22 of the Bill details the grounds for objections to an assessment.
These objections to assessment may be made on the following grounds:
“(a)
that the annual rental value of any land appearing in the Valuation Roll
is incorrect or unfair having regard to other annual rental values therein;
(b)
that land should not have been included in the Valuation Roll;
(c)
that land omitted from the Valuation Roll should be included therein;
(d)
that land included in a series or complex of land units as a single land
on the Valuation Roll should be listed separately on the Valuation Roll
or omitted therefrom;
(e)
(f)
that land listed separately in or omitted from the Valuation Roll should
be combined with one or more of a series or complex of land units and
listed as one single unit of land;
the assessed tax is incorrect; and
(g)
that the Valuation Roll is incorrect in some other material particular.”
Clause 23 of the Bill allows for persons who are in receipt of certain public grants:
public assistance grant, the disability grant, senior citizens‟ grant or the Trinidad and
Tobago conditional cash transfer card from the State, as well as those who do not
receive an annual income exceeding the maximum amount specified under the Senior
Citizens Grant Act to apply for deferral of their property tax obligations.
Clause 24 of the Bill would require an applicant to adduce proof of necessity for relief.
Clause 25 would empower the board to set out conditions in respect of any
grant of relief.
Clause 26 would empower the board to vary or revoke authorization for
deferral of the taxes assessed under this Act.
Clause 27 of the Bill provides for any period of deferment of the payment of
taxes assessed and owing under the Act to cease on the death of an owner.
313
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Where, however, a successor entitled, that is, the person who has inherited the
property is unable to pay the tax, the board may recommend that the President
authorize the total or partial exemption of the tax payable up to the death of the
deceased owner.
Clause 28 of the Bill would create an offence for false statements in application for
relief which is punishable on summary conviction by a fine of $5,000.
Clause 29 of the Bill would entitle a person aggrieved from a decision of the
board to appeal to the Tax Appeal Board.
Clause 30 of the Bill would require that any variation or alteration be entered
in the assessment roll.
Part V of the Bill would contain 16 clauses and provide for the recovery of taxes.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Part V of the Bill which sets out the
provisions of the recovery of taxes is not new. Indeed, the provisions for recovery
by way of distress or forfeiture are provisions that exist in the current legislation.
The main changes that we have introduced are to extend the periods for the
initiation for the recovery of taxes.
For example, Mr. Speaker, we have extended the period for distress proceedings
from three months to one year. In respect of forfeiture, the period is extended from one
year to five years and in respect of unoccupied and un-assessed lands from five years
to 16 years.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that these forfeiture measures are included in
all jurisdictions which implement property taxes, including the United Kingdom.
Clause 31 of the Bill would require that rented land and land with machinery
and plant be taken into account in the assessment of tax and would allow the
owner to recover from the tenant as a civil debt any increase in tax which he may
have incurred as a result of the presence of machinery or plant.
Clause 32 would provide that any unpaid taxes assessed under this Act would
become a charge on the land to which it relates.
Clause 33 would provide for when assessed taxes become due for payment.
Clause 34 would require the board to send a notice by registered post to the owner
of land who fails to pay the tax assessed and due under this Act by September 15, 2009,
informing him that from that day penalties for non-payment of taxes would apply and
failure to pay the tax and interest may result in his property being forfeited.
314
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
This clause goes on to provide for the amount of interest according to certain
time frames and for the application of interest in respect of old sums and in
certain instances for the forfeiture of land.
Clause 35 of the Bill would provide for liquidation of any arrears.
Clause 36 of the Bill would require the board to send a notice of demand by
registered post to the owner of land who fails to pay the tax assessed and due
under this Act within six months of becoming due and owing.
Clause 37 would provide for the distrain of the goods or chattels of the owner,
occupier or tenant of the land for failure to pay sums due and owing under this Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that under the existing law, the taxing authority is
empowered to levy disstress on goods where there is failure to pay the outstanding sum
more than three months after they are due and owing. As I indicated, it is proposed to
extend that period for one year.
Clause 38 of the Bill would provide that where goods and chattels are
restrained under the Act, such restraint would be at the cost of the owner.
Clause 39 of the Bill would prescribe the procedure for distress of goods.
Clause 40 of the Bill would preclude a landowner from levying distress in
respect of lands on which arrears of tax are owed.
Clause 41 of the Bill provides for the circumstances in which the President
may issue a warrant for forfeiture. Tax on the lands must be in arrears and unpaid
for a period of five years from the current one year after the tax became due and
payable in order for forfeiture to take place. This change will be discussed at the
committee stage with your leave.
Clause 42 of the Bill would require the board to register with the Registrar
General any warrant of forfeiture.
Clause 43 would provide for the registered warrant to be used as conclusive
evidence in proceedings regarding title to lands.
Clause 44 would treat forfeited land as vacant, waste or state lands. Clause 45
would render land unoccupied and un-assessed for 16 years liable to forfeiture.
The current period is five years. This change will be discussed at committee stage.
Clause 46 would provide for a re-grant of land forfeited where the President thinks fit.
Clause 47 of the Bill would provide for the prosecution of offences under the Act.
315
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Clause 48 will provide for the vesting of estates, rights and powers of the
Commissioner of State lands upon his death in a successor in office.
Clause 49 of the Bill prescribes the penalty for obstructing an authorized officer.
Part VI of the Bill would contain two clauses and provides for third party
payments to the board.
Mr. Speaker, it is our respectful view that these provisions epitomize the
reform of the Property Tax system.
Clause 50 of the Bill would authorize persons to make payments of sums due
and owing under this Act to the board through a third party payment agency
prescribed by order of the Minister. The third party payment agencies are then
required to forward the sums paid to the board on behalf of the owner of the land.
These third party agencies will include banks, post offices, WASA and Trinidad
and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC).
Clause 51 of the Bill would empower the Board, notwithstanding any other
law, to accept payments by any means from third party payment agencies.
Part VII of the Bill would contain five clauses and provide for miscellaneous
provisions of the Bill.
Clause 52 of the Bill would empower the Minister to extend the time frames
prescribed by the Act.
Clause 53 would empower the Minister to make regulations.
Clause 54 would require that upon coming into force of the Act, all payments
due and owing for property taxes under the Lands and Buildings Taxes Act and
Part V of the Municipal Corporations Act shall remain due and owing and be
treated as if they were due and owing under this Act.
Clause 55 would repeal Part V of the Municipal Corporations Act and clauses
56 and 57would repeal the Lands and Buildings Taxes Act and the Tax
Exemption Act, respectively.
Schedule I of the Bill will prescribe the calculation for determining the
percentages for annual rental value.
Schedule II of the Bill will set out the forms to be used for the issue of a
distress warrant. Schedule III of the Bill would set out the form to be used for a
warrant of possession.
316
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to briefly refer to the consequential
amendments needed for the Valuation of Land Act. This Bill seeks to amend the
Valuation of Land Act, Chap. 58:03 to make provisions for the new paradigm for
the valuation of lands by the Commissioner of Valuations and to validate certain
actions of the Commissioner of Valuations.
Mr. Speaker, valuations done by the commissioner will form the basis for the tax
assessments. There are some significant amendments to the Valuation of Land Act. For
instance, under the current system, there is no distinction for the use of land, while the
new system will introduce four classifications for the use of land. In addition,
valuations will be done every five years instead of every three years. It also gives
the Commissioner of Valuations the power to do a re-evaluation only in cases
where there has been an over-valuation of the property.
2.30 p.m.
Under the current law the commissioner may value a property within the
prescribed period in cases of undervaluation as well as overvaluation. Simply put,
that means if the Valuation Division undervalues your property under the current
system it can be revalued resulting in higher taxes within the prescribed five-year
period. That is the current law. Under the new law you would not be able to do
that.
Under the current law, the law allows for the Commissioner of Valuations—
which is a law that was in operation when you were in government, as was the
land and building taxes with all the provisions of forfeiture and distress, I may
add. Under the current law, the Valuation of Lands Act provided that the
Commission of Valuations could revalue a property if it was overvalued or
undervalued. We have made a change. We are saying that it is only in cases when
the property has been overvalued that he can do a revaluation. It would come
down. If he has undervalued the property he has to wait the five years, which by
the way is more than the three years which was the law under your administration.
We have changed that from three years to five years. What we did which you
did not do, was that we extended the period of distress from three months to 12
months and the period for forfeiture proceedings from one year to five years. I am
ensuring that you understand that it is only in cases where there is overvaluation
that there would be an opportunity to do a revaluation, not in cases where there
has been undervaluation.
I will now go through the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill, clause by clause.
The Bill contains 17 clauses.
317
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill provide the short title of the Bill and the
commencement of the Bill on January 01, 2010.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the interpretation of certain words used in the Bill.
Clause 4 of the Bill amends clause 2 of the Bill to insert new definitions of
agricultural land, annual rental value, capital value, commercial land, industrial
land and residential land. The clause also amends a number of definitions to
ensure consistency with the Property Tax Bill. The reference to Appeal Board will
now be Tax Appeal Board and is also a new definition of the expression "land".
This will be discussed at the committee stage.
Clause 5 of the Bill repeals section 4 of the Act to remove the references to the
valuation district given that it would no longer be necessary to have municipal
corporations divide Trinidad and Tobago into districts for the purposes of valuation.
Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 5 of the Act to remove references to the
district and introduce a requirement on the commissioner to also conduct
valuations based on the annual rental value and capital value of the land. The
clause goes further to provide that in calculating the annual rental value of the
land or any part thereof, the commissioner would use percentages or any
combination of the percentages as set out in Schedule I. I propose to insert in the
new section 5(2) the word "vacant" before the word "land". This would be
discussed further at the committee stage.
Clause 7 of the Bill repeals sections 6 and 7 which fix a date as at which all
parcels of land in Trinidad and Tobago will require to be valued. The requirement
to conduct a valuation is now provided for by clause 9.
The new clause 7 would be similar to the obligations that exist under the Lands and
Buildings Taxes Act, for the owner of land to file a return. The requirement to file is by
April 01, 2010. Failure to file a return or the filing of a fault or defective return results
in the commission of an offence for which a person is liable on summary conviction to
a fine of $500. The clause also provides that the commissioner should where the owner
of land does not file a return notifying him he is required to do so and that he may be
liable to the penalties under this Act.
At the committee stage, I propose to make an amendment to clause 7 of the
Bill as it relates to section 6(2) by inserting after the words "file a return" the
words, "within the time specified in the notice" and in what should be the new
section 6(3) by deleting the word "subsection (1)" and substituting the words
“subsections (1) and (2)”.
318
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. K. NUNEZ-TESHEIRA]
Clause 8 of the Bill will amend section 8 of the Valuation of Land Act to
include a reference to the Municipal Corporations Act.
Clause 9 of the Bill will amend section 9 of the Act to provide for a period of fresh
valuation which has now been extended from three years to five years. Further, the
clause expands the powers of the commissioner to conduct valuations for the purposes
of ascertaining the annual rental value or capital value. The clause also removes
references to districts consequent on the repeal of section 4 of the Act.
Clause 10 will repeal section 13 of the Act, as a consequence to the repeal of
section 4 and would introduce a new clause that would allow the commissioner to
revalue land where it appears to him that the land has been overvalued.
Clause 11 of the Bill will repeal section 14(2) of the Valuation of Land Act
and would no longer be necessary for local authorities to furnish the
commissioner with returns, rate books or such other documents.
Clause 12 of the Bill will amend section 16 of the Act to remove references to
districts and to include other items that should be included in the valuation roll.
Clause 13 of the Bill will amend section 21 of the Act to allow an objector to
appeal directly to the Tax Appeal Board without the commissioner having to refer
the matter. The requirement for security has also been removed.
Clause 14 of the Bill will amend section 23 of the Act to include the annual
rental value and capital value for the purpose of valuing land.
Clause 15 of the Bill will amend section 24 of the Act to include the annual
rental value and capital value for the purpose of valuing land.
Clause 16 of the Bill will amend section 25 of the Act to remove the
references to district and the requirement for a supplementary roll.
Clause 17 of the Bill will amend section 32(1) of the Act which creates the
offence of obstruction or hindering the commissioner or refusing or neglecting to
attend and give evidence or produce any book, document or other paper when
required by the commissioner to increase the fine from $1,500 to $5,000 to be
consistent with the penalties under the Property Tax Bill.
Clause 18 will validate all valuations done by the Commissioner of Valuations
based on any value other than site value.
During the exercise conducted in the reform of the property tax system, it was
discovered that the powers of the commissioner under the Valuation of Land Act
319
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
were limited to the valuation of the site value and improved value of every parcel
of land. The site value is defined to mean the capital sum which the fee simple
might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and
conditions as a bona fide seller would require. In practice, the Commissioner of
Valuations values land on the annual rental value not the site value. Hence, this
provision is required to validate this annual rental value of valuation.
In concluding, I wish to emphasize the Government's commitment to
improving the administration of Government's business. This tax reform is framed
within this context so that agencies benefit from economies of scale and our
property tax regime would be an equitable, transparent and efficient system of
property valuations, tax assessment and collection.
This Government has introduced more lenient provisions regarding the
treatment of delinquency in property tax administration, as part of the reform of a
property tax regime. The time frame for which distress for non-payment has been
extended from three months to one year and the time frame for forfeiture for nonpayment from one year to five years. Persons suffering financial hardships as
defined under the Act may now be allowed to enjoy the use of their property and
have their tax deferred until such time as they are able to pay their tax. Finally, the
time before which unoccupied and unassessed land may be forfeited to the State
has been extended from five to 16 years.
This Bill which I have presented is one step further in realizing our goal of a
modern and efficient tax administration consistent with the creation of a more
effective government in realizing our Vision 2020 objectives.
In moving the second reading of the Bill, I wish to advise this House that there
was an omission on the Property Tax Bill 2009, in that the Speaker certificate
certifying that it is a money Bill was omitted. This is a money Bill. I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr. Speaker: In your contribution on this Bill you can contribute on the other
Bill which is the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill, 2009.
Mr. Vasant Bharath (St. Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, at
the outset, I want to protest most strenuously, the Opposition's position with
regard to bringing this Bill here this afternoon so close to the Christmas period,
trying to rush through this piece of very crucial legislation in the hope that the
population's attention would be diverted and deflected away and therefore, they
would not pay attention to this very crucial piece of legislation.
320
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
I also strongly object to the fact that this Bill has not been made public for the
population to look at. Up to yesterday the Bill had not been posted on the
parliamentary website. As a result, members of the public, despite what the
Minister talked about having consultations, this Bill has not been available for the
public to have a look at.
We are very concerned because the public is obviously unaware that there are
provisions in this piece of legislation which the Government, given the
opportunity, would seize their property for the non-payment of taxes. I do not
believe that the population understands this clearly. Despite the fact that the
Minister talked about it being likely to take place within five years, not many
members of the population understand that their properties can be seized.
The Government has put in place strong emphasis in this legislation to be in a
position to design solely to deprive people and individuals of their properties and
investments with very little recourse to gain redress as far as citizens are concerned.
That is why it is our contention that this Bill infringes basic and fundamental rights of
citizens in Trinidad and Tobago and therefore, requires a constitutional majority and
not a special majority, as has been declared by the Minister of Finance. I know that last
week the Attorney General said the same thing.
I take the opportunity to warn the Government at the outset that it must
prepare for significant back lash with regard to this, as well as legal challenges if
it attempts to ram this Bill down the throats of citizens.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Perhaps, I heard you say that I said that you did not
need a constitutional majority, you needed a special majority. I want to clarify. It
does not need a simple majority.
Mr. V. Bharath: I am sorry. It requires a simple majority rather than a
constitutional majority. We do not concur with that opinion. The focus of this
legislation seems solely to be a deliberate attempt to pauperize and penalize the
low and middle class groups in Trinidad and Tobago who can least afford to bear
the burden of this tax at this point in time.
I also want to register my objection to the desperate passing of this legislation
at this point in time which would have wide ranging implications and powers, not
just for the ownership of property but also for property prices in Trinidad and
Tobago and will incur another round of increases as far as basic goods and
services are concerned. I will talk about that a little later on. If this Government as
it says is serious about consultation; wants to introduce equitable and good
321
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
legislation and wants it to work without a barrage of court cases that it would
face inevitably, once this is implemented, I suggest that this Bill be withdrawn
immediately and put into the public domain for genuine and meaningful
consultation. [Desk thumping]
I believe that the people's business is not child's play. When we come to
Parliament we must do so in the people's interest and not waste time in discussing
legislation which is likely to be challenged successfully in the courts of Trinidad
and Tobago and thrown out, or to pad Government's coffers, simply because it
may need extra money to spend, maybe just in time for the local government
election next year which, coincidentally, is likely to take place, we are told,
around the same time that this taxation is to be implemented.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this is faulty legislation. The Bill is
unconstitutional because it interferes with the basic rights of individuals as guaranteed
under our Constitution.
2.45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, the Government can authorize the illegal
entry and seizure of private property. This, of course, will be played out in the
courts of Trinidad and Tobago. We also know that this is a place where this
Government does not have a favourable track record, particularly with regard to
discrimination and the infringement of people's rights.
According to this legislation, as early as March 31, 2011, confiscation of
goods is legally required to take place for non-payment of property tax, which
would have been due on April 01, 2010. This is provided in Part V, clauses 31 to
49 under the title "Recovery of Taxes". This is tantamount to the deprivation of
ownership of property protected by our Constitution.
As early as September 15, 2010, a mere six months after the implementation
of this legislation, a 10 per cent surcharge representing a penalty on outstanding
taxes will be added; and a further 15 per cent interest on the very next day,
September 16, becomes effective. Effectively, you have a situation where, on
September 15, 2010, six months later, and on September 16, 2010, you have an
additional 25 per cent to pay. That is a 25 per cent on an increased charge, which,
in some cases, has been by 3,000 or 4,000 per cent. That 25 per cent could well
represent another 1,000 per cent.
With respect to the powers of confiscation of goods and chattels for
non-payment of the property tax, it appears, from the legislation, that the
322
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
Comptroller of Accounts or the District Revenue Officer, or any person to whom
the tax ought to be paid in accordance with third party agencies which the
Minister mentioned, for example, TTPost, banks, the National Lotteries Control
Board; either of these can authorize by signing a distress warrant, the confiscation
of people's furniture and fixtures, other than that of the liable owner, involving the
breaking into and entering upon buildings and selling the contents that is owned
by the person, at the expiration of only four days of storage.
We need to assess carefully whether, on the basis of a simple issuance of a
distress warrant, a junior District Revenue Officer, not a JP, without a court order,
can constitutionally or legitimately undertake to break into premises, confiscate
contents and sell the contents within four days of storage, even though these goods may
not belong to the registered owner of the property. If a tenant or renter has recently
moved into a House, the landlord has not paid the property tax, a distress warrant can
be issued and the tenant's goods and chattels seized. The tenant may only be there for a
week. He may not know the property tax is outstanding. That opens the door to
unscrupulous landlords who, for example—
Mr. Imbert: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Is that a particular
clause in the legislation that you are referring to? Direct us to it please!
Mr. Bharath: Clause 37(1)(a) and (b). As I said, that opens up the door to
unscrupulous landlords. If a landlord wishes to get a tenant off his premises, for
whatever reason, he can choose not to pay the property tax and the Board of
Inland Revenue now comes and levies and, in fright, the tenant moves out
because he does not want his goods and chattels levied upon.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no protection for renters in Trinidad and
Tobago anymore because the Rent Restriction Act expired about eight years ago.
You would also know, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Student Guild, Mr.
Hillan Morean, I think he is, has written to you with regard to this matter, which
was copied to me, asking for some level of protection, particularly for students of
the University of the West Indies living in that area, where landlords have already
started putting up the rents around the university.
I challenge the Minister today, if she is so confident that this legislation is not
unconstitutional, to agree to some level of personal liability. I say that because the
Minister has brought this legislation to Parliament. She has piloted the legislation;
she is defending the legislation; she is trying to rush it through before Christmas.
Having taught law, one would expect that she should know exactly what she is
talking about in this instance. If she is so confident, she should show her
323
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
confidence in the legislation she is trying to ram down our throats and she should
agree to pay personally for any legal awards given by the courts of Trinidad and
Tobago upon successful challenge of the legislation. Stop hiding behind the public
purse, Madam Minister. Stop using taxpayers' money to fund the Government's
excursions into the abuse of power and to the exploitation of our citizens.
I do not expect any of that to take place. This Government has established an
unenviable track record of guilt when it comes to the abuse of their powers and of
the abuse of such powers against the very same people they should be serving;
and turning around and using taxpayers' money to pay their debts.
We must also remember, Mr. Speaker, it is the very same Minister, who, when
provided with absolute proof of complicity in the issue of CL Financial, claimed
ignorance with regard to the rollovers and extensions and was defended by her
loyal Prime Minister.
We are here to discuss an issue which the Government has already decided upon. It
is quite a waste of time, as far as the population is concerned, with regard to what will
take place here today. The Government has already decided to introduce the tax. They
have come up with wild estimations of how much money they are likely to raise from
the tax—I will come back to that in a short while. They have already decided on the
date that the population should start to pay for the tax and have issued the rates, as the
Minister said earlier, that the population will pay.
So, really, the Government comes here today to conduct another PR exercise
and to convince the population that it is working on their behalf and for their
benefit and that they are somehow introducing a piece of legislation that will
create some equitable distribution across the system. I want to make it very clear
that we, on this side, do not, and the population certainly does not, buy any of that
rhetoric; nor do we believe it.
Why property tax? This Bill is being introduced for one reason and one reason
only and that is an attempt to fill a massive hole that the Government has blown in
the Treasury of Trinidad and Tobago. There is absolutely no other reason. This is
a black hole created through the mismanagement, corruption, nepotism and
squandermania that this Government has embarked upon in the last eight years.
This is nothing more than a naked revenue-raising mechanism.
We have arrived at this time and place because over the last eight years this
Government has spent over $250 billion of our money in goods and services. That
is more money than has been spent by every single government put together since
1956. In other words, every government, since 1956, when you add up what they
324
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
have spent, they have spent less than what the Government has spent in the last
eight years. What it took previous governments 53 years to spend; this
Government has spent in eight years.
What have we to show? Where are the hospitals for the sick and the needy?
Why do the pregnant and the elderly have to wait on benches and sleep in
corridors? Where is the infrastructure to ensure that our citizens are safe?
On December 01, 2009, just a few days ago, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Mr. Maurice Piggott, told the parliamentary joint select committee that
after billions of dollars have been spent by this Government, the police force was still
not properly equipped with vehicles to fight crime. In fact, out of the 2,000 vehicles that
were owned, only 900 were available to them—45 per cent was available to them
despite the billions of dollars that have been spent on fighting crime in Trinidad and
Tobago. He went further to say that the majority of the vehicles being purchased by the
hierarchy, the Minister of National Security or whoever is responsible, was not even the
type and specification of the vehicles required.
Everything is in a mess. Our road network is in a mess, with the same roads
being paved over and over again, and in many parts of the country, particularly
the rural parts, no attention is being paid to roads, in a blatant act, it would appear,
of discrimination.
We have massive problems in Trinidad and Tobago. Every institution has
collapsed or is collapsing. There is gang violence now in schools—children are
killing other children—and the list goes on—a file so thick with favouritism,
corruption and nepotism, that it is too thick to staple.
I just mentioned the expenditure of $250 million and all we have to show for
it is a flagpole, a few tall buildings in Port of Spain, a multi-million dollar castle
for the Prime Minister and a number of contracts given out under questionable
circumstances to friends and family.
That is why we are here today debating the Property Tax Bill. This has
nothing to do with equity in the system; this has to do with raising revenue. The
shameless PNM Government has raided the Treasury again. We are back to where
we were in 1986. We now call it deficit financing. In those days we went to IMF
to borrow money, but that is where we are.
The Government continues to indebt future generations with commitments
that we cannot keep—my colleague, the Member for Caroni East talks about it
regularly—through government guarantees and letters of comfort, as well as
325
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
racking up billions of dollars of direct debt. They borrow and by-pass
parliamentary oversight and process in order to fund the Prime Minister's thirst
for the high life. You see, profligacy and corruption and mismanagement is in the
DNA of those on that side.
Mr. Speaker, you were not here but, in 1987, when Prime Minister Robinson
made his first budget response, he said:
“The basic reality confronting Trinidad and Tobago in 1987 is that led by a
Government in power for over 30 years, we have failed to meet the challenges
of independence. Led, however, by an unbelievably improvident government,
we must conclude in popular language we have blown it.”
He went on to say:
“All of the fiscal savings generated during the years of the oil bonanza have
been exhausted. The Treasury is not just empty, Mr. Speaker, there is a $1.2
billion bill still to be paid from 1986.”
That is exactly where we are. We are back to that position. The Treasury is empty;
the coffers are bare. This Government has spent $33.9 billion in the last eight years
servicing debt, but continue, despite high revenues, to borrow more money; so much so
that at the end of last year, our total public debt was at $41.8 billion.
In other words, despite the fact that we had large revenues coming into the
country, the Government continues to borrow more money and it does not include
the guarantees and letters of comfort I just spoke about; a 21 per cent increase in
debt over the last eight years, despite huge revenues coming into the country.
3.00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, today the Government comes to the Parliament and the people of
Trinidad and Tobago to raise taxes via so-called property taxes, because they have
once again squandered the wealth of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. The
purpose of raising taxes is to be in a position to provide the citizens of a country
with goods and services that would provide them with a positive and good quality
of life. Can we really say, in Trinidad and Tobago, that after having spent $250
billion over the last seven years, that we are happy with the goods and services
that we are being provided with? [Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: Yes.
Mr. V. Bharath: Of course, they can say that, because they have feathered
their own nests. Furthermore, property taxes, specifically in developed countries,
326
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
are raised and are specific to local borrowers, local councils and specific locales.
If you go to London or the Unites States, specific borrowers raise taxes to be in a
position to provide goods and services for that specific locale, based on the level
of services that they are providing in that locale or council. If they are providing
schools, play parks and garbage collection that is superior to another area, they
have a higher price. [Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: I know that.
Mr. V. Bharath: Of course, you know that, but you seem to ignore it although
you know it. In Trinidad and Tobago, the intention, according to this legislation, is
not that these moneys will go to the regional corporations to increase or better the
services in the Tunapuna/Piarco Regional Corporation or Couva/Talparo, it is going
into the Government's coffers; the Consolidated Fund. That is where it is going. It is
going to continue to be spent in the same manner that you have spent the last $250
billion. The people do not trust you. You are going to buy more flags. You are
going to put up more tall buildings. That is exactly the point. There is absolutely no
intention on the Government's part to increase or better the lives of the population
in any area. They are going to take this money and do what they feel with it, as they
have done over the last eight years.
In fact, one of their own said recently, that it is now because "de money done
and de Treasury empty dey now going from door to door, chirrup, chirrup, trying
to raise all kind ah taxes like alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, motor vehicle transfer
taxes and now, of course, property taxes." One of your own said the same thing.
You have blown it.
In August earlier this year, the Minister of Finance said that the import cover
was 13 months. In fact, just one month later, the junior Minister in the Ministry of
Finance, Sen. The Hon Mariano Browne, said in another release that in fact the
country only had 11 months. In the space of one month, between August and
September, the import cover dropped by two months. Of course, neither of these
Ministers can attest to these figures, so I have to assume that they were both
correct. Our import cover dropped by two months in the space of one month,
between August and September, according to these two different Ministers.
Where did the money go? That is why we are here again today, trying to raise
more taxes to cover the moneys that they have been spending.
I want to talk a little bit about the consultations that the Minister spent a long time
on, because in one of the articles in the Daily Express of Friday, December 11, the
Minister said that the majority of Trinidad and Tobago is in of support of the Bill.
327
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
"…Karen Nunez-Tesheira says the Government is satisfied that the majority
of the population is in support of the new property tax, despite concerns raised
against it by some homeowners, Opposition MPs, the Congress of the
People…Nunez-Tesheira said yesterday that all Government MPs have been
holding cottage meetings with their constituents, and have found that most of
their complaints had to do with „local‟ issues such as drainage and pot holes
and not with the property tax issue."
The point I am going to make is not that the PNM MPs have failed their constituents,
as indeed they have failed the rest of the country, we all know that potholes exist and
we all know of the drainage problems very much like the issues of crime,
unemployment, and poverty. They are all national scourges that have been inflicted
upon the population, an unsuspecting population, by this PNM Government.
What I want to highlight is the scientific, I use that word very guardedly,
manner in which the Minister's assessment was done and which led her to the
conclusion that she arrived at; that everybody or the majority of people was
happy. People did not complain, so of course, they were happy, according to the
rationale of this particular relief. This whole exercise characterizes how this
Government deals with the population and how they actually consult with the
population. Last week Wednesday, the Government held a public consultation at
the Bureau of Standards, at which there were several public officials, as the
Minister talked about earlier on. The public officials assured the citizens of this
country that their views would be taken into account in putting together the
legislation. That was Wednesday. On Thursday morning, the Minister announced
that on Friday the Bill will be laid in Parliament. Obviously, they took no account
of what these people had to say. There is absolutely no account. That is the level
of consultation that the PNM Government embarks upon.
I want to go back to the fact that the Minister said that the majority of people
agreed. According to the population statistics in Trinidad and Tobago, as released
by the Review of the Economy 2009, the population of Trinidad and Tobago is
1,310,106 persons. Of course, I challenge the Minister to prove that the majority
of these 1.3 million people has been consulted. What the Minister is saying is that
20-odd people went and visited the PNM Ministers in their offices and talked
about drains and potholes, represent the majority of people in Trinidad and
Tobago. Is the Minister also telling us that the opinion of PNM supporters only
and alone have relevance to the property taxation legislation? That is what she is
saying. They presumably only consulted with PNM people in their offices. There
are 15 other constituencies in Trinidad and Tobago, where there is no PNM
328
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
representation, probably accounting for about 400,000 individuals. When you add
up those 400,000 people who obviously were not consulted and all the thousands
of other people in the PNM constituencies who were not consulted, we end up with
a significant proportion of the population who were not consulted and they have
not been allowed to express any agreement to this property tax.
I challenge the Minister, again, here today, to tell us in Parliament now if she
so wishes, which organization and persons have been consulted on this Bill; not
on property tax, as she talked about, on the Bill itself. There could not have been,
because the Bill is not public. You have consulted them with regard to the tax, but
not on the Bill. The general consensus across the board with most members of the
population is that they have no idea what effect the tax will have on the people
and the penalties for non-compliance. Have you ever attempted to call the
hotline? Nobody ever answers the hot line. [Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: I thank the Member for giving way. I checked, after hearing the
statement by the hon. Member for St. Augustine, with the Parliament staff, with
respect to the posting of the Bills on the parliamentary website and I simply want
to tell you that this is the response I received. The Bills were posted on the
parliamentary website at 10.48 a.m. on Tuesday, December 15, and, therefore
your information is incorrect.
Mr. V. Bharath: So it was posted three days ago. I looked for it yesterday
and I could not find it, but you say three days ago. Mr. Speaker, they talked about
this measure since September in the budget. [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: I am only supposed to listen to the Member who is speaking
and I am getting grave difficulty hearing him. Members on the Government
Benches and Members to the left and right, more to the right of the Member for
St. Augustine, please listen to him.
Mr. V. Bharath: The festivities are upon us and I think everyone is getting a
little bit exuberant.
Mr. Speaker, I issue a challenge to the Minister to tell the Parliament which
organizations have been consulted with regard to the Bill itself; not the property
tax, but the Bill itself.
I have looked at most of the media reports regarding this matter. I have read most
of the letters to the editors and most of the commentaries on this matter over the last
few months. I have personally held several meetings across several constituencies in
Trinidad and Tobago, with regard to this matter. The UNC has held several Monday
329
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
night forums, where we talked about property tax, and the consensus is unanimous—in
that most people, the majority, in fact all people—that no one has actually seen this
Bill. The UNC has collected thousands of signatures of persons who are against the
position of what we deem to be an immoral property tax. At the consultation that was
held at the Opposition Leader's office, we talked about this tax with several
stakeholders across all boundaries in Trinidad and Tobago; a wide cross-section of
interest groups, and they were unanimous. To a man, everyone objected to it.
I know why the Government did not consult with people. I know why there
was no true consultation, because they knew exactly what the response was going
to be and they knew exactly what the public's view was with regard to property
tax, because at a crucial moment in this nation's history, in the most difficult of
times, when inflation has drastically eroded people's purchasing power, food
prices have driven people below the poverty line. Many people are today losing
their jobs. Instead of finding ways to assist a beleaguered population, what does
the Government do? They go and try to pick the pockets of the population. That
is what they do. The Minister talks about having consulted and that the majority
of people in Trinidad and Tobago is in agreement.
Look at this headline:
"Students fear rising rent
Students of the University of the West Indies (UWI), St. Augustine Campus,
are already struggling to pay apartment rental fees and they now fear that
these prices will now skyrocket with increased property taxes."
[Interruption] Those are my constituents, I agree. They are mine. Look at this one:
"Taxes will skyrocket
TTMA warns
consumers of higher costs
Manufacturers are warning consumers that once the property tax reform goes
into effect, the cost may trickle down to them… Manufacturers expressed
concern that after analysing the figures their taxes will skyrocket.”
Mr. Speaker: I think the Minister of Information will be speaking after you,
so hold your fire until then, please.
Mr. V. Bharath: Thank you, Sir.
"Manufactures expressed concern, after analysing figures their taxes will
skyrocket. They believe the Government does not understand the impact the
tax is going to have on businesses.
330
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
„I guarantee our tax is going to go up ten-fold, I don't think people have
really thought this thing through on the Government side on what kind or
impact it is going to have on businesses. The effect we are talking about is
inflation, these costs are going to be passed on through the economy,‟ said
Roger Mew, managing director of Carib Glass."
Those are the students . These are the manufacturers and here we have:
"Farmers warned Govt against property tax"
Who are all these people? Who is the majority of people?
3.15 p.m.
If the farmers are against it; the manufacturers are against it; the trade unions
outside are against it; the students are against it; who are the persons that want to
talk about pothole and drain and are not concerned with property taxes?
Mr. Speaker, media reports that I have read recently suggest that the
Government has been looking at people's homes over the last four years and has
been calculating the value of homes. According to an Express report dated
December 08, 2009, just a few short days ago, there is a headline: "Official: Govt
already worked out property taxes". It says:
"'That information was collected by the various regional corporations and we
decided that the best way to use the data was on the new property tax system,'
said valuation technician in the Ministry of Finance, Evril Ross."
In other words, the valuation upon which this property tax is going to be based
is four years old.
Mr. Speaker, the property market in the last four years has changed considerably.
Four years ago we had a boom in Trinidad and Tobago, and rental values had
skyrocketed to unprecedented highs, driven by the influx mainly by expats who came
to work in the booming oil and gas sectors. Today, these properties fetch less than half
the cost in some cases of what they did then. So, all of the work that was done four
years ago is probably more or less irrelevant. So, we are going to be asked to pay a
property tax on an already outdated valuation of our properties.
What about the old established areas like Woodbrook? What about the people
who live in Tobago and who have lived there all their lives? They were born
there, and because of the valuation of their properties which has skyrocketed
because of foreigners coming in—for example, in Tobago or for a wealthy
businessman who is purchasing all the properties in Woodbrook, people who live
331
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
in these areas—suddenly they are going to be saddled with a huge debt with
regard to property tax. In most cases, many of them are elderly people. They are
not going to be able to pay their tax. What is the Government asking them to do?
Is the Government asking them to uproot themselves, leave their homes and go
and live somewhere else? That is what the law is providing for them to do.
You know, what puzzles me is the fact that Mr. Ross had said that they
already know the value of properties because that was done. What puzzles me is if
he already knows or the Ministry already knows the value of the property, why
several Ministers are now volunteering different figures for the amount of money
that they are likely to raise?
The Minister of Finance's figures have varied between $250 million—$750
million. The Minister of Trade and Industry and Minister in the Ministry of
Finance, Sen. The Hon. Mariano Browne, had said it is $325 million. Sen. The
Hon. Conrad Enill, who was a previous Minister in the Ministry of Finance, said
that it was $72 million and then corrected it and said $350 million. They have
different positions. In addition to not knowing how much money they are going to
raise—in fact, an expert in the field, Mr. Afra Raymond, has said that it is going
to be a billion dollars. They have not in any way said that figure is not correct.
They also have different positions on the property tax. The Minister of
Finance is on record as saying, "We not backing down on this property tax.” The
Minister of Trade and Industry and Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Sen. The
Hon. Mariano Browne, said that the Government could review the property tax.
So, they have different positions on the tax itself.
Mr. Speaker, one Government Minister actually says that the tax was more of a
revenue reducing measure than a revenue raising measure. [Interruption] Mr.
Speaker, do these people really know what they are doing? These are the people who
are entrusted to run this country. They have varying opinions on the same subject,
just as they did with the price of oil and gas a few months ago—different
methodologies; different opinions; and different positions on the same subject. These
are the people who are entrusted to run the economy of Trinidad and Tobago.
You see, when you are economical with the truth, you must have a very good
memory. You cannot be cranially challenged. [Desk thumping] There is no secret that
this Government likes to hide things. They do not want to account to the population or
the Opposition, and that is why they have refused to answer questions on a weekly
basis in this Parliament. They are going to say something this week and two weeks later
they would say something else, so they have refused to answer questions and that is the
332
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
reason. That is why they have to position themselves with different statements and
different positions on a regular basis.
I picked up a very interesting clipping recently entitled: "Property price hike". It is
interesting because it was compiled by the Real Estate Association of Trinidad and
Tobago and it says:
"But real estate agents say this is another blow to the industry, at least in the
short term because the reality is that both buyers and sellers are waiting for a
turnaround in the market.
'This tax will put the screws on the market'…the reality is that these new
property taxes are going to be passed on to the buyer.
Another agent felt that the added costs of taxation are likely to be passed on to
tenants of commercial and residential properties."
Mr. Speaker, just to give you an indication of their survey which is called "Property
price hike"—these people ought to know what is going on in the country, because they
represent state agents right across the country. They gave an example of how the taxes
are going to increase when the tax is implemented: Westmoorings North, three
bedroom house, the current tax is $302 and after the implementation of the tax it is
going to be $7,938; Diego Martin, currently it is $117, after the tax, $2,520; El Dorado,
three bedroom house, currently it is $275, after the tax it is going to be $2,160;
Roystonia, Couva, a three bedroom house, the tax currently is $83 and after the tax it is
going to be $1,800; and they went on to talk about commercial properties. I am going
to give you just one of them which is Lange Park, where the current tax is $10,972, and
after they are saddled with the 5 per cent tax, that rate is going to go up to $65,523.
Hon. Member: Ohoooo!
Mr. V. Bharath: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you, but most people know that
the Kiss baking factory is in Lange Park and, therefore, if property taxes go up
significantly, I do not need to tell you what is going to go up.
Mr. S. Panday: They will eat the bread the devil knead!
Mr. V. Bharath: In addition to the cost of these items going up, do you know
that in my area people have come to me recently and said to me that their
electricity prices have gone up, and they are feeling the effects of these higher
rates in these particularly hard times. Now with the hike in property tax, water
rates will also go up, because water rate is tied to the annual ratable value of a
333
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
property. So, once the annual ratable value goes up, your water rates will also go
up. I do not believe that too many people in Trinidad and Tobago are aware of that.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: I do not know if the hon. Member for St. Augustine
was listening. I said in my contribution that the water rates are delinked from the
payment of property taxes under the new system. In addition, if I may correct you
on two things that you said; you mentioned Woodbrook and business properties
affecting the residential owners, but under the current system, there is no
distinction as to the usage of property. So, you are right. Under the current
system, if business properties are increased, the value of properties in
Woodbrook, under the current system, would be 7½ per cent across the board.
Under the system that we are bringing in, we are making the distinction as to
usage. So, if you own a residential property in Woodbrook, even if there are
business properties in Woodbrook that have increased, the property of those
business properties for the purposes of taxation, you will be taxed as a residential
property. You will be taxed at 3 per cent and not as a business property owner.
Finally, to correct one other thing that you said, you made the point about expats
and that would be taken into account in the valuation.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Mrs. K. Persad-Bissessar]
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. V. Bharath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talked about water rates being
delinked, but there is nothing in the legislation that says that. In fact, let me read
an article in the Express dated Thursday, December 08, 2009 and it says:
"Since water rates are tied to the amount customers pay in property tax, deputy
general manager at the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA), Andy St. Clair, said
it was only natural that people...would have to pay a little more."
This is the Deputy General Manager of the Water and Sewerage Authority. He
said that in a release here. There is nothing in your legislation that says otherwise.
Hon. Members: Nothing!
Mr. V. Bharath: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Minister is trying to tell us
here this afternoon. According to this legislation that is before us, and according to the
pronouncements from WASA, you will have to pay more for water. That is the point.
[Desk thumping]
334
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
Mr. Speaker, electricity rates have gone up, water rates are going up, property
tax, motor vehicles transfer rates, alcohol and cigarette. What is next? Are they
going to tax you on the number of children that you have? Is that the next one?
Mr. Speaker, this property tax is going to have a far more deep-reaching effect than
just taxing residents or owners or tenants. It is going to have a multiplier effect on all the
goods that are consumed and purchased in Trinidad and Tobago. Every supermarket,
parlour and grocery will have to pay property tax. What will the owner do? Is the owner
going to fund that himself, or is he going to pass it on to the end consumer? Every
doctor, lawyer, dentist and accountant in Trinidad and Tobago who offers a service—
whether he is a tenant or an owner—will have to pay property tax. Who is going to fund
that increase? Is it not the consumer; the final citizen of Trinidad and Tobago?
The price of every manufactured good in Trinidad and Tobago will also
increase. I use an example on a regular basis, which is that of flour manufactured
by National Flour Mills and Nutramix. National Flour Mills has to pay property
tax, not just on its building, but on its plant and equipment. When that happens,
the price of flour automatically goes up, because they are going to pass it on to the
consumer. When that flour is delivered to, say, a large bakery like the Kiss
Manufacturing Company or any other large bakery that has to pay property tax
and lands and buildings taxes and plant and equipment, you will have a double
rounds now of price increases. In a number of cases, these large bakeries
distribute their products like cakes and breads to the supermarkets that also have
to pay property tax, so there is a third round of increase. That is the multiplier
effect we are talking about.
So, therefore, you are going to have a cumulative inflationary spiral of the cost of
living in Trinidad and Tobago. Do you think this Government really cares? Do you
think they have done any socio-economic assessments of the impact of these things?
Nothing! It is a naked grab for people's moneys, nothing more. [Desk thumping]
Mr. Speaker, for many people in Trinidad and Tobago and many countries
across the world, the investment in a home is probably the largest investment they
would ever make in their lives—a car is second—but generally it is a home that
will cost the most amount of money.
3.30 p.m.
That is what buying a house is all about. It is an investment much in the same way
that buying bonds, stocks or mutual funds is an investment. Buying a home is an
investment. It is an illiquid investment by comparison to other forms of investment, but
nevertheless it is an investment and most people purchase a home because they believe
335
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
that the price of the house will increase in value. If you were to buy a house with the
knowledge that it is going to decrease in value, very few people would invest their
savings in it.
For many of these people who purchase a home, they purchase that home as a
result of deferred consumption. In other words, they “scrunt”, save and sacrifice,
they do not expend their moneys on wild parties, fancy cars, jewellery, trips
abroad, expensive curtains—
Hon. Member: And flags.
Mr. V. Bharath: And flags and so on, they save and they “scrunt” to be able
to put down their deposit on their homes which they perceive is an investment and
they pay a mortgage every month with the knowledge and the hope that the price
of their property will increase.
Others do the same, who have already owned homes, by improving the quality
of their homes by putting an air conditioned unit, maybe putting a little driveway,
putting an extension and so on.
Mr. Speaker, the propensity to be able to save is a sign of a mature consumer and
a mature country. In fact, responsible governments encourage people to save. They
encourage savings in a society. In fact, in Trinidad and Tobago, the Central Bank,
only about two years ago launched a financial literacy programme to encourage
people and to advise them about the importance of saving. But today we are faced
with an attack by this Government on the savings of the people of Trinidad and
Tobago. That is what it is! It is an attack on their savings. [Desk thumping]
This Government is no longer content to tax people's salaries through PAYE.
They are no longer content to tax people's consumption through VAT. They are
now coming to tax their savings. And they are intent on bullying the citizens, who
have worked hard for many years, some for a lifetime, into paying this immoral
and regressive tax, and in most cases, this additional payment would not come
from additional income, it will come directly from savings.
In fact, what the Government is trying to do is to encourage people to become
just like them.
Dr. Moonilal: Yeah.
Mr. V. Bharath: To become free spenders; do not worry about tomorrow and
become like them. It is discouraging people from building their own homes and
owning their own homes.
336
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
It also discourages people from doing maintenance to their homes and
substantially upgrading their homes, because the more your home is valued,
because you happen to have an air conditioner in it or because you happen to have
an extension put on that your neighbour does not, you are going to be taxed more
because the rental value of your house is now more than your neighbour's. So, the
Government is encouraging people to spend their money freely, go and drink in
the pub every night, smoke your life away, spend on unnecessary expenditure and
do not save and expend your money on your home.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few years this Government has been providing grants
for home improvement. [Interruption] It is a very good thing. [Interruption] Hold
on, they have been providing grants for self improvements and I have to say that
they have been able to alleviate with regard to this matter, they have been able to
alleviate a lot of discomfort with regard to people wanting to improve their
homes. But those very same people—who have been able to install an indoor
toilet, or have been able to put in a kitchen, or to install cupboards—are now
going to be required to pay an increased property tax because the value of their
homes has gone up.
So they have given in one hand and they are taking away with the other hand.
What about those on fixed incomes? What about those people who are most
vulnerable in our society? What about the pensioners and those on welfare
benefits who have already been ravaged by the high cost of living? I saw an
article in the Daily Express Friday, December 11, “Tax Ease” and the Minister of
Finance is starring, obviously an old photograph [Laughter] on the newspaper,
“recipients of public assistance, senior citizens and social disability grants exempt
from paying property taxes”.
Mr. Speaker, I was elated when I read this initially as the headline, because I
thought, here you are, the Government probably took into account all of the issues
that the people of the country were saying and they decided to grant some level of
relief to these people who are desperate and who are the most vulnerable in our
society, but of course, that level of comfort and relief was short lived. When I
opened it up and I read the article—in fact, the Government was not granting
these people an exemption, which is what I thought it was, there was going to be a
deferral of the tax, so these people still owe these taxes. [Interruption]
The taxes now are reverted on to the property now itself and it was not an
exemption, it was just a referral to be paid when the property is either transferred
to their children or when it is sold. How heartless! What would it have cost this
Government?
337
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
In fact, the Minister of Social Development is on record as saying there are
about 100,000 people in this category. What would it have cost?
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Who own homes.
Mr. V. Bharath: Less than them own houses. Less than them would probably
own houses, right? How much would it have cost this Government to exempt
these people—in their last days—completely from the tax and not have to get up
morning after morning and know that there is a tax burden hanging on their
shoulders, so when they try to give their property away to their children that
property has to be paid for? What would it have cost the Government?
Before the introduction of this tax one would assume that the Government
would have taken into account the existing and prevailing tax regime. When you
are looking to revamp or to increase taxes, surely you must look at what exists
currently before you go to the population to take more money from them. The
Minister, I would have hoped in her opening remarks, would have talked about
what measures they took and what sort of insight they had with regard to the
existing regime, and therefore the fact is that property tax, effectively, was a last
resort in terms of going to the population. I asked these questions and I posed
these issues for one reason and one reason only and that is in the context of a
number of the secret deals that the Government has entered into with
multinational corporations—like Essar Steel and so on—where we do not know
what kind of tax holidays, concessions and subsidized prices had been given to
these organizations. We know for example that Atlantic LNG, Trains 2, 3 and 4
operate under very specific and peculiar arrangements, which effectively, has
lessened their tax take to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.
Mr. Speaker, Prof. Dennis Pantin from the University, writing in the Trinidad
Guardian of October 11, 2009 captures what I think best can capitulate what the
population is thinking and certainly what my thoughts are. I quote:
“If you are going to tax me, I want to be reassured, to put it bluntly, that you
are not going to t‟ief the money.
This implies the enactment of strong, effective anti-corruption laws, backed
up by well-resourced institutions.”
Prof. Pantin's opinion is posited on the basis that in Trinidad and Tobago our
perception of corruption by the whole world is that we have plummeted in terms
of our ability to engage in corrupt deals, and as a result of our public officials to
be engaged in corrupt deals. As a result, it is common knowledge that according
338
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
to the Corruption Perception Index we have moved from 34 in 2002 under a UNC
regime to—as at a couple of months ago.
We have already witnessed the games that this Government has played with
regard to the procurement policy that they were supposed to have brought to this
Parliament since 2004 [Interruption] and they have shelved it deliberately in order
to facilitate corruption within the system. Before the citizens of this country agree
to pay this burdensome tax they must be assured that all of the weaknesses in the
system, all of the leakages, all of the inefficiencies in the existing system has been
ironed out and taken care of before you come to this population and ask for more
money. [Desk thumping]
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Then you must stop paying income tax then?
Dr. Gopeesingh: No, that is a different issue. Do not penalize them with this one.
Mr. V. Bharath: The Minister of Finance in her budget announcement in
September said: “We are committed”—and I quote and she mentioned it again
today—“to providing an efficient, equitable and user-friendly property tax
system.”
The term “equitable” has been repeatedly used throughout the PR campaign
that the Minister has talked about in an attempt the fool the population. That word
equitable has become their mantra. It has become their mantra over the last three
months. My interpretation of the word “equitable” means simply that there must
be some measure of equity in the disbursement of the funds that are going to be
raised across the country.
But we already know that Government's expenditure is never equitable. Regional
corporations controlled by the UNC continue to be starved of resources. The
Government paved selected roads only all over the country in different parts where
they control or where they feel they feel they have support, and there are many parts of
the country where roads continue to be in a deplorable condition, where drains continue
to be in a deplorable condition and the Government does nothing.
I have raised in this very House the issue of a particular drain in Orange
Grove Road in St. Augustine and for 23 years that drain has not been cleaned. I,
as a Member of Parliament, have been bounced from pillar to post by this
Government, from the regional corporation, to the Minister of Local Government,
to RuDeCott; from pillar to post, the citizens of St. Augustine and the Member of
Parliament have been bounced from pillar to post. I have only been there for two
years, but for 23 years these people have been suffering through the blatant
339
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
discrimination perpetrated by this Government. We have been lied to on several
occasions as to when that project is going to be undertaken and by whom? Who
is going to do it?
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Who lied to you?
Mr. V. Bharath: Mr. Speaker, let us not fool ourselves. The purpose of this
property tax is to generate a certain level of income in the hope that some of it here and
some of it there and some of it other places, will try and make up some of the hole—the
$16 billion deficit that this Government has racked up over the last two years.
We fully expect the Government to come to Parliament early next year again for
more money, to say that they over-spent more money and the deficit is no longer going
to be $16 billion or $17 billion, it is going to be $20 billion. I am extremely concerned
as a result of that, because most mature and responsible countries that are going
through what Trinidad and Tobago has gone through with regard to recession, have
taken firm policies with regard to getting their countries out of the mess, out of the
recession. But what did this Government do? First of all they denied that we are in a
recession and then they trivialized the issue, and instead of now directing and curbing
their expenditure and channelling whatever moneys we have left into the appropriate
productive investments, what did we do? The Government continues on its merry
jaunt of spending of unproductive investments.
This is not a wealth tax, far from it. It is a tax that will affect everyone in Trinidad
and Tobago and it will affect those who are least privileged more, because it is going to
represent a larger percentage and proportion [Desk thumping] of their income than it
will for those who have healthy incomes. [Interruption] This is an unjust law. There
are no two ways about it. It is an unjust law. [Desk thumping] It is bad law and it is
immoral. It is immoral based on the fact that the Government has spent $250 billion,
they corruptly appropriate almost $250 billion, they have mismanaged hundreds of
billions of dollars that they have been entrusted with, and they are now coming to the
population to pay their bills.
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, bad law is the worst form of tyranny and must be resisted by this
population at all cost and it is being resisted.
Mr. Speaker, Martin Luther King once said that an individual who breaks the
law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of
imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its
injustice is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law.
340
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. BHARATH]
Mr. Speaker, like thousands of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, I the
Member of Parliament for St. Augustine refuse to pay this immoral and regressive
tax and I intend to take Dr. King‟s advice very seriously in expressing the highest
respect for the law.
Thank you very much.
The Minister of Education (Hon. Esther Le Gendre): Mr. Speaker, having
heard the last speaker, it has become absolutely necessary for me to place this
Property Tax Bill in the proper context.
Mr. Speaker, I half expected that the Member for Siparia would have opened
the batting; it would have been interesting to see when or where she would have
fallen. [Interruption] Oh, you will be bowling, remember they have a tail end. All
I could say, sister is, remember Hulsie.
What has been presented so far by the hon. Member for St. Augustine sits in
the realm of misinformation, disinformation, obfuscation and, as the Member for
D‟Abadie/O‟Meara says, false lies. The facts are that land and building taxes have
always existed. It is a tax which property owners currently pay. Property taxes
have been with us for a long time and, in fact, are used throughout the world even
in merry old England where the Member for St. Augustine would be quite
familiar, and I am sure does not complain about the taxes he pays.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is but enhancement of an existing tax by another
name. What we are here to do is amend and improve what already exists because
the previous system has become outdated, antiquated and inequitable.
The administration and even the rates at which this tax has been applied have not
kept up with the pace of infrastructure development. We are concerned with equity and
fairness and will not give up that position just because the Member for St. Augustine
cannot define equity. We are concerned with equity and fairness, the use of probity in
the way we seek to impose or address any system of taxation on our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, Harlem Stoute puts it more succinctly than I can. He says
taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he
assumes by contract. It is a way of apportioning the cost of Government among
those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its
burdens. No citizen enjoys immunity from this burden.
That we are here to debate and ventilate all associated views of this proposed
tax is testimony to the fair and transparent manner in which information has been
brought into this domain. Despite the fact that the Member for St. Augustine has
341
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
been suggesting that the Bill has been unexpected or somehow unanticipated, we
are on record during the Budget Debate of September 22, 2008 when the Minister
of Finance said:
“The Government is committed to making the tax administration system as
efficient and user-friendly as possible. Part of the tax reform initiative is the
reform of our property tax regime which is antiquated, inefficient and lacking
in equity.”
If the Member for St. Augustine was not in this honourable House on that day,
I would understand but I believe that he was and so, much of the difficulty we
face, the reason for much information is at best fair and at worst—and in fact I
believe this is the stronger of the two possibilities—it is a set of false and
misleading arguments crafted to gain political mileage. “Axe the tax” my eye!
Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Augustine stood up and looking at section 34
of the proposed Bill suggested that somehow the Government will move in to
confiscate property without due process.
[MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the process which could lead to confiscation has
been so clearly outlined in the Bill. There are so many steps before such a step
could be taken.
Step one, the annual tax due and payable in respect of every land shall be paid to
the board on or before March 31 in every year ending on the next ensuing December
31.
The second step is that any amount of tax that is not paid, the board shall
cause a notice of non-payment to be sent. There is great care in ensuring that
such a notice is properly delivered. The clause goes on to provide the same
interest rates as provided in section 21 of the Lands and Buildings Taxes Act.
The Member for St. Augustine somehow suggested that there was an entirely
new and higher interest rate being proposed. His only interest here is to try to
frighten those persons listening to this debate.
Again in clause 34, he suggested the interest rate of 15 per cent per annum.
This is after six months when the tax is not paid, then we are looking at 15 per
cent per annum. That is a monthly rate of just over 1.2 per cent and even so there
is still a safety measure here; unless the board is satisfied that the failure to pay
the taxes did not result from the default of the taxpayer.
342
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. E. LE GENDRE]
Did he say that? No. Because he has no interest in presenting the truth today,
and even after six months have elapsed, the same became due and owing, the
board shall cause a notice of demand. This is a further warning. This is no thief in
the night coming at an unsuspecting taxpayer. There is a steady flow of process,
of warnings and opportunities being given.
The Lands and Buildings Taxes Act never provided that before distress
proceedings would commence that some sort of demand similar to what occurs
under the VAT Act is made. So this provision seeks to introduce the idea of a
Notice of Demand.
Again, the hon. Member for St. Augustine suggested that banks and the other
collectors of this tax will become involved in levying upon people. That is an
outright falsehood. The Bill clearly states in section III that for the purpose of
levying any distress under this section, any person may, if expressly authorized in
writing by the board execute any warrant of distress. The Bill does not say that the
banks and other collectors are involved in levying.
The Bill further goes on to say that the disstress taken under section 37 may, at the
cost of the owner thereof be kept for four days. Again, there is that time given to the
owner to come up with the tax which is illegally owed on this property.
Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on, but the Member for St. Augustine has simply
either not read the Bill as usual, or he is more concerned with giving false
information and instilling fear in the minds of the persons who might be listening.
Clause 41, as part of the process, instead of one year which the previous Act
gave now suggests that:
“Where any tax or any part thereof due in respect of any land remains in
arrears and unpaid for the period of five years from the day when it became
due and payable…”
How much time does the Member for St. Augustine want? It is only then that:
“…the President may, by warrant under his hand, reciting that the sum
specified in such warrant, due on account of the tax and for the year specified
in such warrant, is and has for the full period of one year been in arrears and
unpaid, order that such lands be forfeited…”
So this is a case where the arrears have been unpaid for five years and so I
really want to invite the Member for St. Augustine to desist from frightening
people and get his facts right.
343
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Madam Deputy Speaker, we were told today there would be a huge demonstration
by the “Axe the tax” activists. I understand that the Member for Oropouche East was
there trying to add up numbers, but even with his support it did not pass 12; a dozen
counting you. I do not know if the poster girl for the anti-tax campaign was there, the
one in the cute “Uncle Sam costume” and even US citizens must constantly shift
residence amongst States to locate areas where there are lower property taxes. They
shift to Florida, they move here, they move there. [Interruption]
We are trying to make sure that you can stay in Mayaro and I can stay in St.
Joseph and be equal. We do not want you to be disadvantaged in Mayaro.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are looking at the two Bills; the Valuation of
Land (Amdt.) Bill and the Property Tax Bill because the former is the basis for
the latter. The valuation of property is premised on the valuation of land and then
the additions thereto.
We are focused on equity. As it now stands, the person using land for
agricultural purposes to feed our nation may well be paying a greater tax rate in
one area of the country than someone developing or using land for commercial
purposes at a greater profit in another area. In some areas, both prime and rural
properties carry the same flat rate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we create a uniform tax rate throughout the country
as opposed to different rates in cities and boroughs, this is how we bring equity into the
system. Furthermore, as we speak to context, this is not a regressive or unfair tax as
some of our more gullible citizens are made to believe. While it is, in fact, imposed on
everyone across the board, the fact is, it is not income-based and further ensures an
equity that has come about because of this restructuring.
The tax does not look at what you earn, but the value of what you have; whether
your home is executive, modern, standard or modest. Additionally, as the Minister of
Finance pointed out earlier, there are a number of organizations that are entirely
exempt: schools; lands that are used for public hospitals and institutions for the relief of
the poor.
4.00 p.m.
We continue to demonstrate that we are a caring government—lands belonging to
and occupied by the University of the West Indies and its servants will continue to be
exempt, as well as land belonging to the University of Trinidad and Tobago and
COSTAATT. Churches and land used exclusively as a churchyard shall be exempt.
Despite the related certainty of death and taxes, there would be no taxes on burial
grounds.
344
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. E. LE GENDRE]
The Act further creates allowances for the loss of rent; those who actually rent
and equally to those for whom the idea of a rent was notional, a full 10 per cent of
the annual rentable value. In addition, those of us proving a difficulty in meeting
any payment—this is a critical point for the people out there who are looking in.
When I was coming to Parliament I was listening to Radio 95.5 and there was
an absolutely distressed person [Interruption] who was calling in. Clearly, he was
listening to the Member for St. Augustine saying that homeowners who are in
receipt of the Senior Citizens Grant will lose the grant. Now, what nonsense is
that? That has never been proposed. That is not going to happen. It is not true. It
is just another piece of misinformation by the Members on the other side
frightening poor people.
Another retired person called in saying that if she was unable to pay the tax
she would lose her house. The Act provides that for persons who prove a
difficulty in meeting any payment arising under the Act or who might be
experiencing hardship may have an opportunity for the deferral of payment. This
demonstrates the fairness and equity in the system. Nobody is being taxed
whether or not he or she has the means. There is an opportunity for interface and
understanding. That is what this Government is committed to.
For that person who called in on Radio 95.5, I would like to consider that if
she assumed a modest rental value on her property of $3,000 per month, the tax
that is payable on such a property is $972 a year, $81 per month. I would like that
lady to know that the tax is affordable. Not even the cost of a tank of gas, Member
for Cumuto/Manzanilla.
There was one caller trying hard not to be labelled a COP activist. She was
happy though to spout its rhetoric that the tax is to pay for the Government's
construction progress. What nonsense!
Considering the projected budget deficit and the projected income from this
tax it cannot be suggested that this is a reason for this tax. [Interruption] I will
come to that. "Yuh cyar wait?" Hurry dog, hurry dog. Which other tax system has
as a built-in feature, this discussion and opportunity for a deferral or reduction or
reconstruction of the tax?
Trinidad and Tobago experiences the lowest income tax rate in the region
among taxpaying countries. When you add the 60,000 personal income
exemptions, it pushes it even lower. There are jurisdictions where citizens pay no
tax, but check their rate of indirect taxation and property tax. In the context of
345
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
taxation which we understand would always be a sore point for our citizens, as
Wilson once said, there is only one kind of tax that could please everybody. That
is the one that the other guy has to pay. It is also said that it would be nice if we
could pay our taxes with a smile. Unfortunately, cash is always required.
This restructuring of the property tax system increases the number of persons
who pay the property tax. We admit to that. It captures persons who previously did
not pay either because they were unaware, let us hope that they were unaware or
some of them were not simply avoiding taxes, but it would capture them all in the
interest of equity. When you consider that currently, only 170,000 out of a possible
220,000 persons on the existing roll are paying property tax, that amounts to about
$120 million per year when you split it between lands and buildings taxes.
This new estimate of properties currently captured through enhanced surveillance
capacity adds another 280,000 persons. So we would now have approximately 450,000
persons on the roll. This is expected to further increase our annual revenues to about
$250 million in the first year, increasing gradually after that.
It is this potential for the enhancement of revenue that confuses the Members
on the other side. They have fed much misinformation to the public that the
purpose of the property tax is to pay for Government's construction programmes
or even erase the expected deficit. The figures, as I said earlier, simply do not
support this patently false and misleading argument.
The Members opposite are always happy to pull up the newspapers, but when
the newspapers suggest something that is absolutely factual, I notice that they stay
far away from it. All their newspaper clippings are—[Interruption] yours were
cherry picked. I am picking from somebody who is no known friend of the PNM.
This is not the Newsday. This is the Trinidad Guardian. I want to look at what
Anthony Wilson was saying on Thursday December 17. It is an entirely
dispassionate and factual report which looks simply at the expenditure of the
Government of Trinidad and Tobago. From October 2001 and September 2009,
the eight-year period, this Government collected $255.7 billion. In that eight-year
period, Mr. Wilson was looking at the document of the Ministry of Finance, the
Government spent $255.9 million.
If you give these people a chance they would say squandermania. Everything. In
other words, Mr. Wilson deduced that over an eight-year period the Government
balanced its accounts, spending and saving almost exactly what it collected. It is what
the Minister of Finance has been saying all the time. A prudent government, but they
do not want to hear that.
346
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. E. LE GENDRE]
The evidence points to the fact that of every dollar collected and spent in this
eight-year period close to 50 cents was allocated to subsidies and transfers. Do
you know what that means, Member for Oropouche East? It means that it went to
people. $120.5 billion. Capital expenditure at that time was 40.3. They claim that
all the money has been frittered away. Capital expenditure and net lending 40.3.
Interest payments for the whole period, $22 billion and goods and services, $28.7.
What is good about this report is that it gets us out of the argument of the
price of oil when they were in power and the price of oil and gas when this
Government has been in place. It gets the figures out of the way and looks at the
spending of each government on a percentage basis. The current administration
had allocated a higher percentage of its total budget to subsidies and transfers than
the UNC. It is 47 per cent versus 33 per cent. What do you have to say, Member
for Oropouche East? The PNM has been able to allocate a higher percentage of its
budget to capital expenditure than the UNC. It is 15.7 per cent versus 8.3 per cent.
[Interruption] The records. That is who said that. About the same percentage of
the budget was spent on goods and services. Although the amount paid—
[Interruption] Scholarship "cyar" buy that, that is why we would send him to the
Committee of Privileges—from the 2002 budget to the 2009 budget, the amount
of money allocated by the PNM to capital expenditure increased by 200 per cent. It
is a great article to read. I recommend it. I have a copy and I would pass it on.
The last question he was asking was: How do we square a 65 per cent
approval rating for the National Academy for the Performing Arts once
completed, with the 76 per cent who argue that the administration is guilty of
squandermania and extravagance? That is a good question. I suggest that it has to
do with who is the pollster and who pays the pollster.
Taxation is a necessary tool of public sector management. To get, one must
first give. That is the way it works. In 2004, US General Accounting Office said
that tax systems can have multiple goals. For example, in addition to the common
goal of raising revenue for the government, goals can also include redistribution
of income; stabilizing the economy and achieving various other social and
economic objectives through the use of preferences.
The clear aim of this proposed restructuring is to create equity; lower the tax
rates for many; develop a tax revenue base away from the energy sector and allow
for revenue stabilization during periods of slower economic activities.
[Interruption] As most economists may attest, neither does the Bill protest the
dead weight cost that acts as a disincentive to production and economic activity,
nor does it distort market mechanisms as direct taxes on income might.
347
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Further, as a tool of public sector management, it enables the government to
redistribute the wealth through its many programmes and improve the
infrastructure. There are many benefits to this Bill which the Members on the
other side—blinded by the headlights of an oncoming election within their
ranks—have been unable to see. You know what happens when they are
mesmerized by the headlights of a “political doolahin”. They make good curry for
somebody. Perhaps a stew. The Member for St. Augustine likes stew. He does not
have a stomach for all this.
Previously, we alluded to the fact that this Bill allows for a deferment of
payment. There is greater transparency in the administration of this tax and more
opportunities to approach the administration to discuss personal issues.
4.15 p.m.
This tax does not penalize the weak as has been put about; rather than that, it
treats them with dignity, allowing them to participate in the process of nation
building at their own pace.
“Taxes are the lifeblood of government and no taxpayer should be permitted
to escape the payment of his just share of that burden of contributing thereto.”
I did not say this, but Arthur Vanderbilt did.
Dr. Moonilal: Who is Arthur Vanderbilt?
Hon. E. Le Gendre: A “fella”. I cannot keep trying to educate the Member
for Oropouche East. I give up.
The Member for St. Augustine—I think we are quoting from the same sheet of
paper, but what is interesting is to see how carefully he picks through. He
mentioned that there was a typical property in Roystonia where the current tax is
$156 and will be moving to $2,592. The Member did not say that this is a
property with a capital value of $850,000—this is no modest home; this is no
shack—and that a similar property in Diego Martin—these are actual properties; I
have addresses—in Diamond Vale, Diego Martin, valued at $50,000 more than
the home in Roystonia, is paying $73 per year, while the one in Roystonia is
paying $156.70. Is that equity? It is only $156.70 a year on an $850,000 house at
Roystonia.
The Member talks about Westmoorings. [Interruption] Let us take a house in
Cascade that is worth $4 million. They are currently paying $812.80 per year.
Divide that by 12. This is an open market, monthly rental value of $20,000. So,
348
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. E. LE GENDRE]
the proposed tax will move to $12,960 per year or $1,200 per month; this as a
fraction of the $20,000 per month that the property is estimated at in terms of its
rental value.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no equity in what currently exists. Look at
another house, say in St. Ann's, a $750,000 house where they currently pay $355
per year. You will recall that for the house in Diego Martin at $900,000, they are
paying $73; but because these people live at St. Ann's Road, St. Ann's, in a house
with a lower value, but with the same suggested rental value, they are paying
$355.
This is what we are dealing with. There is one even more ridiculous. We are
looking at North Drive, Champs Fleurs, where the open market, monthly rental
value is $6,000 and they pay $28 a year. I cannot even divide that by 12. This is,
as the lawyers like to say, the mischief we are seeking to cure.
We have previously alluded to the fact that the Bill allows for the deferment
of payment and there is greater transparency in the administration; more
opportunities for discussion. People need not at all panic because there are certain
aspects of the Bill which provide opportunities to challenge assessments which
may not meet with a property owner's assessment of his taxes.
Furthermore, our citizens can expect to benefit from improved tax
administration as weak administration can lead to higher rates of unpaid taxes
when persons attempt to evade taxes. This improved tax administration will
include the electronic processing of payments, which would lead to greater
convenience in accessing the system and the establishment of a database on land
valuations which owners may access.
This is what brings transparency and clarity to the system as never before.
Taxpayers have so many more locations and methods of payment. They can pay
in person at the usual venues and more—TTPost, banks and online. Perhaps the
greatest insight into some of the baser emotions which play in this debate in this
venerable House, and nationally as well if you listen to the radio, comes from
Thomas Jefferson who offered:
“The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.”
The Member for Chaguanas East would like this one.
“Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could
not excite them through any other organ.”
349
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
We have seen many join in this debate. Some have been excited by the
prospect of being flushed out of their niches of comfort. They have always been
fully aware that the taxes they paid were ridiculously low; less than the cost of
their annual landscaping bills. These people sadden me. Anyone with a
conscience would admit that because of the out-of-date valuations, some of us,
myself included, have been paying ludicrously low levels of property taxes.
What about those we know who have taken advantage of the low cost of lands
to construct veritable palaces, some without building plans even, and the
farmlands where you can see the massive residences at 10 times the size of the
chicken pens that justify the low rates of taxes they are paying. I have gone
through some of these examples of inequity—and they abound—when you think
of houses costing $3 million paying $349 per year in taxes, at Cascade again.
Here, in the same Cascade, we have a house at $3 million paying $349 a year and
just over the road almost, a house valued at $2 million paying $792 a year. The
list goes on.
The Member for St. Augustine—maybe it is catching; they speak and they
disappear as though they cannot stand to hear their views challenged. They talk a
lot of nonsense and take off. Part of the nonsense that the Member for St.
Augustine was trotting out—he was actually complaining that the information
they collected in 2004 and 2005 was now four years old. Is he saying that he
prefers the existing valuations, some of which was done since 1948? Sometimes I
do not understand the Member.
The Member challenged the Minister of Finance that the majority of persons
agreed with our position on the inequitable base of property taxes. I challenge him
to prove that the majority do not agree. I cannot understand the spirited opposition
he is talking about; all the signatories he got. How many did you pull at the Axe
the Tax Rally; the one you prevented the Member for Siparia from going to? You
banned the lady from the Axe the Tax Rally. If she had gone, they would have
had more than 200 people. Have you ever seen the PNM in the Square? Fifteen
thousand, 20,000, 25,000 and 40,000. Take a page from our book. Do not go if
you do not have more than 15,000. You have to plan the square carefully. You do
not just pick up on a day and go in the square. Look at today! Pitiful! Twelve
people in a whole square, with the Member for Oropouche East making it 12!
Come on! You have to do better than that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Member for St. Augustine attempted to frighten
the UWI students by suggesting that their rents would go up. If we accept that the
average rent for a student might be in the vicinity of $3,000 and accept that any
350
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. E. LE GENDRE]
additional property tax will be passed on to the tenants, we should say very
clearly that 3 per cent of $3,000 is $30. If there is to be any increase in rent, it
should be a $30 increase. I have great faith in the students of the University of the
West Indies that they will not sit quietly; they do the math and will not allow
unscrupulous landlords in the constituency of St. Augustine—I am sure the
Member will have a chat with them, so that they will not take advantage of
students.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the rationalization of the tax system
would lead to greater equity among the taxpaying public. My final quote for today
comes from Franklyn D. Roosevelt:
“Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an
organized society.”
Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Oropouche East. Having regard
to the fact that it is 4.29 p.m., I suggest we suspend for the tea break and return at
5.00 p.m.
The sitting of this House is suspended. We will resume at 5.00 p.m.
4.29 p.m.: Sitting suspended.
5.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed.
Dr. Roodal Moonilal (Oropouche East): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
On this afternoon, December 18, 2009, we are meeting to discuss what for us on
this side is a very significant matter; a matter that has engaged public comment
and public mobilization over the last few weeks, days and indeed, hours; the
matter of the property tax and the accompanying amendment to the Valuation of
Land Act.
Let me begin by congratulating the Member for St. Augustine, for a very
comprehensive statement of policy and practice, on behalf of the United National
Congress. The Member for St. Augustine was at pains and demonstrated, not only
the technical knowledge but the passion in dealing with matters of this sort and
brought to bear the pain of his constituents and the national community, when
reflecting on this important matter.
I will begin with a very short discussion on economic history. It is regrettable
that the Member for San Fernando East is not here, I think he is in Denmark,
because on the other side the only Member who speaks of economic history is
indeed the Member for San Fernando East. That is primarily because he was a
351
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
participant in the administrations of Dr. Williams and later Mr. Chambers, from
1971—1986. It is noteworthy that the Member for San Fernando East speaks to
the issue of economic history and also the role of the People's National Movement
in the economic development of Trinidad and Tobago.
Earlier this afternoon, when my friend from St. Augustine finished his
contribution and the very distinguished Minister of Education rose to respond,
there was some hope that the debate would have engaged the attention of the
national community and would have focused on some of the policy considerations
and some of the practical challenges that this matter bears. But so far, what we
have had is really a discussion on the fairness of legislation, so that some people
who are somehow getting away with paying a little money would not get away
with it for long. You have a sense, from hearing my friends opposite, that this
measure is really to catch everybody; to ensure that if you were paying $28 a year
for some time, "we ketch yuh, we have yuh and yuh would not get away wid dat
anymore." That is the approach and there is no deeper analysis of what is
happening today.
In the nine years or so, I have been an elected Member of Parliament, today is
the first day that I have witnessed brutality and violence outside the precincts of
this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, Dave Abdullah, we are told, was arrested. He is
now seeking medical attention for injury. [Interruption]
Hon. Jeremie SC: Would you give way?
Dr. R. Moonilal: No! Ossie Warrick was beaten.
Hon. Member: He is lying!
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: I do not want you to waste too much time on that.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, let me roll—[Interruption]
Hon. Jeremie SC: I just saw Mr. Abdullah outside.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Let me put the thing in context. The Government has said
before—[Continuous interruption and crosstalk] why am I upsetting you all so
early? I now start. The Government came to the country and the Parliament and
said that the national community was in support of the property tax. They said the
majority of the national community supported the property tax.
Today, I participated in a march outside the Parliament, with the OWTU, the
political Opposition and members of civil society. Those are citizens of Trinidad
352
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
and Tobago. Are they the nationals of Trinidad and Tobago who support the
property tax, yes or no? Are they Martians? Did they land from space? They are
citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
A prominent Member of the community, a former Cabinet Minister in this
country, was manhandled while sitting on his wheelchair. Former Minister
Lincoln Myers, two hours ago, was manhandled by the police here when he came
on a wheelchair to protest the implementation of the property tax. Ask him, he
made statements to the press. I spoke to him. I left the Parliament earlier. I took
off "meh" jacket and I went and marched around the Parliament with the OWTU,
the labour movement and civil society in protest of this property tax. I told them
when I come back into the House to speak, I would speak to the issue of the
brutality of the police and the Government in treating with citizens of Trinidad
and Tobago. That is the issue. Nikita Johnson and Ossie Warrick, talk to them.
I want to speak about Dr. Eric Williams. I do not know how many of them
read History of Trinidad and Tobago by Dr. Williams, From Columbus to Castro.
Dr. Williams was in praise of a labour movement and civil society for rising up
and protesting the evils of the day. That is the founder of your party. Dr. Williams
supported the movement of people in 1970, that rose against colonialism and
imperialism. Today, we have people marching around the Parliament, protesting
the introduction of this tax and the police brutalized them.
When I went out, there were machine guns and tear gas. They lined up at the
front. They did not allow the marchers to walk in front the Parliament. I had to
walk—[Interruption] you all would see the news tonight. I spoke to the police
officers and then they allowed us to walk around the Parliament. They were
blocking the marchers. That is an indication of the oppression of the State, in
treating—[Interruption] my friend, I never tried to blow up an airport. You are a
“tie tongue” terrorist who tried to blow up the airport. [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: No.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Okay, I withdraw that.
Mr. Speaker: No, no. You have to certainly offer—[Interruption] I hear—
hold on.
Mr. Abdul-Hamid: He has gynophobia.
Mr. Speaker: Order! What you will have to do in this case is to withdraw the
remark and make an apology to the Member, which is acceptable to the House.
353
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Dr. R. Moonilal: I withdraw and apologize. “Wha he wah meh do?” [Continuous
interruption and crosstalk] Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark and I apologize to the
Member.
Mr. Speaker: Let me assist you. You have to withdraw the remark that you
made directed towards the Minister of Public Utilities and you have to offer an
apology that is acceptable to the House. That is what you ought to do.
Dr. R. Moonilal: I withdraw the remark and I apologize to the Member for
Chaguanas East and I apologize to the House. What is wrong? Right! I was
wrong. I said that in a temper. I was losing my temper and he was provoking me,
but I apologize.
You had protesters in front the Parliament in the precincts. It was a site for
brutality and oppression. The people today mobilized against this Bill; this piece
of legislation. Do not let the Government fool the national community, that a
majority of people agree with the property tax; they do not.
I want to raise a matter in my introduction. It was in the 1970s, that an earlier
incarnation of this Government, under Dr. Williams, presided over this country.
You could think of 1976—1981. By 1982, this country went into negative
growth/economic decline. The country had an inflation rate of over 40 per cent.
By 1982, there was a debt crisis in which our debt ratio, we call it, was over 35
per cent. We had sustained economic decline from 1982, indeed, to 1994. This
country only experienced economic growth by 1994 and has sustained so far.
The economic decline that this country went under by 1982, is well regarded
to be the sqandermania of that administration at the time. They used the first oil
boom to build buildings, to go for grand projects and did not save or invest. When
the stage reached for structural adjustment by 1987/88, it was an administration
under Mr. Robinson that had to take some very stringent measures. The Member
for San Fernando East participated in the Government and later the Opposition of
that period and he knows that what the PNM did not do in 1981—1986 was to
raise tax sufficiently to meet their deficit and meet their financing. They allowed
the economy to decline and they did not take any measure to pick the pockets of
the citizens between 1981—1986, under Mr. Chambers. What he has done now is
to look at the economic forecast, the deficit and decide: “We will not make the
mistake of the Chambers administration. We will introduce this tax and other
taxes and we will introduce tax after tax after tax to meet some portion of the
deficit.” That is why it is important to understand the economic history that led us
here, because the property tax came at a time when the Prime Minister
354
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
acknowledged a significant budget deficit. When they established that this
country was going into a deficit and it was widely regarded that we will enter into
a recession, that is when the property tax came out of the hat.
Today, the Member for Tunapuna made a statement. The Member gave the
information. The Member said they have estimated that the Government will raise
$250 million in the first year. That is a quarter of $1 billion. It is still a small fraction,
not faction, of the deficit. The Member also told us that, in the first year, it will raise
$250 million and this will increase over time. One-quarter of $1 billion and counting,
you will get from this measure. That is by the Government‟s estimate. That is what
they will collect from this measure. Whether they are accurate or not, the fact is that
they have gone on record and told us in the first year $250 million or one-quarter of $1
billion, they will get from this measure. It is a measure to get income, but they are
disguising it, very nicely, into the issue of equity.
Historically, people are living somewhere in Port of Spain, Champs Fleurs
and whatever pay X amount, but people living elsewhere do not pay that, so there
is a matter of equity. Equity is not only how much money you take from people,
equity is how much water you give them, how much electricity and how many
houses. They are fixing roads and providing infrastructure and grants. That is
equity as well. When you provide funding for scholarships, show equity there;
when you provide water, show equity and when you provide roads and bridges,
not only with taxation and not only with this regressive measure, that is what we
have before us.
While I am still on my introduction, I would want to remind Members that the
purpose of property taxation is rooted in British economic history where, for
centuries the Monarchy, the King, the Queen and so on, controlled the land. The
land is vested in the Crown. Eventually, when they go through their own
economic hardships and depressions, the people pay tax to the Crown, but they
pay a tax to the Crown for services from the Crown.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that evolved through several incarnations of political administrations
and systems whereby local government earlier called the borough—in England and so
on they would collect property taxes from persons in their locality, and that would go
into a fund to assist with their revenue.
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, in the City of San Fernando, I understand that
they had collected $5 million in property tax, but that $5 million was used to
provide services for the people of San Fernando. So, you pay for your service.
355
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
People do not feel bad sometimes if they have to pay a little more, because you
have a sense that they want high quality local services.
What they have done with this measure is to usurp the authority of local
government. Local government will not be collecting this property tax and,
therefore, you are breaking that nexus between citizens and local government as it
relates to the distribution of resources and the provision of goods and services. So
the San Fernando City Corporation and other regional bodies will not have this
money to provide services, and that means that citizens are now further delinked
from the provision of goods and services in this country with this measure that we
have before us.
This is a regressive move. It is to collect tax with no service; it is to collect
revenue to put into the Consolidated Fund; and it is a desperate attempt to raise
funds to satisfy the Government's spending craze. Mr. Speaker, the taxation
system that they are putting in place is really to penalize and punish people. It is
to punish the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
It is pity that Members opposite did not hear the voice of the people when
they were talking outside earlier in the rally. They were speaking about this
matter. They were asking that this matter be suspended and that the Government
withdraw the Property Tax Bill and have discussions with the national community
over the implementation of the property tax.
Mr. Imbert: Thank you. I would just like to ask the Member if he is aware
that if we accede to his request, the existing rates will remain. The existing rates
are between 5 per cent and 7½ per cent which would double what is intended.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that. I am aware of
the discrepancies that exist. I am also aware of the scheduling of the taxes and the
disparity between what exists now and what will exist. To some individuals, it
may be beneficial. I think that is the point Members of the Government have
made. What I am saying is that last week Friday this Bill was laid in the House—
that is seven days for Members of Parliament to cast their eyes and study them,
and the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill was also laid.
We are Members of Parliament with a commitment to come here and debate
and study the Bills. There are members of the national community who may take
seven days or more to get a copy of this Bill, and still they cannot get a copy of it.
I am not sure if the Government Printery has made copies and said: “Look, a
dollar for a copy or $10.00”, as the case may be. I am not sure if members of the
national community would have had access to these Bills. I am certain that the
356
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
labour movement, civil society and interested groups have not had the opportunity
to read and study these Bills. This came to us last week Friday, and we spent our
time during the week looking at them.
Mr. Speaker, ordinarily, members of the national community would have a
month or two months, depending on the Bill, to look at and study the Bill. It is not
the issue of property tax that we heard in the budget or the 3 per cent, 5 per cent
or 8 per cent. This Bill is much more sophisticated, detailed and comprehensive. It
speaks to systems in place, collection issues, deferral of taxation—
Mr. Imbert: Thank you, once again. I thank you for giving way. I am
listening to the hon. Member and I am glad that he is giving me the opportunity to
interject. Are you aware that most of the provisions that are in the Property Tax
Bill already exist in the Lands and Buildings Taxes Act which has been in
existence for many years? All these issues with respect to forfeiture already exist
in the law.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, I may be aware of that, but the persons who
were beaten up earlier on are not aware of that. To me, that is the more critical
issue. They are not aware. The national community is not the 41 persons in this
House. The national community is not us. The national community is more than
just the Parliament; it is taking this Bill to organizations and giving them a copy
and calling them in to make a contribution and discussing it with them.
The Minister is correct. There are issues, whether it is distrain, forfeiture and
those legal processes that are already on the books, in terms of pre-independence
legislation, but there are also new issues that have been introduced here. The
national community may also want an opportunity to comment on what is already
in the law. There may be comments as well on this to be changed because they are
clearly—whether they are existing law or new law—issues that are objectionable,
archaic and anachronistic.
My point is that yes, we are aware that these issues, particularly the landlord
issues and so on, have been on the books and the common law supports many of
these principles and so on. We are aware of that, but the people who came to
march and got beaten up, they are not aware of that. They should be aware of it.
We had seven days to read this and study it and those persons may not have had
seven hours to get it and read it. You cannot pass revolutionary legislation like
this that changes the amount of money people pay on their rentable value on
properties and so on. There is a little sting in the tail here, a little catch, and the
Minister is right.
357
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
I had a discussion with someone in the San Fernando City Corporation about
this matter. There are several examples where persons are paying a higher tax
now, but with the implementation of this, they may be paying less or they may be
paying a lesser percentage, not a lesser income; not less money. [Desk thumping]
We are not sure whether they will pay less money. These are some of the matters
you need to flesh out. In addition, I have a series of issues to raise that speaks to
my problem.
Mr. Imbert: Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the Member for giving way. I am
advised that there are several property owners in San Fernando who will pay a
lower quantum; not just a lower percentage, and in some cases, a reduction of up
to 50 per cent.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the Member, but what I am
saying is that the people who were marching and got beaten up do not know that.
As a responsible Government, you should give those persons who came out with
their bullhorn and marched around in red and blue and so on, the civil society—
[Interruption] Minister of Social Development, you should have a social
conscience in this matter.
When we are dealing with a matter like this, we should allow the national
community to read and digest and understand the Bill, and who knows, they may
support it. They may stand in support of the Government on the measure if they
understand it, and they would not be motivated to come in the hot sun and walk
around the place.
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked. I have to think back to the early 1990s when cane
farmers and so on came outside the Parliament, when my distinguished friend, the
Member for Princes Town North, sat on the steps of the Parliament in protest and in
solidarity with the cane farmers at that time for justice. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking back
to those days, and that was the last time I saw that level of force and oppression.
Members opposite, you could laugh and cackle and so on, but you were not
there; you did not see. You have to see it on the seven o'clock news later. So, you
do not understand the gravity of the situation that this country is facing with these
measures. I am just advising humbly that you rethink the passage of this measure
now and engage the national community in consultation with your documents—
not on the nebulous and amorphous title, property tax on the document—and then
return to the Parliament when you have mobilized public support for your
measure. That is how a humane and caring Government will proceed, not by
having people come outside the Parliament like this protesting.
358
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
Lincoln Mayers is in a wheelchair; he was beaten and manhandled. I have a
heart, that is why I speak about Nikita Johnson, Ozzie Merrick, a media
personality. You must be caring. It is not about 2 per cent, 3 per cent and 8 per
cent and so on. People are being beaten up outside the Parliament. That is it!
Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few issues on the Bill itself to lead to my
general conclusion that this Bill should go no further and, indeed, it should be
withdrawn and the Government should engage in public consultation and so on.
There are just a few matters that I want to raise. I know my friends will speak
to the issue of the Constitution and the constitutionality of the measure, to us is a
very important issue. I know my friend will want to deal with that. What I am
raising are queries and questions. I have to raise them because the interested
groups in civil society did not have a chance to read and study and raise these
issues.
The Bill provides for a board, meaning the Board of Inland Revenue,
created under the Income Tax Act. My first question is—I would like to ask
the question and Ministers may respond—are we not on the road as well to
fundamental policy shift as it relates to the Board of Inland Revenue, which is
the creation of the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority which has already
been registered? This Bill speaks about the Board of Inland Revenue, and it
provides the board with certain powers, responsibilities and duties. How will
that work vis-à-vis the introduction of the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue
Authority which is a fusion of several divisions of government? As far as I
understand, there will be no Board of Inland Revenue with the full
implementation of the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority. That is my
first question.
With respect to the matter of land and the definition of land, several issues
were raised which include building, part of buildings, structures, machinery and
so on. Without stating it, I think they also include right of way easement and so on.
Under the definition of “owner”, this has a wide definition:
“...receiver, attorney, agent, manager, guardian or committee of any such
owner occupier...”
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this legislation, it is important to bear in mind
the definition of an “owner” because that could be almost anybody. It says:
“receiver, attorney, agent, manger, guardian or committee...person in charge
or having the control or possession of any land in the right of the owner...”
359
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
I do not know if that is persons with power of attorney, legal personal
representatives and so on.
It continues:
“having the possession in his or her own right or as guardian of any person...”
So an owner is somebody who can be anybody. It is not restrictive. Later on
where it deals with penalties, where an owner is liable, that has an implication for
this wide definition of an owner.
Mr. Speaker, what the Bill seeks to do, and it came out in the Minister's
presentation earlier—I say it in a simple way, but it is a bit more complicated.
There is the creation of an assessment roll to complement the work within the
framework of a valuation roll for the purposes of the tax. That is what the prime
function of this Bill will do; create this assessment roll. It sets out here the
functions and so on of that.
Mr. Speaker, the tax where the valuation roll identifies the value of land for
the purpose of assessment of tax on the land, that value minus the allowances and
deductions of section 14 will be the annual taxable value. So annual taxable value
will be the value of the land for the purpose of assessment of tax minus
allowances, deductions and so on.
But when you go to 14, power to make deductions, you have the Board of
Inland Revenue operating as the body that has the power to do that.
5.30 p.m.
I just want to read 14(1) for an explanatory matter:
“The Board of Inland Revenue in assessing any land for the purposes of this
Act may make deductions and allowances in respect of voids and loss of rent
equivalent to ten per cent of the annual rental value given in respect of the
land in the Valuation Roll.”
Now, meaning that there will be deductions and allowances to a maximum of
10 per cent of the annual rental value. I assume that is what it means and if there
is a further explanation or if I am right they can say so, if not they can explain.
A smaller issue, because this is something that could be easily clarified. In 16,
exemption from taxation:
“All land in Trinidad and Tobago is liable to taxation under this Act”—
except, of course—
360
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
“(a) land used exclusively as a church or churchyard, and every cemetery…”—
et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, because, as I said—I am just speaking
because I read it during the week but I imagine the IRO might be interested to
know, what is the definition of a church? Does a church include a temple? A
mosque? What is the definition of a church? We hear church and churchyard in
the Bill, but would this also include mandir and temple yard, mosque and the
compound of the mosque? There are mosques in Trinidad and Tobago—one in
my constituency that I know of that runs a kindergarten, a pre-school; they engage
in classes of some type or another at the mosque. Would they also have to pay this
property tax given that they are exempt? [Interruption]
I do not want to say too much on San Fernando, but I know a bit about San
Fernando. There are persons who run churches formally in theatre house and all of these
types of things; I assume that for the purposes of this Act, that is well known as a church.
“(c) lands attached to, or otherwise actually used in connection with and for
the purposes of a place of learning maintained for educational, philanthropic
or religious purposes…”
Now, just for clarification, this is also wide, clause 16(c):
“lands…used in connection with and for the purposes of a place of learning
maintained for educational, philanthropic or religious purposes…”
Who will determine this? Is it the board? Who will determine a roll of lands
that are used for philanthropic—I imagine that is charitable purposes and so on—
religious purposes in this country?
In this country you have an enormous amount of religious purposes, and clearly,
some institution, some body, the board or some committee will have to devise a list of
all of these lands that are to be exempt because it involves some noble cause. But where
you have now, lands, where you have a commercial venture on the land, but also a
charitable organization, what is the position there? Would that property be exempt?
Would it be exempt by half? What happens when you have a commercial business
taking place and in the same property, on the same land, in the same building you have
also a charitable organization? Would the charitable organization be exempt, and
therefore, deduct it from an annual property tax? Those are some of the issues.
Mr. Speaker, the other matter I had a problem with is clause 16. I just want
some clarification as to whether or not the University of Trinidad and Tobago
owns land and if they own, which land? To my understanding the land belongs to
361
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
the State under COSTAATT, John Donaldson Technical Institute, San Fernando
Technical Institute and so on, I was not aware that the UTT owned lands. I want to
make a special call here—and this is why this needs to be withdrawn. You have
included here lands for all these public purposes, lands belonging to and in
occupation of the State—I imagine that is the MPs offices in some cases, would
not have to pay any property tax, but they left out the trade unions.
We have trade unions in this country that provide services to workers and they are
non-profit organizations. Do they fall under philanthropic purposes? Do they fall under
education? Should they not be exempt as well from the payment of this property tax? I
call upon the Government to also consider cooperative societies, trade unions; include
these organizations in your list of exemptions. They are worthy of exemptions. There
are trade unions all over the place providing social services to their members. [Mr.
Imbert rises] Again!
Mr. Imbert: Yes. Thank you, Member for giving way, again. We, on the
Government side would have no objection to receiving a list of organizations that
you believe should be exempted so we can consider it—
Mr. S. Panday: You prepared the legislation and you—[Inaudible]
Mr. Imbert:—and determine whether any of your suggestions have merit.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, through you, thank you
very much to the Member, and I will be very happy to give you a long list of
organizations that I believe are worthy of being exempted from this legislation.
Mr. Imbert: Sure, we will look at it.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Including, I could put on record one time, the trade unions, the
cooperative societies, sports and cultural clubs that operate in communities and
villages, including those organizations that use buildings that are not owned by the
State, they will have to pay this increase; they should be exempted as well. Those are
just three or four that I think of on my feet—so to speak—far less for when we really sit
and give you this list.
Mr. Speaker, the notice of assessment set up in section 16, the time, when and
where such annual taxes are to be paid, the board determines penalties, et cetera.
There is a matter I want to raise here, section 17:
“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a notice requires the attendance of
any person or witness before the Board and the service of the notice is to
be effected by post, the notice shall be by registered post.”
362
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
I am just asking whether or not that could be widened to also include personal
service, because there are some cases where some people may not be at home,
you may have difficulty contacting the relevant owner, the owner may be
somewhere else, in the country or outside of the jurisdiction and there must be
some process for alternative service, or substituted service, but when you say
from the time you post—
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: You do not know that your tax is due?
Dr. R. Moonilal:—something it reaches someone—the famous postal rule—
then you are ignoring the fact that some persons may not be reached by post, and
whether or not you should also factor in other methods of service.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: What about electricity bill and other charges?
Dr. R. Moonilal: Somebody may be paying it, so you can serve on anybody and
hold the owner accountable. The owner could be abroad, the owner could be dead.
I want to make an observation. This one is an observation I have noticed in
legislation, not only this piece of legislation, but other pieces as well. When we
make legislation in the Parliament there are three or four provisions in the
legislation and I am referring to 18 in this Bill, where it sets out a series of errors
that could be made and if it is made you still have to pay, you still cannot
challenge the relevant authority. Now, why should we really be making law where
we provide for liability not affected by inaccurate or incomplete assessment,
absence of assessment, errors of form and errors of description, mistake, defect
and omission?
Yes, we have done this over the years, but what you are saying is that the
relevant government authority could really make no mistake.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: So what I am saying, you do not have to pay tax then?
Dr. R. Moonilal: You correct your mistake and come back to me. [Inaudible]
No, I am not liable if you are making mistakes. So you as the Government could
make any amount of mistakes, come by me and I am liable, but I make one
mistake and how much jail this involves? [Interruption] Taking my land, that is
what it involves. You seize my land if I make the mistake; but if you make the
mistake I still pay tax.
In principle, we should not be creating law where a Government could make
25 mistakes and you are still liable as a citizen, but if the citizen makes one
mistake, all fall down.
363
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Land omitted from the Assessment Roll:
“19.(1) Where land has been omitted from the Assessment Roll, it may at any
time be added while the Assessment Roll is in operation and shall thereupon
become liable for payment of the tax for the year within which such addition is
made and also for the payment of any tax for the preceding period during which
the Assessment Roll has been in operation.”
This is another step where the Government is giving itself some powers in
case they forget to include a piece of land on the roll, anytime we find it, you pay
it and you pay back also for that year. All the time in this Bill when you read it is
an attempt by the Government to take their tentacles, and just in case you think
you get away with two, three or four comes behind you and hold you.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke about service before, “put building, pay tax”—I wrote in
pencil “put building, pay tax”. No 19(4), I am referring to now:
“Where, at any time after the completion of an Assessment Roll or amended
Assessment Roll…”
How often will this assessment roll be made? My understanding is that over
the years the valuation roll has been done every five years or 10 years, to that
effect, I am not sure, it is an annual activity, I could be wrong, but the valuation
roll would be done periodically, five years, et cetera.
At any time after the completion of this assessment roll a new building is
erected—so you build a building, the Commissioner of Valuations includes the
land on the valuation roll, the taxes payable for such land shall be a proportional
of the amount of the yearly rate corresponding to the period from the date of
completion of the building to the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker, is this not a nuisance? Because you build the building in the
sixth month, you are paying $800; so they find your completion certificate and
say “ah ha, let we see now, three months, six months out of 12 months that is 33
per cent, that is 50 per cent, well that is $200 more”. You put in law a nuisance
like that for $200 or $300. Why you do not just leave it out and when the next roll
is calculated you pay? You would be included in an assessment roll and pay for
the next year, because unless I am mistaken this property tax is annual. So, if you
build the building in month nine, somebody is coming by your house “ah ha”,
building went up, that is 33 per cent of the $2,000 put that in and pay it next year.
That is a nuisance.
364
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
To put that in legislation and have big people with jacket and tie go around the
place looking for building going up, a building falling down. God forbid, what
happens if you have a business property and the building burn down, you have a
certificate from the fire station and it was destroyed, but you run back to the tax
authority and say, “ah ha” it burnt in the 10th month so I am only paying for the
10 months and the two months excluded. That is a nuisance! We are going back
to nuisance taxes. That is what we are going back to. That to us is a waste of time.
Or better, your building did not burn, you break down the building. You are going
to rebuild, you are going to do some other activity on your land and you break
down the building. What do you do? Fly down to the revenue office and say, "I
have pictures here of my building being demolished—because there is no
certificate—scratch on the books that I do not have to pay annual tax for the
eighth month to the 12th month, how is that going to work? It is impractical!
Some of these things are just impractical.
They have here:
“Where, as a result of any reduction in the valuation of land, there has been
any over-payment of the annual tax due...”
Now, annual is every 12 months. So every 12 months this super efficient
administration will be checking to see if an annex goes up, a building burn, what
month of the year it is, how is this working, if it is a fraction of the annual tax—
this is just impractical and redundant—as a result of any reduction in the
valuation of land, there has been overpayment, the board shall forthwith refund
the money of such overpayment to the owner of the land.
Now the owner of that land, I told you in the beginning, could be guardian,
agent, attorney and a host of persons. Of course if you do not pay this tax, like
anything else, is a charge on the land and that affects your conveyancing, or
transfer, or whatever you were doing there.
Part IV “OBJECTIONS, RELIEF, REVALUATIONS AND APPEALS.” There are
some interesting times here. The timelines are interesting, where there is an
objection by a landowner dissatisfied with the assessment of the board—so the
landowner is not satisfied with the assessment of the board—he may within
twenty-one days next after the annual tax becomes due and payable, notify the
Board in writing of his objection.
I am not sure I read here, but it could be here, it is clarification that we are
looking for. How will he know of this new assessment? You will write him a
365
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
letter I imagine and tell him that this is the new assessment every year or
periodically and he has 21 days to come to you and launch an objection.
5.45 p.m.
The board referred the matter to the Commissioner of Valuations who has
nine months on the receipt of this objection to investigate it. The year is nearly
finished and gone. I imagine you will be paying the initial thing. I am not sure if
nine months would be needed to deal with objections. The Minister did not tell us
how long it would take to deal with one objection; the nature of objections and
they would be classified.
In the classification of land I want to raise a practical matter affecting my
constituents. The Government speaks about inequity and creating an equitable
system. They are dealing with rentable value for property. If one lives on a main
road or close to a highway in a house that was passed on from generation to
generation, it is prime property, but on one side of that person is a hardware
owner and on the next side a pharmacy operating business and it is busy, how are
you going to assess the rentable value of that property? Clearly, the property falls
on a certain stretch within a locality and the rentable value would be calculated in
the context of the environment.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member for
Oropouche East has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Dr. H. Rafeeq]
Question put and agreed to.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Thank you very much, colleagues on both sides of the
House. What is to happen with that family that is living in an area where on both
sides there are prominent businesses and it is a house that was passed on from
generation to generation? What is the rentable value? It has to be of the same
value of the two properties next to it. If it is not, we are happy with that. You will
clarify that because these are questions that people outside are asking.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: If it is commercial it would be taxed on a different
basis than if it is residential.
Dr. R. Moonilal: It would be taxed on a different basis. Good. Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to hear the Minister say this. You want to beat me up for asking
the question. These are questions that people are asking. If they knew the answers
366
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
they would not be asking. [Interruption] No. I am not giving way now. I have 30
minutes left. If the persons knew the answers they would not be marching outside
the Parliament and getting beaten on a Friday afternoon in the hot sun.
The issues also arise where persons are on a parcel or one lot of land which has not
been classified whether agricultural or residential. What happens now? What do they
pay? Agriculture? Residential? If they are on a lot of land on a main road that was
used formerly for agriculture and they have not been reclassified. What do they pay?
Coming back to the issue raised earlier, since the Minister has the answers to all
these questions, if someone has a house but is selling bara, pholourie, saheena,
newspapers and so on outside, how is that working? Is that commercial or residential?
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Based on predominant use.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Based on predominant use. You just remember doubles
when you respond later. In my constituency, there are many people who operate
their small food parlour of a stall at the side of the road. That is to supplement
their household income. [Interruption] Member for Fyzabad, I think that there is
a Standing Order about using Parliament to pursue your interest in these matters.
It is a complicated issue. This is why I am saying that you are very premature
in coming to Parliament with this Bill. If someone has a temple in the front or on
the side of his or her house—there are many priests or pundits who have temples
on their properties where people come and participate in worship. Are they
exempt under the churchyard? How is that working? Do you have to bury
somebody to call it a burial yard? You just exempted churches. These are the
complicated issues that you have to address.
Suppose the primary use is not residence. It is church service every day, night
and Sunday morning, full moon, half moon and new moon. The Member for
Fyzabad will tell you more about that. There are many little complicated issues
involved in this exemption. When you say blanket church and churchyard, you
may not capture fully—[Interruption] They do not have your tax to pay.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: What are they doing now?
Dr. R. Moonilal: They do not have your tax to pay. Let us put it that way.
That is all I say. Let me press on. The Minister of Finance wants to distract me
and take away my time.
I want to get to the exemptions. That is where I am eager to go. In the budget
debate, you would recall that when we heard of this matter for the first time, the
367
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Opposition said that if they wanted to change property tax from before
Independence it would affect the poor people. We called for exemptions for poor
people. The Opposition raised its voice. I cannot remember any Government
Minister talking about exemption.
Today they come with deferral of taxes. I want to ask a question. Is a deferral
an exemption? It cannot be, not even if we stretch it, so to speak. [Interruption]
It is not you I am referring to. Even if we stretch the definition it would not be an
exemption. You have a deferral of tax.
Clause 23(1) says:
"The Board may upon the application of the owner of land authorize the
deferral of the payment of the assessed tax on the land on the grounds of the
impoverished condition of the owner and his inability to improve his financial
position significantly by reason of age..."
What age? Old age, 65 years, pension age?
"…impaired health or other special circumstances, that undue hardship to that
owner would otherwise ensue."
Listen to this. They are talking about hardship to the owner, but the definition of
owner includes occupier, receiver, attorney, agent, manager, guardian, committee of
any such owner or occupier, person in charge, having control, possession of land, right
of the owner, et cetera. Wait a minute. That could be anybody.
If your lawyer has hardship, age, he or she is old, this has absolutely nothing
to do with my friend, the Member for Tabaquite. Deferral of tax. If the owner of
land is impoverished, suffers by age, impaired health and special circumstances.
Hear the meaning of owner. It is a wide definition. They make an application in a
form. What form? Where is the form? Is the form part of the Bill? No. They
make an application on a form which we have not seen.
Hear this one. If you are in receipt of public assistance grant; disability grant;
senior citizen's grant and Trinidad and Tobago conditional cash transfer. The
Member for Diego Martin Central came to Parliament and told us that there was
corruption in the Trinidad and Tobago card system to the tune of $23 million and
they were investigating it. The Smart Man Card. Do you remember the headline
that they were investigating $23 million and he would come back and give us a
report? You are saying that anybody holding this TT card, could show it and he or
she would be exempt. That could be anybody or everybody. This is the danger we
have with this piece of legislation.
368
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
The Trinidad and Tobago conditional card is given through a process that is
not transparent. By their definition it is polluted. The Minister acknowledged that
there is some element of fraud and they are investigating it. He came to
Parliament and told us $23 million. Be careful of what you are saying. There is a
record here. This is not you taking hand note with pen and paper. It is fraud. He
said that there was an element of fraud and gave a figure of $23 million. We
would deal with that another time. You could be exempt if you have the TT Smart
Man Card. The 10,000 persons who have this card are exempted. Just flash card
and pay no tax. This is the system that they want to put in place.
Clause 23(3) states:
"A certificate under subsection (2) shall be conclusive of the owner's inability
to pay tax..."
What certificate? Where is the copy of the certificate? Who is issuing this
certificate? I imagine the board. This board is issuing certificates and you show a
TT card, you are getting senior citizen's grant, disability grant, and public
assistance grant. There is public assistance grant. The Minister will clarify
because he knows everything in the world about social assistance. There are
conditions when you stop giving the grant. You can give somebody a grant for a
limited period of time for a particular need. If the need ceases, as they have done
before, they can stop providing the grant.
How does that work? When you provide the grant you get an exemption from
the property tax and as soon you stop getting the grant you have to pay property
tax. You are not paying the year or six months that you are getting the public
assistance grant, but you pay immediately after you stop getting the public
assistance grant.
It is deferred so you have to pay. We are very concerned about this deferral.
Why not an exemption? Just exempt! Senior citizens are getting a grant. That
person is 67 or 70 years, I do not know. That person is exempt from property tax
under this measure. When that person reaches 80 or 85 years would he or she
years they pay it all? That person does not have to pay in any case. It is a
deferral. It is not an exemption. That is the issue. It becomes a liability on the
property for someone else to pay. There is no exemption. This is the introduction
of a social mortgage on the property of senior citizens; persons with disability;
persons on public assistance and TT card recipients. This is a mortgage you are
creating on them that their generation after would have to pay. This is wrong. You
369
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
should withdraw the whole Bill based on this. [Interruption] You could mark
down something and respond later. We have serious objections with this term.
I give way to my friend, the Member for Diego Martin North/East.
Mr. Imbert: Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to thank the Member for Oropouche
East for his generosity. I want to ask another question in the same vein. Is the
Opposition aware that currently, there are no exemptions from lands and buildings
taxes and property taxes for persons who are financially challenged?
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, I am 100 per cent aware of that. This is why
we are saying that in this law you should introduce exemptions and not deferrals.
[Desk thumping] What is wrong with exempting the old people and someone who
is disabled? What is this deferral concept about? Why and why now? Who is
paying after? You have the golden opportunity now.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: It operates like a deferential.
Dr. R. Moonilal: Mr. Speaker, we have now clarified the matter. I can move
on please. The Minister says that the deferential operates likes an exemption. In
due course the Minister would explain exactly what that means. To defer and
exempt is the same thing? I stand corrected. I do not know much about these
matters. The Minister would correct me in due course. It operates effectively but
it is not. Roll over? No, no, no.
Let me press on with the few points I have left. Let me return some sanity and
order here. Section 27(2) says:
"Where the Board is satisfied, having regard to the impoverished condition of
the successors in title of the estate and his inability to improve his financial
position significantly by reason of age, impaired health or other special
circumstance, that undue hardship…the Board may recommend that the
President authorize the total or partial exemption...”
There is a next test they are introducing here for the successors entitled. It is not
only that the owner has to be disabled but also the successor. It must be a lineage of
disabled people or old age. So when you pass land make sure to pass it to someone
older than you; or to a Smart Card holder. That is ridiculous; it should be withdrawn.
6.00 p.m.
Imagine you are going to search for successors in title to put a test to see if
they were in impaired health, special circumstances. What are special
circumstances? Those are the same special circumstances that gave away all the
370
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
scholarships? I put it to you that all the persons who got scholarships will not pay
any tax. That is special circumstance.
It goes on. This is unworkable; it is unnecessary; to trap someone in Champs
Fleurs and Woodbrook is what they are about. They admitted that there are people
getting away. So, the purpose of upsetting the whole country is so that these few
people do not get away.
I will come back to the Minister of Works and Transport. He made an
interesting point and, on this rare occasion, he may be correct. It may be that some
of these provisions are already in law and they are repeating them, but there is no
need to stay with the draconian character of colonial legislation.
I want to read one piece of legislation for you, Mr. Speaker. Clause 37(3)
deals with distress:
“For the purpose of levying any distress under this section, any person may, if
expressly authorized in writing by the Board, execute any warrant of distress,
and if necessary, break open any building in the daytime, for the purpose of
levying such distress.”
We have reached the stage where we have to put in law “to break open any
building in the daytime”. That is just to be clear that you can break open the
building in the daytime. I imagine if people are resting; if they are working shift
and sleeping in the day—we have reached a stage where we have to put back into
law the power with any warrant of distress to break open any building in the
daytime for the purpose of levying, seizing, taking away. If any tax is not paid on
or before September 15, a further sum of 10 per cent on the amount of tax shall be
added thereto by way of increased tax.
The Government trapped us in a nice argument here, that the absolute tax is
lower, but the money may not be smaller. If you do not pay between March to
September, that tax goes up by 10 per cent of the amount and then 15 per cent per
annum. So owners who do not pay by September—maybe not pay for a year or
two—it is not 3 per cent; it is 3+10+15, 28 per cent. If you are in default, the tax
is 28 per cent and that is why the people are marching and being beaten up in
front of the Parliament without any sense of mercy from my friends opposite.
These are the issues the national community will not know. You put this Bill
in the mail last Friday and we come to the Parliament this Friday, parang later
tonight, Christmas next week; it is ponche-a-crème, hops and so on; and you pass
this Bill where, if you do you pass this tax by September, the next year 28 per
371
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
cent increase in tax; and you believe that the whole country is feting and enjoying
Christmas. There is a reason you did not want the national community to read this
document. You know if they read this, instead of 5,000 today, there may have
been 50,000 coming out to march.
The Attorney General is here; the Prime Minister is somewhere else dealing with
carbon dioxide. I want to ask the Attorney General—and he will respond in due course—
why the Government did not want the population to read this document for 21 days, since
they have 21 days to pay and to make an appeal. You have given them 21 days to make
an appeal, but not 21 days to read the law. Is it that they will read and understand that the
default provision is 28 per cent tax, while the absolute figure is 3 per cent?
Imagine an owner leaving the country with a tenant in a building, left someone to
pay; two, three years have passed and he or she is coming back to discover the person
did not pay. They will have to pay 28 per cent on the tax. Then there is a provision
for liquidation of any arrears; power to distrain—others will speak about this.
The Member pointed out the powers of a District Revenue Officer or someone
else to authorize the levying of distress upon goods. Debunk anybody! Sell it off!
You keep it for four days and sell it off.
There is something about five years of which I took note. The Bill says 16 years,
but they have five years in the shoulder heading. If you look at clause 45(1):
“Any land which for a period of sixteen years has been unoccupied or unassessed, and upon which during such period, no taxes have been paid, shall
be liable to be forfeited to the State."
Now, in the shoulder heading, you have:
"Land unoccupied for 5 years."
Which is it? Is it five years or 16 years? And we still have an issue here. You
have lands abandoned in some places. Because you cannot protect people in Trinidad
and Tobago because of murder, kidnapping and so on, they migrate, leave their lands
unoccupied, when they catch themselves, the State has moved in and taken the land
and there is a Movie Towne somewhere. You say: Where you get that? That is
abandoned land. A superfarm. All the years they promised family farm, state farm
and megafarm and they get superfarm. That is what they were doing.
My friend, the Member for Barataria/San Juan, has been designated to respond to
me. I am sure he will do a very good job. He can bring two cucumbers and some
tomatoes and respond.
372
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. MOONILAL]
I am making the point in trying to wrap up that there are draconian provisions
in this Bill. Whether it was placed there before by the Governor General or the
Colonial Secretary is not the issue for us today. This is the Parliament of Trinidad
and Tobago and we can debate. We are not eager to debate this here today in this
manner. The national community should have an opportunity to study the Bill; not
to study Conrad Wilson or his newspaper article.
The population of Trinidad and Tobago does not have to listen to the Minister
deliver an address to the nation; they have to read the Bill. This Bill when it is
passed becomes law. Colleagues will speak about the constitutional aspect as to
whether or not it requires a simple majority; I will not deal with that.
The national community spoke on this matter. There was a campaign; Axe the Tax.
Give them a chance, they will tax the axe because they do not care; they do not
consider the views of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. This evening my colleagues
opposite were almost laughing when they heard about the protest outside and who was
protesting. When you talk about injury to people, they said it is not so, but this is real.
The Government of Trinidad and Tobago is here today with a revenue raising
measure. They are here because they have squandered the resources of Trinidad
and Tobago yet again. They have spent all the money. The distinguished Minister
of Education educated us that this will raise $.25 billion in the first year and is
projected to raise more money in the years ahead. So this measure will bring
revenue to help to deal with their deficit, their squandermania and their fix for
spending the money of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. This will help them to
deal with finding the resources to maintain all their programmes where they give
away state resources, goods and services and today they do not have the resources
to sustain that high level of spending and corruption.
They have presided over an economy that is now finding itself in deficit, in
recession, whatever you define recession to be, and this draconian tax imposed on
private properties and citizens will only serve further to incite the citizenry and to
create some sense of unrest.
This measure is for all the people. The Member for St. Augustine made a
point; I want to come back to that. It is not a measure directed only at the rich, but
it affects the working poor. They are using the term “deferral” and telling us that
means something like “exemption”—I am not sure about that at all—effectively,
because that is not a rolling over debate; this will affect poor people.
This will not affect people who are making $137,000 per month—this is
Calder Hart—plus perks. That is the nature of inequality. This is not the time to
373
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
debate that, but the Government is positioning its argument on equity and today
when we hear about an operative of the Government getting $137,000 and
counting, just in salary, is that equitable?
What shameless and obscene squandermania is that; that an individual could
be getting that money? You are taxing poor people running a little parlour in
Debe; selling some doubles and aloo pie by the side of the road; and you come
and say that their main occupation is commercial because every day they put out
those things to sell. So tax them! If they default, it goes up by 28 per cent. That is
frightening; it demonstrates to us that the Government is very clear in its
objective. It is very clear that this is an anti-people measure designed to hit poor
working class people.
When I raised some matters earlier, the Minister of Finance nearly choked me
from across the pit, but the people still need education; they still need to
understand the Bill. They have not seen the bill. This was not on the website. You
are talking about introducing an electronic system to send Bills and so on. You
think people in Rookminia Trace in Barrackpore, Cuchawan Trace in Debe are
waiting on the Internet for their Bill. They are concerned with the revenue office;
they are concerned with the practical aspects of this matter; their house, their
property. Who is watching on the Internet? And you have not put it on the
Internet for the few people to read. Is it at the Government Printery? No. I do not
know what else can be said. I know that there are some strong arguments to
follow from this side. I hope that the Government will take our advice.
I will end with a matter raised by the Member for Tunapuna. I thought it was a
classic. The Member said that the tax brings dignity to the people of Trinidad and
Tobago; that it allows democracy so that the poor people can share in the burden
of development.
My godfather, Hubert Haynes used to say: “Kick me on my jacket sleeve”. I invite
the Member for Tunapuna sometimes to listen to herself.
I thank you.
6.15 p.m.
The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Joseph Ross): Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to these two very important pieces of
legislation before us this evening. There are a couple of points that were raised,
not many, by both the Member for St. Augustine and the Member for Oropouche
East, that I think I need to talk to.
374
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. J. ROSS]
Mr. Speaker, let me look, first of all, at some of the issues that were raised by
the Member for St. Augustine. One of the things that he said was that the property
tax would discourage people from improving their homes. Mr. Speaker, we can
gather enough evidence to show the increase in some instances. As we know, it is
not in all instances that the taxes would increase. The amount of money is not
sufficient to discourage people from improving their homes. Even when the prices
of materials went up in Trinidad and Tobago over the last few years, we saw more
and more buildings and more people improving their homes. Why should a mere
small increase cause people not to improve their homes? In my view, it was a
very illogical conclusion for the Member for St. Augustine to come up with.
He also went on to add that the tax proceeds will go to the Consolidated Fund
and will not go to provide services for the people. I would like to ask the hon.
Member: The proceeds from the lands and building taxes, where did they go? All
the improvements that we have seen in our country over the years—
I can recall growing up in Barataria when the roads were all dirt, when the
drains were not properly constructed and when we had very limited facilities. We
had one tap to service almost an entire community. When you look at the
development that we have experienced in some of these communities and the
through the entire country for that matter, it was not because the land and building
taxes were going back to the county councils in those days. The mere fact that the
proceeds from the property taxes would be going to the Consolidated Fund would
not prevent growth and development in these areas.
He went on to add as he quoted from an article in the Guardian written by an
economist Prof. Pantin who indicated “If you are going to tax me, I want to be
assured that you are not going to thief my money.”
He went on to look at the status of Trinidad and Tobago on the global
corruption index and how we have slipped from 34 in 2001 to 79 in 2009. We
have, over the period that I have been in this Parliament, heard that argument over
and over again and the answer will be repeated again. This index, first of all, is a
perception. Secondly, this perception has been increased largely because of what
transpired over the period of the UNC's administration.
The Attorney General, I think, was on record quite recently pointing out the
amount of money that we recovered, that was corruptly removed from the system
under your regime. These are the kinds of things that influence people's
thinking—[Interruption] yes, eight years later.
375
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Speaker, he also went on to add that all the inefficiencies must be
removed before we ask for more money and so on. I would not go on to talk too
much on that. All I would say is, if you listen to the budget presentation of the
Minister of Finance, she spoke extensively. As a matter of fact, the theme of this
year's presentation was: Efficiency. The Government is putting measures in place
to ensure that we manage the resources in an efficient and effective manner. I
want to give the assurance to the hon. Member for St. Augustine that this
Government is concerned about efficiency in its operations.
I will have to deal with this—the member mentioned a drain in his
constituency that was not cleaned for 23 years. Who is to blame for that? They
were there for a large part of that 23 years, so you must share in the blame. You
were not cleaning your own drain, Member for St. Augustine.
I did not want to deal with this, but he has forced me. I did not plan to go into
this matter, but since it was brought up by the Member for Oropouche East who
talked about the Government mismanaging billions and billions of dollars over
the years and has now come to the population for the population to pay its Bills, I
will deal with this in a while. I had no intention of going there, but I cannot leave
it unanswered. I will come back to it.
Let me talk about some of the issues that were raised by the Member for
Oropouche East. I was indeed happy to see the Member going down memory lane
and looking at our economic history; just a cursory glance. I think the Member is
grossly misinformed. He has very limited knowledge of economics. He referred to
Dr. Williams as well, supporting the movement of people in 1970, against
colonialism and compared those events in 1970 to what he saw around the Red
House that afternoon. I am wondering where this gentleman was in 1970. I could
lecture to him on 1970 activities. In 1970, the struggle was a different one and
significantly different to what he is bringing up today. Dr. Eric Williams—yes he
always supported that struggle against colonialism not only in 1970. As a matter
of fact, that is what brought him here and that is what caused the formation of the
PNM; to take this country out of colonialism to independence and republicanism. I
think the hon. Member for Oropouche East needs to go back and read a lot more
of From Columbus to Castro.
He referred, again—I would take this by itself—to the squandermania of the
He said that the property tax came at a time when the country was facing a
deficit, again indicating that the Government is using this property tax to generate
funds to carry on, as he said, with our waste and squandermania. I would deal
with the squandermania. These are some of the points that they raised. But,
PNM.
376
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. J. ROSS]
together both the Member for St. Augustine and the Member for Oropouche East
talked about squandermania over the years. I had to collect some information
while they were talking. To set the record straight, I want to advise both
Members, the House and again the national community, that the moneys that
came to the Government over the years, were spent on the people of Trinidad and
Tobago and on developing Trinidad and Tobago. Moneys were not squandered, as
they were trying to say.
We can look, first of all, at how we are spending the money in education and
training, building and upgrading secondary schools, effecting the deshifting of the
system and creating a more stable learning environment. The information that was
presented to me shows that from 2002 to date, in terms of schools repaired they
are as follows: 2003, 149; 2004, 153; 2005, 147; 2006, 202; 2007, 2006; 2008,
509; and last year, 538 schools. Mr. Speaker, if that is what you consider to be
squandering the money in this country, we will continue to squander it in
repairing schools, building schools and ensuring that our children have a place of
learning.
Even in terms of scholarships, again I would like to quote some of the figures
for you. In 2001, the Government awarded 95 scholarships; 2002, 150; 2003, 219;
2004, 287; and in 2006 it reached 747. Over the period, the Government spent the
money on educating the people. In terms of the actual money spent, in 2001, we
could not find information on moneys spent on scholarships; 2002, it was
$2.5 million; and 2009, $197 million was spent on scholarships.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting these figures to show that we have not been
squandering the money, and that the money has been spent on the people. [Desk
thumping]
Mr. S. Panday: PNM people!
Hon. J. Ross: Mr. Speaker, look at what has happened—I will come to the
property tax in a while—in terms of tertiary level education.
Mr. S. Panday: Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 36(1).
Hon. J. Ross: Mr. Speaker, I am only answering the questions that were raised. I
had no plans to go there, but they have forced me to go there. In 2002—2003, the
University of the West Indies had 10,500 students and in 2008—2009, 16,000 students.
To date, UTT has 6,500 odd students and the figure goes on and on.
377
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been spending money on education; we
have been spending money on training; we have been spending money on social
assistance grants and the cash transfers, and the list goes on and on. So, when they
come here and tell us that we have squandered the money—the money is finished
and we are trying to raise taxes by introducing property tax in this country so that
we can get more money to continue our squandermania—that is so far from the
truth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would recall—since I am the Minister of
Tourism, I cannot help it—the construction of the Hyatt Regency Hotel and the
upgrade of Trinidad Hilton. Would you consider this expenditure to be wastage?
The investment in upgrading the Emperor Valley Zoo: Would you consider that to
be squandering the money of this country? By investing in the desalination
plants: Would you consider that to be squandering the money? The people are
asking for water, and we are taking steps to ensure that we provide water for the
country. Madam Deputy Speaker, by constructing new offices for public servants:
Would you consider that to be squandering the money?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I saw somewhere that the Government paid
something in the vicinity of $800 million a year for rented properties, I am subject
to correction. So, when the Government spends money on building new offices
for public servants—the interesting thing is that when I looked at the figures—I
do not have them here—over the last few years, the amount of money we spent on
renting offices had been decreased, and this goes to show that we are concerned
about ensuring that the money in this country is well spent.
Dr. Moonilal: What about the flag?
Hon. J. Ross: Madam Deputy Speaker, I got some information as well from
my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources, Sen. The
Hon. Arnold Piggott, and it shows that over the last year, we have built over 147
new access roads in agricultural areas. About a year ago in this Parliament, we
had a debate on the price of food, and we were talking about food shortages. The
Government invested money by developing farms and we are continuing to do
that, and you are not hearing anything about food shortages anymore. [Desk
thumping] I am wondering if that is squandering the people's money. I would ask
Members on the other side to be honest to themselves and to be honest to the
country and the people they represent, and recognize that this Government is
spending the money on developing Trinidad and Tobago.
378
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. J. ROSS]
Any government must have a balanced programme for development. It has to seek
to develop all sectors within the country, whether it is education, utilities, health or
housing. It has to develop all the sectors and not just concentrate on one sector. There
must be a balanced programme, and this is that Vision 2020 is all about; ensuring that
we develop in a balanced manner, and that all sectors be taken into consideration in
developing Trinidad and Tobago.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we look at the Property Tax Bill and the
Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill that are before us this evening, this debate is not
simply about those pieces of legislation. It is not. Madam Deputy Speaker, this
debate is about equity, transparency, good governance and integrity; all that
Vision 2020 stands for. Hear it again. It is not simply about those two Bills, but it
is about integrity, transparency, equity and good governance in this country.
[Desk thumping]
When we took the oath as Ministers, we took it to serve this country fairly and
fearlessly. At times, we have to take decisions which may not be popular, and
when it comes to raising taxes in any form, it will never be easily accepted and it
will never be a popular decision. We recognize that one of the pillars of
development in this country is about good governance. So even though some of
the decisions may not necessarily be popular, we take them in the best interest of
Trinidad and Tobago [Desk thumping]
The Property Tax Bill addresses a number of anomalies and inequities that
exist in the current tax regime. I heard Members saying that it is repressive; it is a
retrograde step, but when you look at the legislation, one cannot help but
conclude that it is progressive in scope. It is fair and equitable, and it is not
repressive in nature. The Property Tax Bill and the Valuation of Land (Amdt.)
Bill will go a long way in ensuring that the taxation system in Trinidad and
Tobago is modern, efficient and effective.
I listen to some of the call-in programmes and I read the dailies. I looked
particularly at some of the comments that were made by people. I want to read
from an article in today's Express. Let me take the first article in today's Newsday
first. It is a letter to the Editor by one Stephen Kangal. He said that the Property
Tax Bill must be withdrawn forthwith, and I heard that on the other side. When
one reads this article, there is no justification whatsoever for saying why the
Property Tax Bill should be withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the only thing he
mentioned was that the PNM is having meetings here and there and the PNM came
to the conclusion that the people are not against the Bill.
379
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
He said:
“Additionally to date these bills are not accessible to the public upon whom the
bills are targeted. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
will be absent from the House when these bills are scheduled for debate and
scrutiny.”
What this has to do with withdrawing the Bill? He continues:
“Just Wednesday last public officials assured citizens at the Bureau of Standards that
their views would be considered only to hear on Thursday from the Minister of
Finance that the bills will be tabled and introduced on Friday last. These bills are
too important to be railroaded through Parliament with this undue, demeaning and
puzzling haste.”
I do not see any haste. The hon. Minister of Finance, since delivering the budget
speech, indicated that come January 01, 2010, the property tax system would be in
place. So, I do not see what haste Mr. Kangal is talking about.
I also looked at another article written by Clint Chan Tack saying that “ COP
tells government property tax is unconstitutional”. Again, I heard the Member for
St. Augustine saying that. When I go through the Bill, I am going to show you
where I do not believe that it is unconstitutional.
It continues:
“Ramadhar observed under clause 41, the President has the authority to issue a
writ for the seizure of your property under this legislation. That in itself says
that they now interfere with your right to ownership because if you chose not
to pay this tax or for whatever reason cannot pay this tax, they have the right
to seize your property”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this same situation exists under the present lands and
buildings taxes. So why are they not making noises about that? They are making the
people feel that we have now introduced a new system where the Government is going
to use the State to seize their properties. That was always there. I have a serious concern
with misinformation that they are putting out there for the people.
Again, today in the Express there is an article by Joel Julien and the headline
is: “Two protest marches in POS today”. I took special note of that. It says:
“The National Joint Action Committee (NJAC) will start its 'National March
for Justice'...”
Unfortunately, this is a group that I have a lot of respect for.
380
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. J. ROSS]
6.45 p.m.
I think that they have it wrong this time. I think that they have really misunderstood
this piece of legislation. I think that they probably have wrong information about what
this tax is about, what it is going to achieve, how it is going to be imposed and so on,
how many people would be affected and how the country will be affected as a whole.
Mr. Bharath: That is why I say put it out for consultation.
Hon. J. Ross: It is also quoted by John Julien—NJAC is asking “Why impose
this criminal property tax on a suffering nation?”
Madam Deputy Speaker, we must face reality. Why are we calling suffering on this
country? Why are we crying down this country? I would like some of my colleagues on
the other side to be honest again; I would like people in this country to be exposed to
what some of the other countries, even neighbouring countries in the Caribbean are going
through. We are not suffering in Trinidad and Tobago; Government has put so many
programmes in place to assist the poor and needy. We have been able to reduce the
number of poor cases in this country so significantly over the years. [Desk thumping]
On our social programmes to assist citizens, let me give you some of the
figures: Social assistance grants, which is old age pension; Senior Citizens Grant;
public assistance; disability allowance and so on; we have moved in 2002 from
$58 million, today we are in 2009 and we spent $323.3 million [Desk thumping]
on our social assistance grants. Why are we saying that people in this country are
suffering? Trinidad is not.
With respect to the shared Targeted Conditional Cash Transfer Programme,
TCCTP, in 2003/2004, I think there were some 8,000 households to 15,000
households receiving assistance in terms of hampers and so on, and over the years
these numbers—Government continues to assist these people and also to assist
them in coming out, not just to assist them to stay but assist them in coming out
because of the number of other programmes that we have put in place. I ask my
brothers and sisters of the National Joint Action Committee to again reconsider
that statement: Why impose this criminal property tax on a suffering nation?
Some of the call-in programmes, some of the questions that you hear people
are asking and up to this morning I heard it, one is, why should people have to
pay taxes based on an annual ARV when they have no intention of renting their
property? Why base property taxes on rental value? One individual went on to
say this morning that he is not against paying the taxes, but he wants to see more
and better services in his community, more roads and more bridges, more patrols.
381
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
We have enough evidence to show that Government uses whatever revenues
that come to this country for the development of the country and not just one
community but all communities. I refer to my own community of Barataria/San
Juan over the years, where it came from to where it is today, and I know that it
will not be left behind in Government's thrust to bring Trinidad and Tobago to
developed country status. [Desk thumping]
Madam Deputy Speaker, Ramadar said “We must stop misleading or
attempting to”—I am telling Mr. Ramadar that he should stop misleading or
attempting to mislead the people in this country. [Desk thumping] By creating
that fear or attempting to create that fear in the minds of people that this
Government has a plan to forfeit their properties, this is something so far from the
truth. I do not think it has entered into the mind of any Minister or any MP on this
side that we are going to forfeit people's properties. [Desk thumping]
What we must understand about the property tax is that this is a notional tax. This
tax assumes that every piece of land—and you have the definition of land clearly given
to us—has a value, a rentable value. You do not have to rent the land to assume that
value, but if you, in fact, go to rent it, it has some value that you can get for it. This is
what we are saying when we use the term “rentable value”.
Some of these comments I am seeing is because, probably, of a lack of
information and a lack of understanding. I think that we need, in all fairness, to
continue to educate the people about these property taxes and using an annual
rentable value as a basis. Using your rentable value is a standard that is being used
worldwide. We have it in India, we have it in Australia, we have it in Canada and
we have it in the United States of America and many other parts of the world. So,
I think it is just a question of information going to the people and a question of
their level of understanding of how these taxes are determined. It is not a tax that
is unique to Trinidad and Tobago, and the basis for determining the tax rates,
again, is not unique to Trinidad and Tobago, but it is a general principle and
standard that applies worldwide.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am saying this in this House this evening, that the
property tax is fair; it is equitable; it is progressive, and in fact, it is another step in
promoting and advancing Trinidad and Tobago to that goal of developed country
status.
I would just like to look at some of the clauses in this Bill, the Property Tax
Bill 2009, in particular, which would emphasize the point that the tax is fair, that
the tax is equitable, that the tax is progressive and that the tax is efficient as well.
382
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. J. ROSS]
Clause 5 of this tax makes provision for an assessment roll. If you want to
think of an assessment roll in terms of a book, in terms of a big file, you are
looking at a listing of all properties, not some, but all properties that would be
affected by the Bill. We understand that this roll would be published by the Board
of Inland Revenue. What that would ensure is that people would have access to all
the information on the roll, so that no one person, no one individual can actually
hide or fail to disclose what the value of his or her property or land is. It is there
for all to see and you can determine, as I understand it, whether you are being
overtaxed in relation to those around you or whether you are being undertaxed as
the case may be.
That brings out a level of transparency, a level of equity, a level of
reasonableness, and this is what we are trying to create in this country. We have
reached the stage when people must have information. They must be able to make
correct decisions; they must be able to understand whether they are treated fairly
or not, and by ensuring that this assessment roll is published brings about that.
Again, we can look at clause 9 of the Bill. Clause 9 does not discriminate, it
says, “all properties or lands will be assessed with the exception of…” We get the
exemptions later on and I honestly feel that the contribution of the Member for
Oropouche East, in mentioning a few other owners, as far as he is concerned, that
should be considered for exemption, I think it is something that we should
consider. But the bottom line is that this clause again, ensures that every piece of
land would be considered.
The formula, I have indicated before, is a very standardized formula. It is
simply the value of the land, ARV, less deductions and allowances which comes
up to your annual taxable value and then you apply the percentage, whether it is
residential, agricultural, commercial or otherwise, to come up with your property
tax. What we have here, we have a system that does not discriminate. A system
that is open, that can be scrutinized, a system that everyone can question to ensure
that whatever they pay they are paying a just and fair tax.
I go to clause 17, again, showing that the tax is in fact fair and efficient.
7.00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member for
Barataria/San Juan has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Hon. C. Imbert]
383
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Question put and agreed to. [Desk thumping]
Hon. J. Ross: Thank you, my colleagues. I will not take 30 minutes. I will try
to conclude. The point I am making is that we can go through clause by clause
and you would see that this property tax system is a fair and equitable system.
This Government has no intention whatsoever to forfeit people's property. When I
calculated from the Act the time frame for action to be initiated against a person
to forfeit his or her property, it takes a minimum of six years. This is saying that
you have six years to put your house in order or if you cannot afford there is
provision in the Act for you to apply for a waiver.
This is a caring Government. We take care of—[Desk thumping] The process
is so detailed, fair and open. If after five years you fail to make your payment, it is
only then that the forfeiture procedures are kicked in. It has to be gazetted;
published in a daily newspaper and placed in all sub offices in conspicuous
locations. I cannot understand if after all these things we have to do before any
forfeiture proceedings can be taken, why would the Member for St. Augustine and
the Member for Oropouche East want to mislead this country into believing that
this Government is so wicked and vindictive?
I have always been told by my father and I cannot forget it, that what comes
out of you is what you have inside of you. On this side I am convinced that we
care for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] I urge Members on
the other side to do some introspection and please support a progressive piece of
legislation.
Thank you.
Dr. Tim Gopeesingh (Caroni East): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening,
we are in the midst of a debate on two important pieces of legislation which will
affect the lives of almost every citizen in this country. They are the Valuation of
Land (Amdt.) Bill, 2009 and the Property Tax Bill, 2009 with about 52 clauses
and seven or eight sections and three schedules. Since this property tax issue came
up in Parliament during the budget debate, a number of discussions have been
taking place with the wider community. There was no deep knowledge and
information as to what was going to occur when this property tax legislation is
introduced.
We have been awaiting this over the period of the year that we have been in
Parliament and Parliament would be prorogued before January 08, 2010. It took
the Government almost one year before Parliament is prorogued at a time of
festivities as Christmas time when the Government believes that the people of this
384
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. GOPEESINGH]
country are in a festive mood and would not heed what is going on at a national
level. Undoubtedly, the people cannot be fooled. The people have come out and
spoken vociferously against this property tax from the inception when it was
brought to Parliament to today when it is being debated. People have felt so
strongly about it that the trade union movement, NGOs and other civil society
movements have engaged in activities even around the Parliament today.
This has resulted in oppressive and a brutal type of treatment of citizens who
were expressing their views in a very decent, orderly manner around the Red
House. They were beaten and brutalized by the police service. This is totally
unsatisfactory if we are to say that we are in a democratic country. People must
give expression to how they feel about certain things. The people have been
expressing views and the majority of the views are that the people are against this
property tax.
Why have they stood against this property tax? We have heard from
Members on the other side why they believe that this piece of legislation should
be accepted. They believe that it is fair, equitable, progressive and a step in the
right direction. The people are concerned about another tax being imposed upon
them. Ministers of government are deciding how much revenue this property tax
would generate. There seems to be massive confusion as to how much it would
generate. One Minister said that it is around $300 million and another said
probably around $400 million. People believe that it would generate $1 billion.
Such is the uncertainty of this property tax that even the Government cannot
determine how much revenue would be generated by this property tax.
The Government is asking for increased revenue. This Bill is not a property
tax. This is a revenue tax. A revenue tax is being put into the Consolidated Fund.
A consolidated fund allows the Government to spend as much as it wants based
on the financial committee reports and bringing this to Parliament in terms of a
budget debate and the expenditure.
If this property tax is imposing approximately $400 million or $500 million to
the Consolidated Fund, the people are saying that they are very unhappy with the
expenditure of the Government, over a period of seven or eight years, particularly
in the last two years. The Government has spent—my colleague said $215
billion—nearly $300 billion. We believe that they have misappropriated a
tremendous amount of that without transparency and accountability. We believe
that it is close to $30 billion.
385
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
The population believes that this Government has misspent over $30 billion over
the last few years with lack of transparency and accountability. They feel that it is very
punitive for the Government to tax them further and with this taxation being able to
take away their properties if they do not pay their taxes. It is tax upon tax that this
Government has for the people. The people are fed up of paying taxes when they see
that their standard of living and quality of life are not improving.
When 200,000 persons in Trinidad and Tobago have to live with less than US $2
per day, how would they feel when you are imposing tax upon tax on them, and they
see almost $30 billion being misspent, misappropriated with massive corruption in
almost everything that the Government is doing? I will give some examples of it.
What taxes do people in Trinidad and Tobago have to pay? They have to pay
that is pay as you earn which is income tax, VAT, health surcharge, national
insurance, green fund tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, motor vehicle tax, transfer
tax for vehicles, cigarette tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, tax, tax, tax and is property tax.
The people are fed up. When this Government should be looking forward and trying to
reduce the taxation on people, here it is the Government is imposing another major
taxation.
PAYE,
This is acting upon their real life and homes. When it comes to people‟s houses for
which they have saved all their lives and built it with their sweat and tears and some are
owing mortgages, you want to tax them further. This is why the country has rebelled
and the people have come out and said no property tax. It must be taken way and never
come back to this country. Nothing is wrong with reforming a property tax that is
archaic since 1948, but the provisions in these two Bills are very onerous and
oppressive.
I will indicate how people feel about it by reading one example of how
organizations feel about this property tax. This organization condemned the
proposed high level of property tax as being unprecedented, unduly harsh and
oppressive in the taxation annals of Trinidad and Tobago. It is being held as
punitive, disruptive, draconian, illegal and onerous in its implications.
All the speakers at that consultation called for the introduction of the property tax to
be vigorously opposed—the people have been calling for this—resisted and withdrawn
on grounds that it was socio environmentally insensitive and it constituted a crude
invasion of the sanctuary and sanctity of the home. It violated the tenets of both natural
justice and equity and could be declared illegal by judicial review.
It went on about the group of people who took part in this consultation. The
perpetrators of the tax that is being foisted on the unsuspecting population were
386
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. GOPEESINGH]
regarded as glorified bandits wearing balisier ties. That is the depth of the feeling of the
people. They went on to say that the procedures for uniformed and consistent
implementation are not there and there is no way for subjectivity. There is widespread
arbitrariness to contaminate the rent assessment determination stages.
This is one of the types of statements that emanated from one organization in
Trinidad and Tobago on this property tax. There have been many. My colleague,
the Member for St. Augustine, spoke about the economists and the university that
have spoken against it. There are many others as the OWTU, the COP and other
organizations. We as the alternative government that represents half of the
population who voted for us represent the views of the people who are oppressed.
They have been telling us that we cannot support this piece of legislation.
I refer to some people who are very knowledgeable in the field of finance.
There is the general manager of the Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Finance
Company, Ingrid Lashley, who told the Express by phone that the taxes could
impact negatively on household incomes and would have a significant negative
impact on the market. She is rated as a very senior person in the finance world.
7.15 p.m.
I want to quote from someone else. My colleague, the Member for St.
Augustine, raised it, but I want to go into more detail. This is from Afra
Raymond, Raymond and Pierre Limited, a reputable company of valuators.
He said that increasing property tax is long overdue—we all know that. From
1948, it needs to be reformed, but implementing it during this period of economic
decline can lead to social unrest. This is what we are beginning to see this
afternoon—the social unrest and civil disobedience that is taking place as a result
of the people's feeling that the Government has been pushing things down their
throats and they cannot accept it anymore.
Raymond, who is the managing director of Raymond and Pierre, recalled that
the last time that the population was taxed in such a time, there was an attempted
takeover of the government. Here we begin to see a repetition of what took place.
He said that during the National Alliance for Reconstruction regime in the late
1980s, the Government introduced value added tax. There was the bloody coup
d'etat in 1990, noting that in dealing in property, citizens can be seriously
affected.
He went on to say that taxes were being brought at a time of economic
hardship, and the people are suffering. Two hundred thousand persons are living
387
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
below the property line. There is social dislocation and decline that could end in
social unrest. I hope that the Government takes cognizance of the mood of the
people.
Civil disobedience is awakening and you saw an example of it this afternoon.
You continue to behave in this dictatorial, autocratic and arrogant manner, not
respecting the views of the people and not listening to them, while you sip
champagne from a golden goblet while dining with the Queen. It is very sad and
unfortunate.
It seems that the Minister of Finance is in a slumber or that she is suffering
from illusions or delusions. I am beginning to feel that the majority of the people
of this country who are saying that they support the tax and that they have no
difficulty with it, have significant difficulty with it. He said that those with fixed
incomes, like pensioners, may suffer genuine hardship and provision should be
made for them.
It is very telling that the Member for Barataria/San Juan can say this evening
that this is a notional tax; it is about integrity, transparency, equity and good
governance, when 80 per cent of the population has condemned the Government
in terms of governance. [Desk thumping] Where is your moral authority to
govern? Where is your moral authority to bring on more taxation? You have
none.
The people are reeling under pressure from paying bills—water, electricity,
telephone, cable, cellphone, gas, mortgage; property tax bill now. It reminds me
of the Montserratian calypsonian in the 1970s, when he sang Bills more Bills. Do
you remember the song that Arrow sang in the 1970s? It is coming to pass 40
years later. How will people survive?
When the Member for Barataria/San Juan spoke about squandermania and
said that we have not justified how the Government has squandered the money, I
want to give him some examples. That Waterfront Project which UDeCott says is
the hallmark of good construction and doing things on time and within budget,
which was supposed to cost $1.8 billion, cost the children and grandchildren of
this country $4.4 billion. This will have to be paid for the next 17 years at $260
million per year by two leases which UDeCott made through the Government that
is substantiated in the Finance Committee Report 2008, which we debated here
some time ago.
The Member for St. Augustine raised it. The two leases: one for US $15
million and one for US $5 million, that is US $20 million, $126 million
388
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. GOPEESINGH]
semi-annually; almost $260 million per year for 17 years. That works out to
be $4.4 billion for the Waterfront Project. That is the cost of the Waterfront
Project: the International Financial Centre and the Hyatt Hotel. What is the
Government doing in the hotel business? Why have they invested $340
million in the Hilton. Why have they invested over $300 million in Vanguard
Hotel in Tobago? What is the Government doing in the hotel business,
which is private sector business? This is why the people are getting fed up
with the Government.
A building on the waterfront which is supposed to cost $1.6 billion ended up
costing $4.4 billion. The National Academy of the Performing Arts (NAPA) which
was supposed to cost $660 million, according to the Prime Minister, ended up
costing $1.2 billion. The Brian Lara Stadium, $700 million was spent and they do
not know how much has been spent yet and when it will finish. It may end up
costing another $200 million. The Prime Minister's residence was supposed to
cost approximately $40 million; it is nearly $270 million. The Chancery Lane car
park in San Fernando was supposed to cost $260 million; it is now nearly $800
million; the Scarborough Hospital, $120 million is $380 million now.
How can you, the Member for Barataria/San Juan, speak about no
squandermania by this Government? One hundred million dollars has been spent
on the Oncology Centre and it is only in grass; the foundation has not been
completed. There are 15 special purpose companies spending people's money
with no procurement regime promised from 2004. Five years later, they are
spending money willy nilly—NIDCO, NEDCO, CEPEP, NGC, NEC, UDeCott, EMBD,
UTT; and they want to tax the poor people. They borrowed $9 billion last year;
they are borrowing $7 billion this year and the total amount we will owe as a
country, at the end of 2009, will be approximately $70 billion; out of a GDP of less
than $140 billion. We will owe 50 per cent of the GDP.
Here we have spent more than $30 billion corruptly, with no transparency and
no accountability and you want to tax the poor people‟s homes and call it a
property tax. How can you justify that? How can you say that it is equity and it is
fair and progressive? It is progressive according to the PNM. Tax the people; put
pressure on the people; kill the people; brutalize the people outside and that is
your equity and progressiveness. That is 2020 development and you talk about
squandermania.
The Minister has the audacity to talk about scholarships and they spent over
$300 million in 2009 and $197 million in scholarships. Madam Deputy Speaker,
do you think that anybody on that side has a moral authority to speak about
389
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
expenditure on scholarships when it is apparent that $42 billion was spent by the
Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs and they
refused to give the names. It was only through the Freedom of Information Act
that we were able to get the names of the people. It was not scholarships. It was
just money doled out to PNM people over a period of time. You should hang your
heads in shame and keep them down because of what you have done.
The St. Georges Medical School in Grenada, up to 2006, the Trinidad and Tobago
Government gave 178 scholarships and there were mass discriminatory practices in the
administration of those scholarships. So you have no moral authority as the Minister of
Education or the Minister of Tertiary Education to talk about scholarships in this
country. The people whom you have given money for scholarships have won it on
merit. They have passed their CAPE and they have won their Open National
Scholarships by meritocracy; not the people from St. Georges University; not the $42
billion given by the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs.
Do not talk about the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT). UTT is spending
billions of dollars. You have Prof. Ken Julien spending billions of dollars in UTT. UTT
is a private company not owned by the State. The State is spending all the money for
UTT. Not one member of the Corporation Sole is on the board, but they are spending
billions of dollars. The Minister of State in the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Tertiary Education about a year ago spoke about bringing legislation so that UTT could
be incorporated by an Act of Parliament. We have not yet seen that, but they continue
to spend billions of dollars. They went to the Johns Hopkins University, entered a $350
million cardiac initiative programme when they do not know anything about medicine.
The Ministry of Health had to tell them that UTT knows nothing about medicine—
Ms. Kangaloo: We should hire you.
Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes. They should. [Desk thumping]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have worked in 16 hospitals. [Applause] I have
attended to over 120,000 patients. I have a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor or Surgery,
Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology [Desk thumping] [Inaudible] of the Royal
College; Fellow of the International College of Surgeons. I was the first Gynaecologic
Oncologist in 1988 in the West Indies. I am the first medical doctor to have done an
MBA in 1991. I am the first doctor to do an international MBA in 2000. I was a
consultant for WHO in the Caribbean. Hire me and I will tell you what to do.
Mr. Imbert: Madam Deputy Speaker, point of order. Standing Order 36(1).
The curriculum vitae of the Member for Caroni East, whether accurate or
inaccurate, is not relevant to this debate.
390
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Madam Deputy Speaker: It may not be relevant, but he was responding to
the hon. Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education. I am certain
now, having given us that information, he will get back to the debate.
Dr. T. Gopeesingh: My colleague has just indicated to me, having seen my
CV; that that is an abbreviated version. [Interruption]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I am looking at the faces of the
Hansard reporters; I do not think they have gotten anything for the last couple
minutes. Could we please remember them?
Dr. Moonilal: With the Hansard documents and a copy of the CD as an
addendum to the Hansard.
Dr. T. Gopeesingh: My next point is that we were puzzled when the Minister
of Finance indicated that the Government was satisfied that the majority of the
population is in support of the new property tax.
7.30 p.m.
Her justification was that all Government MPs have been holding cottage
meetings with their constituents and they have found that most of their complaints
had to do with issues such as drainage and potholes and not the property tax. How
so far-removed is this Minister of Finance, not understanding the reality of the
situation? It is very sad and unfortunate that the Minister of Finance could think
that the people of this country really support the property tax.
We saw rallies all over this country. We saw marches and demonstrations all
through this country. It is that the Minister is meeting with 10 or 20 people in a
constituency somewhere and we do not know whether those things have in fact
taken place and you say that the people have supported? There is massive outcry
in this country about property tax. You would have seen a little semblance of it
this afternoon. Throughout the country, people are saying that they cannot accept
that. I wonder whether the Minister was dreaming somewhere or whether she was
hallucinating just before she made this statement. There is a drug called Ambien,
that is associated with Tiger Woods. We have to wonder. I am sure the Minister is
not involved in that at all. I wonder when the Minister made this type of
statements whether there was hallucinatory effects taking place. It is totally
wrong.
One of things that is being argued vociferously, not only by us in the
Opposition but other teams of people, is that this Bill needs a special majority, as
had been mentioned by my colleague, and not a simple majority. To substantiate
391
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
what we are saying, I want to read part of the Constitution of Trinidad and
Tobago, under:
“Rights enshrined
4. It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there
have existed and shall continue to exist,…
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and
enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except
by due process of law;”
Section 13 says:
"(1) An Act to which this section applies may expressly declare that it
shall have effect even though inconsistent with sections 4 and 5 and,
if any such Act does so declare, it shall have effect accordingly unless
the Act is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a society that has a
proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.
(2)
An Act to which this section applies is one the Bill for which has
been passed by both Houses of Parliament and at the final vote
thereon in each House has been supported by the votes of not less
than three-fifths of all the members of that House."
This Bill contravenes section 4(a) of the Constitution and by section 13(2), it
is necessary to have a three-fifths majority for this Bill to be passed by a
constitutional three-fifths majority. We rest our case. This Bill does not need a
simple majority. It needs a three-fifths majority for passage, because it infringes
the right of the individual not to be deprived thereof to enjoyment of property
except by due process of law. That is a fundamental point.
If you believe this evening that later tonight, you are going to pass this Bill by
a simple majority, I can tell you that the constitutional lawyers like the Member
for Tabaquite, undoubtedly could take this case to court very easily or my
colleague, the Member for Siparia, who is a distinguished person on public law
now, who is doing her PhD in public law, will take—we could give you the
Member for Siparia CV, which is better than mine in the field of law. All the
Members on this side—this is a tremendous team on this side—can take over
government with just the seven or 10 of us here in the Parliament today and we
could run this country much more efficiently than the 26 of them across on that
side. They could have 100 of them on that side and we could run the country. We
would not impose a property tax to bring in $400 million or $500 million, but we
392
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. GOPEESINGH]
would spend the money in a proper manner and equitable manner and in a manner
that is not discriminatory against one.
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Speaker, this property tax discourages homeownership. A poor person,
who would have sweat all his life to save money to build a home, so that he can
rest peacefully and not have to worry about anything in the home and suddenly a
property tax comes down and he now has to pay property tax and if is not paid, as
my colleague from Oropouche East mentioned a while ago, it is deferred for five
years and is summed up and the value is so high, he might lose his property. It can
happen to anyone. All your life savings used to build a home and you lose your
property because you cannot pay the property tax. It is unthinkable to go into the
sanctity of a person's home, their lives, the roof and the covering. What people
think is their castle and mansion, no matter if it is a poor person; they want to tax
that person in their home. This is unpardonable, unacceptable, grossly
irresponsible and outright wrong; morally wrong.
They are in a spending craze, spending all the money and they now want to
tax people to get the money; to get something to fill back the $7 billion that they
are borrowing this year, as my colleague indicated. They want to penalize the
initiatives, so that people must no longer think about building homes, because if
they build their homes, they will have to pay property tax. Do you know what is
unfortunate? Somebody in the rural area built a home on a roadway, on a piece of
land that they got very cheaply, and others come and open big, nice business
properties on the side of them. The value of the property which they built
originally has gone up, because of the new type of taxation system on property
tax, the annual rentable value, because they are at the side of properties that have
improved and the values of those properties have improved. The poor person will
now have to go and pay more money because they are next to the business places.
The value has gone up, so the annual ratable value by rent has improved, and
therefore, they will pay more for property tax. That is unacceptable.
The Government has been saying that they are giving out homes through
People have worked hard. They pay a little bit of money every month.
They would have borrowed money to pay off the $250,000 that they got from the
HDC. Of course, there have been massive discriminatory practices, as far as the
allocation of the homes is concerned. You all know that. We do not have to
debate. You give them a home and now you are going to tax them on that. Is that
not unfair? The people got a home believing that they will use their money to pay
NHA/HDC.
393
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
little mortgage and you have now imposed a tax on them, so that they will pay
more on the NHA/HDC home. They now have two mortgages. The property tax is
one mortgage and the mortgage is another.
To conclude that point, when you dissuade people from owning homes by this
thing, when you are punitive in your approach towards taxation for people who
own homes, people will lack the initiative to construct more homes. The
construction industry will not be increased and construction will come to a halt or
will not improve considerably and there will be no increased generation of jobs as
a result. On the one hand you are trying to get money and on the other hand, you
are stymieing what you call development, growth and the provision of jobs. What
are you really trying to do? You are working against yourself. Something is
going wrong with your thinking.
As far as assessment is concerned, at the moment the country has been in a
state of chaos, with respect to annual ratable value, because a number of homes
have not been assessed over a period of time, some 20—30 years. What will
ensure that the assessment now of all the homes in Trinidad and Tobago will take
place more rapidly so that every home will be assessed? Who will do the
assessment? What basis are they going to use to determine the rental value of a
property? Who determines the rental value of a property? What body or
association will come together to be formed, so that they can work efficiently,
with equity and with transparency.
You have a valuation division that has not valued properties for 30 years and
suddenly they will jump out of their boots and begin to value properties? There is
massive corruption that is going to take place with the Board of Inland Revenue and
the Customs and Excise Division, to bring the Revenue Authority. There is going to
be massive confusion and retrenchment of jobs and more people will lose their jobs.
Who will do the assessment? What will be the equity in the assessment? What
prevents an assessor from going to home X and saying: “Your property is worth
$3,000 per month”; and then go to another property next door and say: “Yours is
worth $5,000 rental per month”? What prevents this unfair practice from taking
place? This is what is happening. People are afraid. [Interruption]
We are not causing fear; we are giving you facts. Do you know what will
happen? Massive corruption will take place by the assessors and the people. The
assessors would go to your home and assess it at $3,000. You know this country.
You know what happens. I do not need to speak about it. That will encourage
corruption. The Government must tell this country what equitable manner of
assessment is going to take place, rather than leave it airy-fairy.
394
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. GOPEESINGH]
You sent out 220 documents throughout the country, trying to fool the people
and say the property tax will be beneficial to the people and it would be equitable,
by just drawing an analogy that the people in San Fernando Borough are going to
pay a little less, because their percentage was 8 per cent. As my colleague said,
they will pay a smaller percentage, but they will still be paying more. All through,
the whole question of assessment leaves a lot to be desired and it leaves a lot of
questions that remain unanswered. Hopefully, the Minister of Finance will answer
the question, in terms of assessment, rental assessment, et cetera.
Appeals—if the Government assesses properties—the Land Valuation Division
and the Board of Inland Revenue, who else does the valuation—and the person whose
property was assessed is not in agreement and feels that he has been wronged by the
assessment—[Interruption]
Hon. Member: They have the right to appeal.
Dr. T. Gopeesingh: They have the right to appeal, fine. To whom do they
appeal to; the Tax Appeal Board? If 20,000 people who have been assessed go to
file an appeal before the Tax Appeal Board, what length of time will it take for
them to resolve that problem? I am just speaking of a small number of 20,000.
There is the possibility that there could be 50,000—100,000 people dissatisfied
with the rental assessment and going to the Tax Appeal Board for redress.
7.45 p.m.
Do you know how long that is going to take? [Interruption] My colleague is
saying due process will take place; due process, meaning a long wait. At the
moment, it takes about approximately two years to get redress from the Tax
Appeal Board. There are only a small number of cases being addressed by the Tax
Appeal Board. Could you imagine if there are about 20,000 persons, 50,000 or
100,000 persons who are dissatisfied with the valuation that they got and have to
go and appeal before the Tax Appeal Board! This is unfathomable. This thing has
tremendous problems.
While the appeal is pending, the taxes have to be paid. Even though you have
refused to pay the tax based on the appeal, at the end of the determination, if you
have to pay the tax it would have accumulated. As my colleague, Dr. Moonilal,
the Member for Oropouche East, indicated that they have to pay a 10 per cent
within a six-month period penalty and then within two days or three days after a
15 per cent penalty. They would end up paying 25 per cent. How punitive! Mr.
Speaker, you see why the people are outraged about this property tax. All of us
feel very hurt by what this Government is trying to introduce. They feel that it
395
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
could pass by a simple majority. They cannot pass it by a simple majority, because they
know it needs a constitutional majority.
Rental: Is it not inevitable that rentals will go up? When landlords have to pay
increased property tax, they would pass this on. My colleague, the Member for St.
Augustine, had been giving a lot of talks throughout the country in a number of areas,
explaining to the people this question of the property tax. If the property tax is imposed
upon landlords, then the landlords would pass it on to their tenants and, therefore, their
tenants will reel under the pressure.
We have a middle class that is being wiped out; we have a working poor
middle class and we have the poor, all of whom really do not have a home and
they depend on rental. Even two persons who are professionals and working
sometimes cannot even afford a home far less now having to pay more rent.
I want to read some parts of a letter that was written by the guild of students, Mr.
Hillan Morean. He indicated in a letter written on December 14, 2009—I got a copy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was written to you. It says:
The UWI Guild of Students wishes to bring to your attention an issue that has
surely come to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Dr. H. Rafeeq]
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon you to resume your contribution, can I ask
someone from the Government to move a Procedural Motion under Standing
Order 10(1)?
PROCEDURAL MOTION
The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Colm Imbert): Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move that under Standing Order 10(1), the sitting continue until the
completion of the business under debate.
Question put and agreed to.
PROPERTY TAX BILL
Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a part of the letter that
has been written by the Guild of Students in relation to the whole question of
rental. It says:
396
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. GOPEESINGH]
In this light, the UWI guild of students echoes the sentiments of over 16,000
students of which a massive proportion rent in close proximity to campus. It
also echoes the sentiments of thousands more in the country who seek
protection and the fulfilment of the Government.
So, Mr. Speaker, the UWI guild of graduates has been asking for consideration
on this issue, because it is going to affect the 16,000 students who have to get
properties close to the university during university semesters, since they have to
live close by. So, there was an appeal by the guild of students in terms of the
increased rentals that would take place as a result of the increase in property tax.
We also raised the question on this side about the increased water rates that
might take place as a result of the increase in property tax which deals with the
annual rental value or the annual ratable value.
I have a letter here from the Chief Parliamentary Counsel addressed to the
Economic Policy Analyst, Ministry of Finance, dated December 11, 2009. There
were a number of issues which this person raised saying that there are still some
outstanding issues that require your attention. They spoke about the definition of
land still appearing to be quite wide and that the definitions for authority, local
authority and sub-division are not used in the Bill, but have been deleted. The
point I want to make has to do with the question of water rates.
They said that since WASA rates are tied to the value of land, as established by
the State, would these increases have a correlative increase in WASA rates? So,
this is the Chief Parliamentary Counsel writing to the Ministry of Finance
querying and questioning the possible increase in water rates.
I had an informal discussion with the hon. Member for Chaguanas East and he
indicated that the Regulated Industries Commission would probably look into that
matter. We look forward to some clarification either from the Minister of Finance
or from my colleague, the Member for Chaguanas East, on the question of
whether the water rates will go up as a result of the increase in the property tax.
We need some clarification on this matter at some subsequent stage.
Mr. Speaker, the last point I want to make is—my colleague touched on it—
the differentiation of a different rate for residential rates, commercial rates and
industrial rates. Now, industrial rates are taxed at 6 per cent, based on the plant
and machinery you have on your property, it is not only on the value of your
property. So, any manufacturing conglomerate or manufacturing company which
has billions of dollars in plant and machinery—and plant and equipment are very
expensive—if you are taxing them 6 per cent, based on their plant, equipment
397
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
and machinery, 6 per cent of $1 billion is $60 million, so they would be taxed $60
million if they have $1 billion in plant and equipment. Some companies may have
$5 billion or $6 billion worth in equipment. So, five times that number is
equivalent to $300 million in taxation for that company.
So what happens when that company manufactures a particular product? They
would pass on that on the price of the product. If that product is increased, then
the consumer price would also increase. So, therefore, the price of the goods and
services produced by that manufacturing company will also be increased
significantly, and who will that be passed on to? It is the consumer. This is very
punitive. If you are talking about improving manufacturing and giving
concessions to manufacturing companies—you know the manufacturing sector
has remained relatively dormant in terms of the contribution to GDP of 7 per cent
within the last few years. In other words, it is going to be a deterrent to the
improvement of the manufacturing sector since the prices of goods and services
will undoubtedly increase and, therefore, it will create greater hardships on the
population of Trinidad and Tobago.
Mr. Speaker, I have raised a number of issues here in terms of the income that
they feel is going to be generated from the property tax versus the squandermania
that exists. The Minister‟s misconception or bad perception that the majority of
the population is in support of the property tax is not so. There is need for a
constitutional majority for the passage of this Bill—the whole question of
assessment, appeal and water rates and so on, I have raised these issues for
answers.
In totality, we on this side know and feel deep in our hearts that this is an
extremely oppressive Bill; it is an oppressive piece of legislation; and it is
draconian legislation against the poor man. It ought not to be accepted and it
ought not to be implemented and we ask for a total withdrawal of this Bill.
Thank you very much. [Desk thumping]
The Minister of Labour and Small and Micro Enterprise Development
(Hon. Rennie Dumas): Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity, exactly at this time, to
make a contribution to this debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reminding
all of us, contrary to the Opposition‟s argument that at Christmas time we should
not be debating the property tax, according to the story, Joseph and Mary were
going to Jerusalem, and they were going to Jerusalem to register for a census on
which the tax of the country was based. [Desk thumping] Mr. Speaker, you see,
sometimes when we draw parallels, we have to be careful where they take us.
398
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. R. DUMAS]
Mr. Speaker, the last speaker went on with his normal excursions into himself,
with the University of the West Indies and his hatred for the University of
Trinidad and Tobago.
Dr. Gopeesingh: I want to emphatically state this evening that I welcome the
University of Trinidad and Tobago as a university as a tertiary institution for
technology, but I am opposed to the expenditure when it is not incorporated by an
Act of Parliament. [Desk thumping]
Hon. R. Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I would just promise the Member for Caroni
East that this is the last time in this debate that I would allow him to speak in my
time.
I want to respond by treating with one argument that has come up. For all the
things the PNM has been accused of, the one thing that any impartial observer
knows is that what the PNM always stands for is the interest of the poor people of
Trinidad and Tobago [Desk thumping] And, therefore, no action that is taken by a
PNM Government will be against the interest of the poor people of Trinidad and
Tobago.
In that context, I want to start by raising a question where the Member for
Caroni East quoted a letter from the University of the West Indies Guild of
Students. Let me just reinterpret what was said, because he quoted, as he normally
does, very selectively and very conveniently.
8.00 p.m.
The argument that is being made by this letter—I want to stand for all
Presidents of the Guild, I was a former President myself—careful about students'
interest, but what the students were saying, they were suggesting that it is quite
unfair for the owners of property who are renting these properties to students to
increase the rent that is paid on the basis of the change in the property taxation,
because it is totally unjustified. That is what the letter is really saying, and the
letter went on to suggest that maybe we need to treat with an instrument for
control of the way rent changes in this country, which is a discussion that we may
make as a policy.
If the Opposition is willing to discuss how we can control the inordinate
increases in rent [Interruption] in St. Augustine's territory, unfortunately
St. Augustine‟s constituents are exploiting the students from all across the rest of
the country. Therefore, the policy position of the UNC may change and cost them
the seat of St. Augustine if we seek to manage the rental change. We will want to
399
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
suggest that you would not allow the possible loss of one seat to hinder you from
working with us to control the rents that the students from all across the country
pay, and of course since the University of the West Indies is not in Tobago, we
have a particular interest in the control of those rents coming from Tobago
students at St. Augustine, so you know we are clear on that matter.
Do not reinterpret the thrust of the Guild of Students. What they are asking for
is the absence of the unfair use of the question of the tax for change in the rent.
You have a situation where people expect that their tax rate may change by $30
and they are changing the rents by $1,000 a month per apartment and something
has to be wrong with that, the abuse of the students on the basis of the change of
Government policies is improper.
We are not surprised by a lot of what we saw, but when you see strange bedfellows,
you see strange people hugging each other, you have to ask why. This newspaper
has reemerged [Interruption] The Vanguard, it has reemerged and on the front
page is Mr. Rogeau and on the back page is David Abdulah. [Interruption] This is
the people's democracy—and today we had the Member for Oropouche East,
marching arms in arms with the people's democracy and he tried to rewrite history
by telling us, today, that the last time he saw any evidence of people's power was
when the Member for Princes Town North was on the steps of the Parliament.
That is a rewrite of history, because the last time anybody name Panday was
talking about marching, it was in a statement. In fact, it was criminalizing the
teachers, it was threatening trade union people, it was a suggestion that a march is
a waste of time and is no longer an appropriate activity for anybody in the
progressive state, which is Trinidad and Tobago.
Mr. S. Panday: It has now become important and relevant. [Laughter]
Hon. R. Dumas: Today is today and yesterday was yesterday. I draw this just
quite simply to warn some of our people, because I see some of my old comrades
here from TTUTA linked to this activity.
We just want to suggest that maybe the workers have to be very careful what
their leaders do in their name. I made the point in the last debate, that it is
clear that some people may have an agenda and not necessarily the agenda of
the people. The Member for Oropouche East made a whole song and dance
about what it meant to be in the march this afternoon and I am happy that he is
so excited. [Interruption] I know what it is to have the blood racing through
your veins and hear the noise of marching feet, the bodies near to you and the
smell and scent of that. The Member for Oropouche East is now learning.
400
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. R. DUMAS]
[Laughter] He is not learning, he had five minutes of it.
Mr. Abdul-Hamid: He was trying to lose some weight.
Hon. R. Dumas: But there was a clear threat that came—
Dr. Gopeesingh: He grew up in the sugar belt you know. [Laughter]
Hon. R. Dumas: Yes, but he was a nice boy in an office that Mr. Panday used
to protect. [Interruption] Yes, that is what I am saying, a nice boy who got a cozy
scholarship.
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: He got a scholarship? [Crosstalk]
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. R. Dumas: Mr. President, again, I am hearing about criteria for scholarships—
I was really hoping to let it pass but since I am on my feet and he raised the matter, let
me put it like this: Merit is multivariately described, merit is not a single line.
Every single student of Trinidad and Tobago is a scholarship winner and is on
scholarship from the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in every tertiary
institution. [Desk thumping]
So when some people come here and talk about scholarship on merit I want to
suggest to them that if I went through the University of the West Indies Medical
Programme with an aim to criticize it, I would suggest to you that it is a very
biased system and I could demonstrate to you where certain people are excluded
from that system based on the action of the selectors of people to the programme.
[Interruption]
I want to suggest to you that oftentimes the selection process is skewed in a
number of ways—we do not want to go there. What we want to say to you and
what this Government has chosen to say, is that every single student who qualifies
to be accepted in a tertiary programme merits support of the Government of
Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping] That is what we are doing.
Mr. Abdul-Hamid: No one is left behind.
Hon. R. Dumas: We argue therefore, when the claim for civil disobedience comes
up and it is supported so strongly by the Member for St. Augustine—you know the
Member for St. Augustine advocates civil disobedience one more time. [Interruption]
Yes, it is in the Guardian here.
Mr. Abdul-Hamid: He advocates breaking the law; he said today he is not
paying “nothing”.
401
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Hon. R. Dumas: It is here, the Guardian quoting the Member for St. Augustine—
who you said, sorry, Mr. Speaker—who the UNC claims to be their lead speaker on this
issue of taxation, economic policy, et cetera. [Interruption]
But the irony, Mr. Speaker, is that he leads us down a road that speaks to—
[Interruption] You listen to them, and again, what is the truth, because that is what is
hard to find out with what they are saying. The Government proposes a rate of 3 per
cent on the annual ratable value for property taxation and the howl goes up that this
would kill the Trinidad and Tobago apartment and housing market, et cetera.
I have a number of publications from the Trinidad apartments, talking about the
global property guide, speaking about how Trinidad apartments generate good yields,
and it tells you about the expected value yields from investment of apartments in
Trinidad and Tobago, and the rates are very high; much higher than the bank rates. I
just want to leave it as that. The question therefore of, if you are having these yields on
the total value of the apartments and housing in Trinidad and Tobago then that is a
benefit that comes from the all round development of the economy of Trinidad and
Tobago. Therefore, it is proper and appropriate in my view that the State gets a benefit
from these increases in values.
Mr. Speaker, one of these documents tells us that you had a change between
1991 and 2009 in the value of property in Trinidad and Tobago of two and a half
times the value that you are now at in 2009 than you were in 1991. In other
words, if your property was valued $1 million in 1991, today that same property
would be valued $2.5 million according to the rating by the real estate market of
Trinidad and Tobago. In that situation therefore, it is not a question that the value
change depends on anything that the owner of that property would have done
again but, would have been an appreciation in value based on an appreciation of
the quality of life of the expectation of the services and so on available in the
general environment and market of Trinidad and Tobago.
We will want to argue that this was an accident, but it follows that general
trend in a development that we have set ourselves as a nation, and therefore it is
appropriate to discuss it as a means of treating with taxation as an issue. There is
an evaluation you can also make of the gross rental yields in Trinidad and
Tobago. Again, if you compare the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America, there
is a comparison. It tells us that there are only two countries in the region in which
the yields are larger. One is Jamaica, at 8.7 per cent per annum, then Suriname,
and then you have Trinidad and Tobago at 8.2 per cent per year in terms of the
gross rental yield of the property.
402
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. R. DUMAS]
In that circumstance it cannot be argued, although some of our notable
economists or the people who teach our children in universities, maybe the call
should be that some of them should resign, because when a senior economist like
Dr. Patrick Watson tells us that they expect this tax to be so onerous on the people
of Trinidad and Tobago, but you know he is speaking out of Westmoorings, so
maybe the audience to which he is speaking and for which he is speaking is
carrying a particular message. Again, that message seeks to invert the message of
the People's National Movement.
We are quite clear that if you have an annual ratable value as was determined
by the gentleman speaking—I would not want to call his name now, but it is here
in the Express—you are expected to yield $108,000 in the year and your expected
tax is $3,000. Now, one would have to ask oneself, why would an individual who
is getting the benefit of supporting services from the State, who is getting this
$108,000 as income from the property be hesitant in paying $3,240 to be exact as
a tax to the Government on the property that he owns. [Interruption]
We want to ask ourselves those questions, and I want to suggest that if that is
an onerous tax—and I do not know what an onerous tax is, because that certainly
cannot be—that rate is so minuscule against the earnings, certainly it has no
impact on the market and no impact on the rate of earnings of the property owner.
The UNC seeks to ignore the fact that the Government has made a tremendous
effort in the development of private property in Trinidad and Tobago. As Government
in Trinidad and Tobago over the last 50 years—I see the Member for Oropouche East
tried to give us a lesson earlier on development, political economy and all of that, but
one critical thing he missed is that the whole concept of ownership of land in Trinidad
and Tobago, the giving of access to land in Trinidad and Tobago, to its citizens and the
subsequent development of individual residential property was also not an accident.
8.15 p.m.
That was the result of deliberate policy by successive PNM governments.
Whether you were from Charlotteville or Cedros, somewhere near you there was
this activity. Whether it was Caroni lands being distributed or Chaguaramas,
wherever in Trinidad and Tobago access to land for the creation of private
property was a matter of deliberate public policy.
Today, the situation is that we now have another round of development of
private property by the activities of the present HDC and private developers who
are now in the process of creating another set of communities and wave of
property. What has occurred is that there is a significant stock of private property
403
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
that requires us to look not on—when we make this argument about
diversification of our economy, we are talking here about the development of our
political economy. We are saying that diversification of the economy is not only
relevant to the development of a divergent number of goods and services in the
market for sale. It is also related to the ways in which the economy becomes
sustainable and the Government is able to earn income so as to keep that
development paradigm in a sustainable basis.
Do you know what is worse? The UNC forgot their policy, programme and
philosophy. The UNC do not know their DNA. This property tax comes out of
something started under the UNC. It was your Member for Tabaquite who put together
the body of land administration Bills and work where you brought in the University of
Cambridge and gave a number of consultants to do consultations across the country
on land reform and the development of land Bill.
The question of land valuation and property values for treating with the
income of the State and generating the unique land identification generating a
unique system of land reform in Trinidad and Tobago, all came out of your work.
Today, you repudiate the work and the results of the work because you do not
know better. You refuse to support what you have started. That is the sad state of
the Opposition. They do not know the end of the policy and where it goes.
Dr. Moonilal: Your senior counsel will respond to you.
Hon. R. Dumas: At least if I get an answer, one person in the UNC would
understand the argument. The UNC oftentimes forget their policy because many
times they did not know from where it came. They borrowed so many things from
other people that they are not sure where they are.
One of the consistent battlegrounds the People‟s National Movement has had
is with the Guardian. It is so ironic to see the Guardian editorial suggesting to the
UNC and the population that there is need to give the property tax a fair chance.
The newspaper is making the argument that the property tax is not likely to have a
negative impact on the poor because “property tax” by definition means that you
have to own property before you can be taxed. [Interruption]
That is not true. What they forget is that the Government made concessions on
loans to people for property valued under a certain amount as the stamp duty
exemption and so on. By the time you get the net benefit of the application of the
exemption for stamp duty against the rate of taxation, it would take maybe about 10
years before the impact becomes zero. The State has a value in giving you that while
404
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. R. DUMAS]
at the same time, the State is subsidizing the cost of the infrastructure in which the
house is placed. You are getting two subsidies. We need to understand that.
The property in a real sense is another rent. What is worse is that it does not
matter how you look at it, whenever it comes to the reality, like I said,
uninterested observers will like to see the Government has wasted the money.
Unfortunately, the writer of this piece comes to the conclusion that the argument
that the Government has wasted the money is not supportable. The writer points
out that if you check and get 47 per cent of the income that we earn as a
government being spent on subsidies and transfers to the people and list the things
on which they were spent and take the capital expenditure, you would have a
totally different picture. If you take the interest payments and the expenditure on
goods and services, there is total accounting for the expenditure by the
Government.
We have here, done nicely for us—I know that the UNC have difficulty in
having people do the work for them. The quality of the work is never good and
you could never depend on it. Let us look at some of the allocations and how they
went. Under the senior citizen's grant you had $1.36 billion; the disability grant,
$247 million; education institutions, $1 billion; pension and gratuities, $1.66
billion; regional health authorities, $1.7 billion; local government bodies that
claim to be underfunded—
Again, the loss of memory by the UNC is appalling. You have the UNC in the
years in which they were in government neglecting totally to give development
funding to any PNM-controlled constituency. [Interruption] Do not tell me no. I
read these figures in here for four years. Under development funding, you got
zero; use of the gas tax, you got zero; use of the road improvement fund, zero.
That was the situation. Zero! Zero! Zero! [Interruption] I do not care what the
barrel was. If you were spending $1 at least 1 cent would have gone to a PNMcontrolled corporation. You have the gall to talk about discrimination. Blades,
knife cutting, cutlass wielding and then you come here and talk about
discrimination. Nonsense!
WASA, $1.4 billion; petroleum subsidy, $2.1 billion; Infrastructural
Development Fund, $7.9 billion; Heritage and Stabilization Fund, $6.6 billion.
They are saying that we did not save and invest. I remind them that the expenditure
across the heads that we considered relevant and critical pillars for national
development was there. They say that when you are getting angry take a drink of water.
That is something the old people used to say. “Put some water in yuh mouth and keep
405
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
yuhself quiet.” [Interruption] Yes I will do that. Let me tell you what I would say
before I sit. Do not worry.
We did not name the Tobago Hilton, Vanguard. You did. You forget.
[Interruption] Wait. You were arguing as to what the Government was doing in the
hotel business. I hear you. You do not know your philosophy and history. How did we
get Vanguard? Vanguard was set up in Tobago by the UNC. You are forgetting that
you with your engineers, poor as they were; your developers, hopeless as they were;
your businessmen, inept as they were, established this mechanism; put it in the middle
of a place where you were advised not to put it; used materials which could not stand
up and it led to the wastage of millions of dollars which we are now trying to retrieve.
When you ask me what we are doing there, we are trying to regenerate a plant
which hopefully would lend its support to Tobago‟s tourism economy in a way that
could be desirable and useful for Trinidad and Tobago. Having gone through that
experience—who is the man? “Ramlogan they had put in charge and were paying
billions of dollars, come to Tobago, talk to nobody, land in the airport, drive up the road
and come back down.” He talked to nobody so he could not get the benefit of local
experience and therefore, went and did that thing up there. We are saying that you are
comparing that with other activity.
They asked what we were doing in these things. My colleague just reminded me
that they went on an excursion. They criticized our holding of the international
conference with the rest of the Commonwealth. At least we had things in the right
order. Firstly, you built a conference centre, a performing arts centre and therefore,
you had a place to hold this thing. They did not have anything. They took a hanger in
Chaguaramas and gave it to Donald Trump to bring Miss Universe.
Mr. Adbul-Hamid: “All yuh host a beauty pageant.”
Hon. R. Dumas: The only thing memorable about that—I see the Member for
Mayaro is getting agitated.
Mr. Peters: “You see we did not have the money.
Mr. Adbul-Hamid: “So why yuh hosting pageant? Yuh host a beauty
pageant.” We host world leaders and you host a beauty pageant.
Hon. R. Dumas: “Leh meh” leave it alone because I might say something that is wrong.
Mr. Adbul-Hamid: Is Tim was behind that? [Laughter]
Hon. R. Dumas: I want to come to the argument which is quite relevant. We
are in a situation in which the tax reform has been a desirable end. If you go
406
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. R. DUMAS]
through the history of commentary on the country‟s finances and the management
of our economy, tax reform has been there. Normally, they only agree when you
can show them that it happens in England. Property tax happens in Canada, the
United States of America.
Mr. Peters: You get service for your money.
Hon. R. Dumas: We have some people who believe—
Mr. Peters: “Yuh cyar geh water. No water, no water.”
Hon. R. Dumas: “Mayaro take yuh time. Doh get hot behind deh. Yuh still
have a lil few minutes.” Hear what I am saying to you. I want you to compare the
quality of the infrastructure that you left with the quality of the infrastructure that
is available to the country today. You would come to the conclusion that there is a
massive improvement in the infrastructure. [Desk thumping] [Interruption] “Wait
Mayaro. Take yuh time. Take yuh time.”
Mr. Peters: Think about the income you had and the income we had.
Hon. R. Dumas: “Take yuh time. Well ah go tell yuh bout dat too. Take yuh
time.” The continued expenditure on that infrastructure includes the expenditure
on water, electricity, et cetera. As long as that rate of development continues, the
general improvement in the body of services that we get as citizens of Trinidad
and Tobago and household owners would continue to improve.
8.30 p.m.
We are not doing things backward. Hear what you do not understand. I am
explaining that making sure you have a sustainable flow of income; making sure
that you have a commitment from every household—that is what the property tax
is asking for—in that context, our continuous improvement in the quality of life in
Trinidad and Tobago merits the continued commitment of the householder to the
property tax. We are in the situation where all this is coinciding.
Somehow the UNC wants us to stop. If we were to follow the UNC, they come to the
table and tell us to stop expenditure on this building, but then you come to the
Parliament and declare your policy and nothing happens. The Member for Caroni East
likes to come up with a list after every budget. Every budget debate he comes with a list
to say that we declared 159 policy items or projects and did nothing on these.
I thought he would congratulate us. We came in September and said that the
tax would be in place by January 01, 2010. We are holding to our promise;
407
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
performance like you have never seen. As long as you keep us focused on
delivering on what we promised, we will all be better off for it.
The Government is focused on organizing what we have promised therefore
we are bringing it. The property tax was conceived; the law put in place and we
are here today doing that. They want to tell us to wait so that come June, they will
tie us up in some joint select committee where they make all their mischief
outside the glare of public scrutiny, and say that we have not done it. We are
going the opposite way. We are saying we told you so; we have delivered on that
and we are delivering on it.
They raised the question of moneys spent on things not finished and struck at
the Scarborough General Hospital one more time. Every time I hear that, my mind
goes like this: The UNC came into government on the back of Mr. Robinson. You
quoted something today. People must be careful of what they say. Somebody on
that side got up and quoted the venerable ANR Robinson who argued that, at the
time, he was holding the PNM up to question over what has happened in previous
years. Every time the UNC does that, they remind us of what he had to say when
he moved the UNC out of government.
He said that, in terms of the quality of life that the people could expect, he did
not believe that the UNC could give that to the population of Trinidad and Tobago.
He certainly gave the government to the PNM, as you would say. While you are
blaming Mr. Robinson, you forgot that you were beaten politically in every
community. That is the only reason you could lose government. We have to
understand that when we keep reminding people of these things, we on this side,
our commitment to making sure the changes that we live through are positive,
re-emerges.
I am quite happy when you raise these things, but I suggest that every time, if
we are going to work for the benefit of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, come
to the conclusion that you cannot avoid. Those conclusions, as anyone who knows
how to use the statistics and how to read the information, will come to the
conclusion that we are better off for having the PNM in government than we will
ever be for having the UNC.
The property tax and the way we have proceeded with it cannot be faulted.
We have some people who, today, joined the march, the Member for Oropouche
East. [Interruption]
He was representing his leader, who was absent.
[Interruption] It is not likely that the Member for Oropouche East would be
arrested. I suggest that if you examine the people in the march, who say that they
408
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[HON. R. DUMAS]
represent the so-called civil society, there are people who sought nominations for
party election that the party did not select. I can call the names, but I will not
worry about that. You take the time to do the work yourself.
There were people who sought nominations from the various parties and did not
receive that nomination. They failed in terms of nomination and getting into
government. They ran for the party and did not make it and lost the election. There
were people who were rejected in terms of their positioning themselves to contribute
to the determination of government policy. Having failed that, they have come on the
street to stop us. We are not satisfied that they have the moral authority to stop us.
Therefore, the policy as enunciated we should support and continue.
It is on the basis that the property tax is equitable, just and fair,
administratively superior to what is in place; is likely to be equitable across the
country; is likely to bring us long-term benefits and change, that I support the Bill
and urge colleagues to support the change in the property tax regime of Trinidad
and Tobago.
Mr. Winston Peters (Mayaro): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I rise to
lend my total condemnation to this punitive, draconian and oppressive Bill that
this Government is trying—I am told by a good legal mind—illegal Bill, that you
are trying to pass and foster on the poor people of this country.
The Member for Diego Martin North/East can stay across there. I just want to say
that this Government has ceased to be a government and they are now, as far as I am
concerned, the "Grabberment" of Trinidad and Tobago. They are grabbing at every
single cent they believe they can extract from the poor people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, with all the God-given billions of dollars that we have in this
country, through no prudence of the Government, all they have been doing is
wasting it. Taxes are imposed on people because the country cannot afford to get
money any other way.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: The United States is poor?
Mr. W. Peters: The United States is poor. Would you believe that? The
United States is the most indebted nation on the earth and they have to tax people
to get money. That is exactly what you all are doing, but the difference between
the United States and Trinidad and Tobago is that they are not under the guise of
taxing people to level the playing field. They tell you why they are taxing you.
Here in Trinidad and Tobago, this “grabberment” that is in power is coming to
this honourable Parliament and telling the people; the Minister sit and look at the
409
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
people of this country straight-faced and says that this is not an income-generating
tax; it is one to level the playing field.
I heard some of my colleagues who spoke earlier and I agree with them in
everything they said. I am a citizen of this country as well and I have been
looking at what the Government has been doing; wasting the money. Today, they
do not have the money to finance the projects that they started so they are looking
for the softest target they can get for money. This is like "sticking up" people and
taking their money.
This tax will not do anything to the wealthy people of this country; not even the
middle class people, who own property. Any businessman—I am a businessman and
if I have to pay more taxes, I will simply pass it on to the people, so you cannot tell
me that this tax will be beneficial. To whom? We like it so.
The people say they like it the way it is. The Government is here to do the people's
bidding; not the other way around. I am not too unhappy that the Government is
introducing this tax because they are actually writing their death warrant.
Dr. Goopeesingh: They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Mr. W. Peters: I do not know where they are shooting themselves; it may be
in the head. I am not really too bothered. The people will have a long three years
to wait before it is reversed. It is an oppressive tax.
I am a real grassroots person because from where I come I understand what it
is to see trouble. Many of them sitting there do not know what it is to see trouble.
They do not know what it is like to get up at 4.00 and pick up bottles before you
go to school so that you can have something to eat during the course of the day.
I have a little brother in Rio Claro and he worked for $100 per week and out
of that he built a home, a beautiful home. It took him about 20 years to build it.
Today, someone will walk around and tell him that his home is so beautiful that
the taxes he is assessed to pay on that home. It is not what he is getting for it
because he has no intention of renting it. It is what he could get for it if he rents. If
he rents this, he will get $X, so they are going to charge that poor man for the
little home he built. There are many others like him in this country.
8.45 p.m.
I know of mothers who leave their hungry children in this country and travel
to other countries, especially in the United States of America, to take care of other
people's children so that they can send their moneys back to this country. They
410
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. PETERS]
leave their children in dilapidated homes that a grandmother or whoever would
have left for them. They go there to make some kind of money, so that they could
come back to this country and utilize that money and build a home for their
children, a good home. Now you are saying to these poor people who have gone
out there and have to run from immigration for five or six years and cannot see
about their children other than to send back a barrel for them. If they did not pay
the taxes on the little piece of land that their grandmother or whoever who have
left for them, when they get the little money and come back to this country
believing that they are coming to build a home, they do not have the land because
this wicked Government is passing an oppressive tax that would take their land
away from them. That could never be fair. Nobody in this country would put a
government in power to be so oppressive to them.
I do not think that in all good conscience, anybody who really cares about the
people of this country can actually sit back and support a tax like that, with all the
fancy trimmings that this Government is putting on it and telling you what it is
going to do. The bottom line is that they are broken because they have spent and
wasted the money from this country and today they are looking for money to
finance their things.
I heard the Member for Tobago East talking about all the things that they have
done and the billions that they have spent and what they have spent it on. There
should also be a column for wastage. I heard them say that they spent billions on
water and whatever else they spent it on. Where are the billions that they have
spent and cannot account for? That is what we have to think about. If we had
those moneys today, we would not have to be introducing a tax like this, to the
people of Trinidad and Tobago.
What we are doing here is interfering with a way of life that the people of this
unique country of ours have become accustomed to. We are interfering with the very
culture of the people of this country. This is not like America. People in America
hardly even own a home unless they are very rich. You could buy a house when you
are a young man in America, as indeed I did, and after you retire you end up in an old
persons' home because you cannot afford to pay the taxes; the very taxes on the home
that you have spent your whole youthful life to acquire. Because you are on a fixed
income, you cannot afford to pay these taxes and you end up in an old persons' home
and your home would have to be sold in order to pay to stay in that home. Is that the
kind of society that we are trying to introduce in Trinidad and Tobago?
Quite apart from that, they talk about people wanting to emulate England and talk
about how you feel good when you hear about paying taxes in England and America.
411
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
When they are introducing a tax in America, it is not introduced like this across the
board. They tell you exactly why they are introducing this tax. If you live in Long
Island, you pay more money than if you are living Brooklyn and if you are living in
Manhattan, you pay more money than if you are living in Brooklyn as well.
In Trinidad and Tobago, you are paying these taxes. All this Government
knows to do and the only thing that they hustle through is the taxes that they
introduce and nothing else. When they introduce taxes abroad, they would tell you
that they are introducing it and that they are putting $5 on your tax because they
need to build a school or fix some roads. What are we doing here? We have, in
this country, a health surcharge. We have the worst health system in the
Caribbean. We have road tax that we pay. Every time you buy a gallon of gas, we
you taxes on that. We are paying at the pump because you have raised the gas.
You abolished the tax with the right hand you raised the gas with your left hand.
[Interruption] You removed the subsidy? That just goes to show that all you are
doing is compounding what I am saying.
The people of this country get nothing from the windfall that we have here. All we
get are taxes. We have more gas in this country than we can use as a nation. We have
oil here to sustain us for the rest of our natural lives, if we use it wisely. The first thing
they have done is remove the subsidy. In other countries where people have a windfall,
they increase the subsidy. They removed the subsidy. What did they do? They raised
taxes. This is—[Interruption] No, I am not singing a calypso. I will sing a calypso this
year and you are in it. "Ah know yuh eh want tuh hear it, but you it in. Doh worry, yuh
will hear 'bout it. It call Madoff. "All they know to do is to raise taxes and taxes and
more taxes. They are very arrogant. "I eh singing nothing on Ramesh. Ramesh is meh
boy." They act as though Trinidad and Tobago belongs to them. The Government of
Trinidad and Tobago acts as though it is this their country and it is the PNM's country.
Mr. Attorney General, “dey have you like ah yo yo, when dey ready dey send you
England and dey bring yuh back. Dey have you going up and dong so.”
Hon. Member: What about you?
Mr. W. Peters: Mr. Speaker, this Government failed to understand that whenever
you introduce new taxes, it is not just the taxes that you are introducing and that you are
putting that tax on—especially when it is something as essential property tax. Not
everyone has a home or can afford one. People have to rent and the rent would go up. It
would go up by 3 per cent of what? It is 3 per cent of whatever you assess people's
homes to be. That is what it is going to be.
Miss Le Gendre: The rentable value.
412
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. W. Peters: What is the rentable value? How can you come to my house
and tell me how much I can rent it for? When you raise rent, invariably you raise
just about everything else, because people would pass it on. The stores would pass
it on to the consumers. It is just like raising gasoline. This is the only Government
in the world that does not know that when you raise gasoline, you raise everything
else. They then complain that this is too high and that is too high.
With respect to this tax that this Government wants to introduce, I am asking
the Government to consider the poor people of this country, because not
everybody in the world wants to be dependent on the government to take care of
them. There are people who like to be self-sufficient and independent.
The Government is building houses and poor people cannot access them. Poor
people are not—yes, you can turn up your eye. Poor people are accessing them,
but the fact remains that they are accessed in a kind of “clandestinish” way.
[Interruption] One hundred of them! How did they get the homes? For every 100
people who get a house in this country we have 800—5,000 persons who cannot
get one. We know that, but how is it done? [Interruption] How much I get? That
is all they talk about. Sometimes I feel very insulted and ashamed when I come to
this Parliament and hear big people sit on the other side and continuously talk
about how much you do on this side and what they did. It is not the responsibility
of the people here; it is what you do.
When the UNC was in government for six years, they spent $60 billion. This
Government, in eight years, spent $250-something billion. There is no
comparison. When the UNC was in government, oil was US $18 and US $20 per
barrel. When this Government was there, it was US $175 per barrel. It is alright
for them to sit there and say what they are saying now, but all this Government
finishes in this country—do you not see how quickly they are rushing through
this? This is not a well thought-out Bill. It is not well thought out. Anybody could
do that. You could commission someone to do whatever you want them to do. All
you have to do is—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: For those who have not spoken, I would suggest that you read
Standing Order 33(1). Take out your Standing Orders and read.
Mr. W. Peters: Thanks for your protection, Mr. Speaker. This Government
rushed this Bill through, because we are hurry for the money. They want to start
to tax people as quickly as possible. It is the only reason this is so hurry. Do you
know how many Bills we have pending in this Parliament that are not passed? Do
you know how many things this Government has started all over? They are the
413
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Scarborough Hospital and the Oncology Centre. Where is the new hospital for
Port of Spain that the Government said it was going to build? What happened to the
Brian Lara Stadium? They have wasted the money.
They have a one-man show going on in this country. You heard how much
money one man is getting. I am sure they did not tell us all of it. There are some
things they did not say. We would find out in time. It is just a matter of time,
because once you have spent money you must have a paper trail. "Doh worry, we
gon ketch up wid yuh. Dey like to boast about how much money dey get back fuh
de country." The only reason we have not gotten back any money as yet is
because we are still in opposition and you are in Government, but the day you
step out of Government—I want to put this in Hansard—you too would have to
account for the money that you have spent because Trinidad and Tobago has lost
its innocence. It will not be business as usual. You cannot cover your trail. I am
saying that to you today. [Interruption] You could say 36 whatever you want my
friend. Let the Speaker tell me that, not you. I know you would like to be a
Speaker. What you have to do is to stop putting up flags in this country that cost
$2 million; not 36 (1), but $2 million. That is what we want you to stop doing.
This Bill is an oppressive Bill. This Bill is doing absolutely nothing for the
poor people in this country, but to impoverish them some more. This Government
cannot finish anything they have started and they are looking for money, so they
are rushing this Bill through with all its faults. "Imagine dem have ah Bill dat say
people could come in yuh house and kick down yuh door and take yuh
belongings." If you owe them, not only would they take the contents of your
house, they would then take the house. That is the kind of things we have going
on in this country. We talk about draconian Bill? This is draconian and
oppressive. There is no way in the world that I can support this Bill. I believe that
we have to rethink this whole thing. This thing needs to be reconstructed. I am not
saying if you have something that existed since 1942, it does not need to be
revamped. It is the same way Caroni (1975) Limited needed some kind of
reconstruction, but not to be closed down. This is the identical thing that is going
on here. Something needs to be done. I am not saying, no. It does not have to be
this draconian Bill that we are trying to pass here.
I hope my good learned friends in this Parliament would come up with legal
terms in whatever way they can and see how we can stop it. Something needs to
be done. I want to tell the people of Trinidad and Tobago that even if by some
spate of faith, this thing is passed, we on this side—it is not going to be very long
under the astute leadership of the next political leader of this party, Kamla Persad-
414
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. PETERS]
Bissessar, when we get into power we will change it. We are going to change it. I
am sure that we are promising. It is a promise that we are making to the people of
Trinidad and Tobago. If for some reason or the other, this Bill goes through, we are in
fact going to change it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I, in my personal capacity, cannot support this Bill.
This is Bill is nothing that the people of Trinidad and Tobago should support. It needs
to be “rethinked”. This Government needs to rethink this property tax, because it is
impoverishing poor people and it is doing no good to them.
Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker.
9.00 p.m.
Dr. Keith Rowley (Diego Martin West): Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I
join this debate to make a few observations and some reflections, because I think
during the budget debate, when this matter was first introduced to the national
community, I did take part in that debate and expressed my personal view, quite
emotionally, at the time, and this evening there is no need to reinforce that since it
is already on Hansard—I hope that we are doing quite well in Australia, and you
may find a way to end this debate tonight in time for us to enjoy the rest of the
match. I hope we all wish the team well.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why I join this debate to make these reflections.
One of the things I have observed happening in our country is that we are not
building anything. We are not building intellectual thought; and we are not
building a structure of governance which can propel us forward, and we seem to
be operating in a scatter shot; we versus them.
This debate has been most contradictory. If one should sit and quietly analyse
all that has been said by the various speakers, one will see so many contradictions.
It reminds me of a time when I was in the Opposition, we had a very unpleasant
issue to deal with—I think we were in the Government and we had an unpleasant
issue to deal with in the Rent Restriction Act. One of my colleagues was being
detailed to make a contribution in the Parliament on the Rent Restriction Act, and
it was difficult to sell from the standpoint of the Government, given what we had
said in the Opposition about it. I was there trying to advise my colleague as how
to structure his arguments and to listen very carefully. He then turns around and
says: “You are asking me to bramble; you are brambling me. I will have to go and
bramble at this and I am not doing that.” The debate on this matter can be quite
aptly described as “bramble”.
415
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Speaker, if a tax has to be levied, it has to be levied. It falls to those who
are introducing the tax to come up front and say what they are doing. There is
documented in one of Dr. Eric Williams' book that I read a while ago. There is a
letter in there, I think from a gentleman in Tobago, writing to Queen Victoria
protesting about the oppressive nature of the horse tax and saying they could
hardly pay this tax; they could not make ends meet; and the local wardens were
going in the bushes to search for the horse and to tax them on this horse. He wrote
to Queen Victoria asking for her empathy and to intervene in Trinidad and
Tobago to protect him from this oppression.
I make this point to point out to you that this tax and like those taxes, is a revenue
raising measure. There was a time when we had dog licence to raise revenue; we had
horse tax to raise revenue; and we had bicycle tax to raise revenue, because there was a
need to service the country. The Government looks around and sees where it could find
an item to attach a tax to which will bring in revenue. Having a dog did not require, in
the debate, as to what Government did for you so as to have a dog. It was a way of
saying that if you have a dog then the State said that you pay some money on the dog's
licence.
In those days, if you own a bicycle—people were struggling to purchase a bicycle—
you had to pay your bicycle licence and the same thing with the horse. Later on in life, as
a country, we came to a point where we dispensed with all those taxes, because our
natural resources came to the rescue generating for us considerable sums of earnings
from the market place, and the Government became the recipient of these resources from
oil and gas and whatever else; the invisibly economy. So, if today we are being told that
we find ourselves, for whatever reason—whether it is my fault, your fault or whoever
fault—in a situation where we want to do this because the country requires additional
revenues, because this year's budget has a $7 billion deficit—why then does the debate
has to be a bramble with unbelievable arguments that this is not a tax that will cause you
to pay more to the Treasury; it is about equity; and it is about levelling the playing field?
You have one person saying that it is going to raise “X” million, another saying “Y”
million and another saying it is not going to raise anything, because we are not stupid.
We know what lands and buildings taxes contributed to in this country in
recent years. We know what the forecast was as to what this measure will bring
so, clearly, when they put the budget together, we had to look around to see where
we can increase the revenue. What is the problem in saying that? You see, when
you do not say that the people will not trust what you are telling them.
The problem that the Government is having now is that people are saying they
do not believe them. When that trust is lost, even when you are speaking the truth,
416
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
they would not believe you. Tonight, this Bill is going to be passed, but when we
leave and go home, I do not think anybody in here would know what the taxation
would be on an average household in any neighborhood in this country. All we
would have done is to create the legal mechanism to impose that tax.
In Standard 7 in school, I think there is where they teach percentages, and you
hear all this talk about 3 per cent and 7 per cent, but these are just words. Unless
you know what is the 100 per cent, 3 per cent is meaningless. Mr. Speaker, one
per cent of a million is a whole lot more than 50 per cent of a hundred. Until we
get an idea as to what the valuation is going to be and what the rental is going to
be, we will not know what the tax is going to be.
I refuse to be brambled by public servants publishing some formula and working
out something in the newspaper telling me that is what my tax is going to be. Unless I
know what they assess my house to be for the rental purposes, 1 per cent, 3 per cent
and 9 per cent mean nothing. So, when this Bill is passed tonight, we will be no
clearer as to what this item means. It is only when we know what the valuations are
and the rental assessments are that we will know what we have committed.
Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example. I have two neighbours, and in
recent times, one was renting a house at about US $5,000 a month and then close
by there is another one who has a house for rent now at US $2,000. It is now
almost two years, no taker. How will this tax fall in that scenario? Will the rental
of some recent times of US $5,000 be the assessment value or the one who cannot
get the value now of US $2,000? We do not know, and until that valuation comes
in, we do not know.
Mr. Speaker, there is also something else which I thought is disappointing and
it is this. I do not know how the argument of equity becomes a basis for taxation.
It went further in the ridiculous when it was said that certain persons will benefit
from taxation. I do not know that there is any benefit from taxation. Tax means
take! What benefit? There can be no benefit. Some persons will have to give more
than others, but there is no benefit for anybody. Even if there is to be some
levelling of the playing field, why is there a strong argument to be made that if
you live in an urban environment in Trinidad and Tobago, where you enjoy all the
benefits largely supported by State‟s expenditure—benefits of street lights;
benefits of quick police action; local fire station; good paved roads; proper drain
and pavement, et cetera within the urban environment—why are you expecting
equity with a person in Toco or Cachipe or in Tobago who does not have those
things? Why?
417
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Speaker, to tell me that some empirical figure of 3 per cent across the
board—all of us in the country are happy because we all will be paying 3 per
cent—there are some parts in this country that do not even have road signs. You
go there and you do not even know where you are going. You have to know
where you are going, because there is no sign post on the road, and this is a source
of continuous aggravation to me; a simple thing like a road sign. You are telling
me that all of us will pay 3 per cent and not all of us are getting 3 per cent value
from the State. [Desk thumping] Some are getting more than others.
If you live in an environment where the quality of life is a whole lot better,
because of what the State puts into that district, then you must pay more than
others who do not get that. [Desk thumping] That is equity. Equity cannot arise
when you want to levy a tax across the board especially if it is a bramble term.
Mr. Speaker, my constituency represents both ends of the spectrum in this matter. I
represent Diego Martin West and as you know, in Diego Martin West, you have some
of the higher-end housing in the country, but the districts around on the hillsides in
Diego Martin West, you have some people who are the salt of the country's earth and
who are going to have the same equity. I look at their problem at both ends.
Presently, in my constituency, there is anxiety at both ends of the spectrum.
There is anger at both sides of the spectrum; and there is resentment on both sides,
and I would tell you why. People are seeing this as a situation that ought not to
have been. If you accept my argument or my understanding that it is really a
revenue raising measure, and anything else is disingenuous, then people are
saying had we handled our largesse differently, we probably would not have had
to resort to this measure. [Desk thumping]
It is not that they are against the idea of paying a tax or that this is anything
new to them. As I mentioned, way back in Queen Victoria days, people were
made to pay taxes and people expected to pay taxes for services. As we have
evolved as a state, there were times in this country, not too long ago, when we
found ourselves with more revenue than we could reasonably absorb in our
economy.
In fact, as recently as 18 months ago, the Central Bank had monetary policy
issues. The State was awash with cash two years ago. We saved some; we spent
some well; we spent some badly; and we wasted some, but there are people who
are saying that had we handled it differently, we may have avoided a property tax
increase, and the Government should better take note of that. Stop taking your
own advice that nobody is annoyed. People are saying that the Government has
418
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
mishandled the situation causing them to have to go in their pockets to assist the
Government to maintain the developmental thrust they we are doing. That is the
bottom line of it. That is the fact. That is why the whole idea of coming up front
and saying: “Hey, we are faced here with a property tax and we would have to
raise it at so on level”, the Government is having a difficulty confronting that.
This property tax, notwithstanding anything that is said here today by those
who are advancing it on both sides, is not a new idea before the Government.
What is worrisome to the present administration is that it has found itself having
to do this at the worst possible time.
Mr. Speaker, I was in the Cabinet, as I was reminded today by my colleague,
the Member for D'Abadie/O'Meara—I have been out of it so long, I have
forgotten I was there, but I was reminded that I was in the Cabinet when a very
outstanding Permanent Secretary, John Andrews, headed a team of experts to look
at this whole question of the lands and buildings tax review.
A review had been on the cards since in the early 1990s, and as my colleague,
the Member for Tobago East pointed out, I was the Minister of Land and Marine
Resources at the time. Much of what he mentioned there about this whole
question of the unique identifier of the land administration and the Commissioner
of Lands and so on, all these things came into being as an ongoing evolution,
because it was always recognized that there was need to review the whole system
of land management for economic and other reasons, and right at the back of that
was the whole question of a review of the taxation.
9.15 p.m.
As my colleague from Tobago East pointed out, I was the Minister of Lands
and Surveys at the time when a lot of what he mentioned there about this whole
question of the unique identifier and the land administration and so on, the
Commissioner of Lands, all those things came into being as an ongoing evolution,
because it was always recognized that there was a need to review the whole
system of land management for economic and other reasons and—I know in the
back of that was the whole question of a review of the taxation, because in some
areas of the country some people are paying peanuts for lands and buildings taxes,
others are paying a substantial sum and some none at all. In fact, it represented an
area of light for the Government.
But that was never effected because the governments of the day did not see
the need to accelerate the bringing into being of this taxation as a revenue
measure because the money was not required then. Unfortunately, in 2009 the
419
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Government finds itself in a situation that it needs the money like Max Senhouse.
That is why we end up in this situation, [Interruption] and the anger that is
associated with this particular measure is not a fundamental anger against taxation
and property, it is an anger against an unnecessary situation which could have
been avoided had we acted differently.
Mr. Speaker, it is not again standing on its own. In my reflection, I want to point
out to you that in 1980 when the Tobago House of Assembly Act was being
promulgated, one of the issues that was raised by Dr. Williams—and I think if you go
to the Hansard you will find it there—he said, when the PNM eventually conceded that
Tobago needed local management, some devolution of authority in Tobago, said, yes,
we would agree to the creation of the Tobago House of Assembly and we will watch it
and see if it is successful, we will transfer that model to Trinidad. That was Dr.
Williams himself saying that, if that authority being given to Tobago to manage its
local affairs, if this model succeeds Tobago will be able to provide Trinidad with a
template.
You know what the big difference between Trinidad and Tobago is in terms of
public management? The executive body in Tobago has the authority to make
executive decisions based on some semblance of a known cash flow. Because the
central government has ceded to the Tobago House of Assembly, the authority to
collect and keep as revenue Government revenues raised in Tobago, you know what
that means, Mr. Speaker? It does not mean that Tobago funds itself from Tobago's
collections. It means that if you know you have $10 coming in a sustained basis you
could spend and pay your bills as you go and not wait in limbo doing nothing for twice,
three or four times a year when you get a subvention, and it comes sometimes too late
for you to do anything and then the fiscal year ends and the money has to go back and
you did not get to spend it, which was the plan before.
Now, we went through this whole question of local government reform and
resource allocation under the NAR. The NAR had 33 seats in the Parliament and it was
under the NAR that an attempt was made to reorganize Trinidad along the lines as
described in the Municipal Corporations Act. So Trinidad is now managed in a series
of subunits, urban and suburban rural groups. So, we have the municipal corporations,
but none of them from the ones that I know first-hand and the ones that I read about
have that secure revenue flow to make them function like the Tobago House of
Assembly functions.
They are still constricted by the old public service method of plan what you
like, budget what you like, you are at the mercy of the Director of Budgets in the
Ministry of Finance and at the mercy of the warrant whenever it comes. What is
420
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
the end result of that? The end result of that is that potholes, drains, pavements,
mosquitoes, whatever you have in your district, invariably in these regional
corporations cannot be handled at the local level as part of any systemic
management, because of the system of allocation of funding.
I was hoping that—in the context of the local government reform and in the
context of this attempt to do what this Bill says in the Preamble, that it is a
paradigm shift—we would have taken the opportunity to really make that
paradigm shift based on the Tobago House of Assembly model, let people pay in
their district, spend in their district and hold the people in the district accountable.
[Interruption]
Right now it is only in Tobago that local government people are held
accountable for local expenditure and local development, elsewhere local
elections are national elections. If you have people being held accountable at the
local level then you could see some difference, and therefore if the central
government takes the position to guarantee a certain basic standard of living in
every community and share the gross resources with everybody at the national
level, if there are districts where people are prepared to pay more for what they
get, then there will be no anger, no anxiety and resentment over the taxation.
What you have now is not going to change the price of cocoa one way or the
other, because this taxation will raise money that will go into the black hole of the
Consolidated Fund and it will do nothing for the people in their local districts, and
they will have no control over it. They will have no control over the local
personnel and they will therefore see the tax as just another oppressive act.
How much more of a paradigm shift—and I am using the phrase of the
Preamble here—it would have been? If in the context of local government reform
we were saying that this taxation would be handled as is being handled in Tobago
now, by the local corporations, where they will collect the money from their
structures and their lands, they will have a guaranteed cash flow, they will be held
accountable for development in their area, then people would elect persons who
can manage it and if they do not perform they will put them out of office, not
based on which party is in there but for lack of performance. That, then, would
see the whole country being lifted in development from the local level. It involves
policing, it involves school districts and it involves infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, the colonial masters saw the need for the local constabulary as
against the national police. That is why the corporation has police,
notwithstanding they call them market police, but the whole idea was that you
have a local way of policing. The absence of the patrol that we are saying are so
421
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
vital to dealing with the criminal upsurge in this country can be solved by having
a local constabulary; Port of Spain, San Fernando, Tobago is saying they are
going to have it, I have not seen it come yet, but why not Diego Martin? It is that
local constabulary that will give you that patrol, who will know who the local
burglar is, who will know who the local rapist is, who will know where the local
drug bust is, and that local policing will eradicate the nurturing of criminal
activity within communities that is overlooked by police at the national level.
So, if you have your school district and people in that district are prepared to
spend on their schools to monitor their schools, to participate in keeping the high
standard of schooling, it would be quite possible that some districts will have a
higher standard than others, but they all aspire to move up. When you hear
comments here about property tax in other countries you are not comparing
oranges and oranges, you are comparing oranges and apples, because in other
countries where you have property tax it is directly related to the services that you
get. [Desk thumping] From garbage collection to policing to fire service, it is all
there. If you can afford a certain quality of life and you find yourself living in a
certain district where it is not available, you move into a district where it is
available expecting to pay more for it. But again, what are we dealing with here?
Are we comparing little Trinidad with the United States? Of course we can learn
something from them.
I was in the Opposition when the point of view of the venerable Independent
Sen. Gerald Furness-Smith was that local government was a waste of time; it
should be abolished; the country is too small to have”—I think at that time there
were—eight local government bodies and all that we were doing was creating
little thin men in corners, wasting money and probably being corrupt and
pretending to provide services. That was his view. But there was another point of
view that small as we are, we are identified by districts, we have executive
councils in those districts, let us use that, we had that framework to build on, and
when I say we are not building, it is because as you look at what has happened in
Tobago, we have not built on that in Trinidad.
Look at what happened with the NAR's Municipal Corporations Act, we have not
built on that. We are hearing about local government reform, it may come, but when it
comes and it meets this property tax entrenched in the Treasury, revenues going to the
Consolidated Fund, it is very likely that notwithstanding whatever else you do, that
reform will bring no fundamental improvement to our national management because
the lifeblood of performance is money. The lifeblood of Government performance is
money. The allocation of money, the spending of money, and if the money side of
422
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
the argument is in a brambled debate like this one where we are trying to fool
people about what we are doing, then clearly we are not on the correct path.
Taxes are never popular but they are understandable, especially when you
come clean and say what you are doing and what you are doing is justified. I am
afraid on this occasion the Government is not coming clean on what this is,
because it would be a very surprising thing—we would not have long to wait to
see the outcome of this. Because when the Bill is passed and the bills come to our
homes in March, the take is going to have to be reported in September, and then
we will see, really, if it was really about equity and a standstill level of taxation,
or whether in fact it was a serious revenue earner for the Government.
Let us fast-forward a bit to September next year, and it turns out that this
measure raises $250 million or $300 million, what will the Government say then?
Will the Government say, “We were right, it was not meant to increase the tax
take.” You move from less than $100 million to $250 million. I do not like
people to take me for a fool. I do not like people to try and fool me, I will have to
fight back. We do not have long to wait. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that I
suspect that the 3 per cent will be on values that are considerably higher than it is
made out to be, because even in the current market where there has been some
decline in property values in this country—property here is very worthwhile and
you would get good values for most properties, and therefore, once that is your
starting position, and then of course, if you use recent rentals or rentals that will
obtain, if you look at the marketplace where people are desperately trying to find
homes, I cannot see how the rentals are going to be suppressed.
One of the biggest problems in this country is a shortage of housing.
Notwithstanding what has been said, there is still a significant shortage of housing in
this country, and anything for rent, especially in the lower and middle income
groupings attracts a good rent. So the public servants who are going to have to
determine what the rental potential is, will be dealing with substantial figures, and then
your percentage of that figure, I would be surprised if it is less than what you are paying
now in any instance.
I do not know on what basis they could tell me that the tax is going to be
reduced. Because if the Government brings a revenue raising measure which
reduces the taxes then that in itself requires some dismissal on somebody‟s part. I
think most of my colleagues know it will not be reduced. If it is a revenue raising
measure then it should not be reduced. If the bottom line is that people are vexed
because they think that you wasted money, take your flack for that and stand up
and say we have a deficit which has to be funded here.
423
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
9.30 p.m.
Do not try to escape that allegation by a nonsensical argument that a tax is
going to benefit me. Okay. I believe you. The tax is going to benefit me. I live at
Goodwood Park at so and so number. Do not bother to tax me. I do not want the
benefit. I pass on the benefit. Is that okay? Since it is a benefit, today, I pass on
the benefit. Keep it! Does that mean that I pay no property tax? If I write the
Minister of Finance and say to her that I would like to forego the benefit for all
times, just take me off the tax roll. Will she accept that? That alone should tell
you. Bramble talk.
On the question of equity, again, nobody believes you. I would tell you why.
Equity is not something that you evoke especially with taxation because people would
look elsewhere and see how you behave to know if you subscribe to the principle of
equity. This morning, I opened the newspapers and the first article that I looked at was
a story that the CEO of the NWRHA, Mrs. Carrington had been sent on leave. My
eyebrows raised. When I read the article, she was sent on leave because some
accounting firm is doing an audit in the NWRHA with respect to their internal processes,
procurement procedures and contract awards.
They sent her on leave because they do not want her to interfere with
personnel or documents and whatever. That is not anything new. People have
been sent on leave in similar situations. But then, immediately, my mind went
to the chairman of UDeCott who, under a commission of enquiry, very
damaging and scandalous allegations about his personal conduct and is
common knowledge in this country, his agency has been exposed for all kinds
of shortcomings, there are issues of potential criminal conduct and violation of
various laws, and under the same administration that Mrs. Carrington was sent
on leave, because PriceWaterhouse is doing an investigation there, there is
defiant defence of the chairman of UDeCott. The Government is saying, “We
cannot act because there is no report from a commission of enquiry. That
would be a lynch mob.”
I want to ask you, if there is equity with how the Government treats with
citizen "A" and "B", how come you could send home Mrs. Carrington at the
NWRHA in the face of a PriceWaterhouse investigation into the same procedures
in that organization? In UDeCott, what you get is a pay increase, a new contract,
prime ministerial defence and my colleagues are defending that. That could never
be equity anywhere in the world. That is not equity. When that happens in that
situation and you come and talk about equity in taxation, and people do not
believe and trust you, who do you blame?
424
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
Unfortunately, they all come together at the same time. There is a confluence
of bad news for my colleagues. Look at when that comes out. This morning!
Today's news that comes out and you come to Parliament today, and say like the
fish in the bowl with the cat on top saying, "Trust me”. Nobody would believe
you because you have demonstrated that you are not prepared to do the
commonsense thing to generate that trust with equity.
Talk about waste. As I said before, my constituents are angry and resentful of
this tax because they have seen waste. I do not want to unnecessarily bash my
colleagues. For heaven's sake, when you are coming to tax me in a situation
where the item that draws the tax is not a revenue raising measure for me—my
colleague for Tobago East pointed out that many people would be in a house and
having done absolutely nothing, find that the house is worth $1 million, $2
million. Property value starts with location, location, location.
You were living in Diego Martin Main Road long time ago. Over time that location
has become a million dollar location, but you are never going to sell or rent that
property, but because of the fact that you did nothing, it is now worth $2 million. This
tax is now going to be based on that! Such a person is saying I have to pay this tax in
the face of waste. In any country, when you pay a million dollars for a pole and a
million dollars for a hole to put it in, people would see that as waste. They are saying
that against that background, I am being taxed, that is where the resent comes.
Instead of getting an apology we get a spirited defence of the indefensible. I
want to advise my colleagues that none of us are in Parliament—we will make
mistakes. When you make mistakes, the first thing you have to do is to
acknowledge that you make a mistake. If you try to defend the indefensible, you
would provoke people and create resentment and anger. I think that that is what
we have at the moment.
I talked about the two ends of the spectrum in my constituency. There are
people in my constituency on the hillsides in Diego Martin West, I can call the
locations as Upper Cemetery Street and Dillon Street where for the last many
years as part of the development programme, WASA has run water lines to these
people; dug up the road and put in the water lines. The water lines have been there
now empty for four years. Some of those persons at the lower end of that
programme are paying water rate for water that they do not get. The relevant Act
under which WASA operates, if you are within a certain range of a stand pipe even
though you are not getting water, they send you a bill and you have to pay. Like
this Bill if you do not pay they will take your property. That is what some of my
constituents are living with.
425
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
When they saw the water lines being laid down, as the Member for
Parliament, I was very happy, but then no water has been there for four years
because the pumping system has not put in place. The reason for that I am told is
that there is not enough water available for them. That is the scenario under which
they live. They are paying the current water rate. To be told now that on top of
that, that rate would increase as a result of the coming of the property tax is
bordering on provocation.
These are the people of our country. They are not strangers. I am not talking
about Namibia, Mali or Mozambique. I am talking about Diego Martin, one of the
prized housing areas in the country. If there was a Diego Martin Corporation that
had available to it, the revenue base on the Diego Martin housing stock, I give
you a guarantee that Diego Martin would have been one of the best serviced areas
in the country. Diego Martin has probably the largest housing stock as a district in
the country.
When you pay property tax and none of it comes to you except through
subventions that come from the Ministry of Finance, as and when they see fit
and you are low down the totem pole. Allocations for local government—I
know it because I have been there a long time—way down on the guana tail.
That is where the quality of life is. It is an argument that I have always made.
That is where the quality of life of the individual in this country is really
affected. Interestingly enough, other allocations always come first. It is what
is left that goes into the local government body.
In my street, I was a Member of Parliament and there was a broken area in my
street. It was beginning to become almost impassable and beg and try as I might,
the Diego Martin Corporation could not or would not fix it. Eventually, I had to
ask somebody from the San Juan Laventille Corporation to come down and fix
my street because there was never any money available to do a basic thing like
that. It is the same thing with roads, drains, walls, mosquitoes and rats. Call the
corporation tomorrow and something that should bring an immediate response
and never has money to do it.
That is where my quality of life is affected. That is why I would have been so
happy to support this measure if it had said that it was making the paradigm shift
of giving them that money from the housing stock. I will tell you something.
Suppose the people of Sangre Grande agreed that they are happy with 2 per cent
housing tax and the people of San Fernando said that in the city of San Fernando,
we would pay 7 per cent, but for that we must get good sporting facilities, indoor
facilities with martials and police on our roads, they would get something else. They
426
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
are paying for what they get. Why would there be a problem if the people of San
Fernando or Diego Martin prepare to pay more to their local corporation for a higher
standard of living?
This thing about dumping us all down to the same level of mediocrity is
nonsense. Absolute nonsense! Total nonsense! It is not equity. It is taking the
easy way out. If this country is going to make any paradigm shift and move any
quantum leap forward, we have to break those walls. This will pass. I am not here
anticipating the legislation but I suspect that when it happens if it does happen,
the same thing would happen with the local government reform argument. Same
thing! We will pass the Bill, carry on, talk and talk and talk and at the end of the
day, there would be no significant change in the way we do business at the
household level.
At the end of the day all that the Government does is put in one file jacket if it
is worth anything. That is improvement in the quality of life of the people of
Trinidad and Tobago. I can tell you. The difference in the quality of life in
Tobago and that which is enjoyed elsewhere in the country is that there has been a
significant improvement in the quality of life in the people of Tobago with the
Tobago House of Assembly. Big difference. They look toward the local people.
There was a time when everything thing that went on in Tobago, especially
wrong things was Trinidad fault. Nobody in Tobago belched without saying that
Trinidad caused that. Now people have been weaned into understanding that you
have your responsibility here. If it is not discharged, you are responsible here. I
think that my colleagues in Tobago both in the top and PNM understand that. The
people of Tobago have shown that they are making no joke about people who are
in office and not performing. They know that they have enough resources to give
them a better quality of life.
What we are seeing at the national level is not what people are seeing. At the
national level, people are saying that we had enough resources that we could evade
some of these negatives, but they are not being evaded of how we are doing business. It
would do us all well if those who are managing our affairs take that on board. Some of
the criticisms are reasonable; some are quite accurate and some are unreasonable, but at
the end of the day, we cannot say that it is only what we think is right.
My colleague from Tobago East mentioned the people in the house who had
done nothing and the value could be assessed at $1 million of $2 million. Mr.
Speaker, I do not know about you, I know many people in this country for whom
$100 is much money. There are many people in this country who are struggling to
427
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
make ends meet and such persons faced with an increase whether $200, $500 or
$600, they are living at the margin. Any increase for them is a hardship. It is not, I
should not say a right because it not right and wrong. It is not correct to say that
nobody would feel a hardship as a result this. There would be hardships.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member for
Diego Martin West has expired.
Mr. Imbert: Sit down. Be quiet now.
Mr. S. Panday: Treat them like slaves not me.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Mr. C. Imbert]
Question put and agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Dr. K. Rowley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for the
extension. I will not take 30 minutes; I will just take a few minutes to wind up.
Another problem that the Government has is that too many of our citizens are
questioning the Government's priorities and they are afraid that, as they are faced
with this taxation, the moneys could be used for things they would not approve of,
especially in a climate where the Government is giving the impression: "I do not
really have to listen to you; while I am here, I will do as I please because you sent
me here."
Let me draw something to your attention in the context of this tax. Suppose
the tax is raised. We know it is going into the Consolidated Fund. Suppose this
Government really takes basket and gets involved with Air Jamaica. I tell my
Government tonight that the tax I pay, I am marking my money. It is to buy
medicine for the hospital; chalk for the school and pay old age pension. None of it
is to go into any such venture. I say that because that is how it happens.
We had BWIA. We offered shares in BWIA at $1 to our Caribbean neighbours. Not
one took it up because we were to carry that can. We carried it to the tune of hundreds
of millions of dollars over the years until, eventually, we here in Trinidad and Tobago,
as policy passed by this Parliament, had to allow BWIA to go under. It cost us over $1
billion to make all kind of payments to people who were owed by BWIA—taxpayers of
this country. We trimmed BWIA. We gave up the Heathrow slot. Today, if you fly from
this country, you have to end up in Gatwick and from there to downtown London is
another trip. We did all that to get out of the saddle of an airline that we could not bear.
428
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[DR. K. ROWLEY]
Today, we are invited to pick up somebody else's problem. I am putting the
people of this country on notice that we have nothing to gain, based on what we
have been through with BWIA, in picking up someone else's legacy.
We have found, by our own bitter experience that we have had to divert
substantial sums of resources that should have gone to the health service, the
school system, the road system over the years, just to keep BWIA going. After we
have brought it to where it is now, it would be a kind of madness to allow people,
out of delusions of grandeur or the intention to build an empire with more wings,
to pick up troublesome Air Jamaica and saddle the people of Trinidad and Tobago
with that.
You may very well find that as we levy taxes on property in Trinidad and
Tobago, if we make the wrong expenditure decisions, we may end up supporting
unproductive ventures. That is where accountability comes in and as the people of
this country are being called upon to contribute more to their own environment, in
a situation where there is a strong feeling that we have not done the best that we
could, and taking no comfort from the fact that other people pay that tax; other
people are not in our situation—our situation is quite unique in that we have a
pool of resources coming out of the hydrocarbon sector which funds our
expectations and we should ensure that we do the best we can with that.
This is not a light matter; taxation is never a light matter. It is for the
Government to come clean and say exactly what we are doing. There will be
some fallout to it, I am sure, but we cannot go forward under the guise that we
fool them and the money will come in down the road when it is too late. Trust is
the only thing that the people want from the Government and the only thing to
ameliorate or to remove the anger, the resentment and the anxiety that is
associated with this tax is for the Government spokespersons to come clean and
say what we are doing.
Mr. Harry Partap (Cumuto/Manzanilla): Mr. Speaker, we are discussing
tonight the Property Tax Bill 2009 and Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill, 2009. The
Bill to increase the property tax is yet the clearest indication so far that the boast
of the hon. Minister of Finance of PNM's prudent management of the economy is
nothing more that than, a nasty and vicious piece of political propaganda.
What is prudent about running a deficit budget of billions of dollars for the
past two years when you had an oil and gas windfall of over $300 billion in a time
of plenty? On the contrary, Madam Minister of Finance has been reckless in the
management of the economy. She has been a bad money manager and now that
429
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
the Government has squandered our money, they are here to impose draconian
measures on our property to squeeze further every cent they can get their hands
on.
The Government is now raking and scraping and raiding every piggy bank in
the House to sustain their wild spending and that is a failure. Good governance
demands a level of credibility, a level of integrity and a level of truthfulness from
those who hold the reins of power and we are not getting that from the PNM
Government.
We are getting a massive cover-up and a wicked spin on the problems
confronting the people of Trinidad and Tobago. The Government is covering up
and glossing over a number of problems in this country. The state of the economy,
the runaway crime levels, the breakdown of institutions, the near collapse of the
infrastructure, particularly in rural communities; the outbreak of swine flu, as my
friend and colleague, the Member for Princes Town North has been saying over
the past few days. Now we have this vicious and punitive property tax.
This Government continues to deceive and fool the people by making a
mockery of truth. Truth is made to stand on its head by those on the opposite
Benches. We—and I am sure the majority of people of this country—no longer
trust this Government.
This Bill is but one example of a government deceiving its people. Ministers
have been playing on the minds of the people by the propaganda associated with
the property tax. They did it when they changed the old age pension to make it the
Senior Citizens Grant. When we told them that changing pension to Senior
Citizens Grant meant that the Government could interfere with the old age
pension, they said we did not know what we were talking about.
[MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]
As they said that, they really went out and now we are sure that they have
been cheating the old people. A retiree now is getting $1,050 less on the pension.
In other words, Cabinet is saying that an elderly person cannot spend more than
$2,800.
By their utterances, they give the impression that this property tax will have
minimal effect on people. In fact, the dramatization of this tax on TV sends a
subtle message that the poor will not be affected. What is more dangerous is that
one of the country's leading newspaper, the Trinidad Guardian, has joined the
PNM in playing down the effect of this tax on the lives of people.
430
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. PARTAP]
I refer to the Trinidad Guardian editorial of Saturday, December 12, 2009,
page 12. It says:
“…It is necessary to point out that the property tax system is not likely to
affect the poor and dispossessed as much as the introduction of the VAT did.”
What arid nonsense!—if I am to quote the Minister of Works and Transport.
How can anyone tell me that an increase in the property tax of between 900 to
3,000 per cent will not affect people?
According to the propaganda ads of the Ministry of Finance published in the
newspapers, the smallest house on a speck of land anywhere in the country will
now attract a property tax of $972 per year, based on the rental value. I invite you
to look at the ads in the newspapers.
Mr. Imbert: Nonsense.
Mr. H. Partap: Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not a house in the quiet and
rustic village of Four Roads, Tamana, in my constituency, that can attract a rental
value of $3,000. [Interruption] That is where you are fooling people. That is not
what your ad said. Yet these homeowners will be required to pay a property tax of
$972. [Interruption] You are saying it is not true, but that is what you had on the
newspapers. That is how you explain the tax to people.
Mr. Imbert: That is not true.
Mr. H. Partap: I am talking about what you said; what the Government
authorized in the newspapers. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking about the
homeowners in Four Roads, Tamana. The Government should be paying those
people to live there because you cannot get proper roads or water and like my
colleague, the Member for Diego Martin West, lines were run about a year and a
half ago and there is no water.
10.00 p.m.
The pump is not working; $1 million pump and there is no water in Four
Roads, Tamana. But these people will have to pay a property tax of $972 dollars.
Hon. Members: That is not true.
Mr. H. Partap: I do not know why they are saying that. That same house
and land is currently taxed at approximately $70 a year. I think it is $60.40.
But, under the new property tax regime, the house owner is liable to a tax of
$972. I am using the ad that the Government placed in the newspapers over
the past two months.
431
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Imbert: Where is the ad?
Mr. H. Partap: I will have to bring it another day. File a question and I will
bring it for you. There is an increase of $912. I said I used that figure because the
Government's propaganda ad based its rental value on $3,000 and $5,000 per
month. I assume, therefore, that the minimal rental value will be $3,000.
[Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: You are wrong.
Mr. H. Partap: Why did you not say that in the ad? Anyway, I am not
speaking to you; I am speaking to Madam Deputy Speaker. I am assuming that
the minimum annual rental value is $3,000 and the maximum is $5,000. That is
what I am assuming from what you have placed in the ad.
Is the Minister of Finance aware, or is the Trinidad Guardian aware that they
are saying that an increase in the property tax of $912 a year will not affect the
poor who are currently struggling to keep their heads above this treacherous
economic water? What they are doing is again embarking on deception. They are
deceiving people.
This evening, when I raised the matter, while sitting here, that the tax would
have been $972, do you know what they said, including the Minister of Finance?
She said: "That is only $81 a month. It is not true, it is not $972, it is $81.” Do
you know what they did? They took $927 and divided it by 12 and they then got
$81. You are right, when you take $81 and multiply it by 12, you would get the
annual rate, which is $972. Why are you misleading the population? Why are you
deceiving the population? The Member for Diego Martin West said to come
clean and if you come clean, people will understand. Maybe the editorial writers
and the Government are correct that $972 is not much. Do you know why? The
business community is not going to absorb that tax on their property. They will
pass that tax on to the consumer. It is you and I who will be paying more for our
goods, as the Member for St. Augustine indicated in his address earlier this
evening. Really, the poor cannot pass it on. The poor will have to absorb it. They
will have to grind their teeth and pay this, or else they will lose their property.
You cannot say that I am talking nonsense, when the Bill tells you that you can
issue a warrant of distress.
This Government seems to be feeding off the poor. This Government has no
creativity to make ends meet on reduced income, so it rushes post-haste to impose taxes
on the poor at the first sign of financial distress. The PNM introduced measures to
increase the tax burden on the people of Trinidad and Tobago in most of the budgets
432
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. PARTAP]
presented since 2002. For the past seven years, we paid more and more taxes, but
received little and little in return. I want to tell you that the burden of taxation becomes
acute when not accompanied by a corresponding level of services.
What incentive is there for a resident who lives on the St. Marie Emmanuel
Road in Cumuto, the Fishing Pond Road, the North Oropouche Road, the Cumuto
Main Road, Guaico Tamana Road or the Pulm Mitan Road? What are the
incentives for citizens living there? What incentive do the citizens have to pay
this tax when their roads are mud tracks? Their roads have deteriorated to the
extent where there are large potholes on the main roads. I see the Member for
Diego Martin Central shaking his head because he goes to visit his father in St.
Marie Emmanuel and he has to go down into deep potholes. [Interruption]
Dr. Browne: “Leave meh fadda out ah dis, please!”
Mr. H. Partap: I will gladly leave him out. I am sure that he cringes every
time he has to travel on St. Marie Emmanuel Road, especially when he knows
what you have spent. It will only take about $11 million to fix that road; only $11
million when you have spent $2 million to put up a flag and you said that you
have five more, which would cost $10 million. So put that and fix the roads.
What incentive do these people have to pay the taxes? They have none, because
they do not benefit. They are not benefiting. Right now, we pay taxes on earned
income, through PAYE. We pay taxes on consumption of goods and 15 per cent VAT.
Our savings are reflected in property. We would now have to pay a tax on it. We pay
taxes on our insurance. We pay it on luxury items. The Member for Caroni East gave a
long list of taxes that we pay. We are tax-weary. This population is tax-weary. I wonder
what is next on the Minister's list for increased taxation. I guess that the health
surcharge may go up and then she may tackle the national insurance. Maybe you may
bring back dog licence and bicycle licence. I do not know.
I want to point out to you this evening that the Government led by the hon.
Basdeo Panday, during the period 1995—2001, never and I say never, raised
taxes in that period of time. Not once did the distinguished Member for Couva
North, as Prime Minister, increase or impose any taxation on the population, even
though oil prices were between a low of US $9 per barrel and a high of, I think at
that time, US $18 per barrel. Yet, today we are poor. We are poor because the PNM
received $300 billion in gas and oil revenue in seven years. We have to think
again about this. We really have to.
I am wondering if the Minister of Finance was not setting up the people
of Trinidad and Tobago in her budget presentation last year. Last year, the
433
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Minister made several upward adjustments in the various programmes in the lowincome housing programme of the Government. She made several upward
adjustments and these were favourable adjustments made to the rent-to-own
programme; the approved mortgage company's programme; the subsidy
programme; the beneficiary owned land subsidy; the home improvement grants;
and the home improvement subsides. She made some upward adjustments to
assist people to get their houses.
She then removed stamp duty on Government's low-income housing and
properties worth up to $850,000. She removed the stamp duty. That was to assist
people in getting their houses. Then there was a 3 per cent for housing in excess of
$850,000, the stamp duty, but less than $1.25 million. There was a 5 per cent stamp
duty for housing in excess of $1.25 million but less than $1.75 million; and 7½ per
cent for properties in excess of $1.7 million. I am pointing this out because what the
Minister was doing was assisting low-income people to get houses. We did not know
that she was doing this; she was just setting up the people, so that she can impose this
3 per cent tax on the rental value of properties. It is certainly a set up. I believe that it
is a set up now, where they are moving very quickly to provide the lands for Caroni
(1975) Limited workers. I guess once you owned the property then, you will have to
pay this new property tax. Maybe that is what they are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister gave the impression that everybody in
the country supports her action of imposing this property tax on the people. I want
to refer to the Saturday Express of December 12, which is a couple days ago.
There the question was asked to the public:
“Do you agree with Finance Minister Karen Nunez-Teshiera that the majority
of people in this country are in support of this new property tax?”
That was the question. The answers were from—they interviewed five people
and every single one of them said no, they did not agree. I really do not
understand where you got the idea from, that the country was behind you on this
property tax. The country is not behind you. They are angry. The country is angry.
People are not happy with what you are doing. We are asking you to reconsider
some of the things that you are proposing in our property tax.
I want now, at this time, to go to the Property Tax Bill. I am not sure that
people understand the assessment of properties. How are you going to assess the
properties? Acting on section 4 of the Valuation of Lands Act, this is one of the
sections that you are going to repeal. Many regional corporations were given the
green light to conduct a valuation of the existing sites.
434
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. PARTAP]
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this exercise was in process and, suddenly, at the end of this
year, it was discontinued. We understand that it was discontinued because of a
lack of funding. Now, incomplete information was received, and we understand
that this information had been passed on to the Valuation Department. We also
understand that it is on the basis of this incomplete information that the Valuation
Department is preparing the assessment that will be sent out to people in the New
Year after this Bill is passed.
I want to point out that assessment that was done through the regional corporations
was done by OJTs; people who are not experienced in valuation, and no trained valuator
had been on the field. The haste in which this Government is moving to introduce the
property tax, they are going to use the inexperienced people who supplied the
information through the regional corporations earlier this year, and they may be using
that information to assess houses. Now, that is not fair. I would really hope that is not
what they are doing.
On page 4 of the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill, we note at clause 7, that you
are repealing sections 6 and 7 of the Valuation of Land Act, and you are replacing
them with this clause. Now, the sections that you are repealing provide for
notification of valuation, and this notification provides for publication in the
Gazette or at least in one daily newspaper. Sections 6 and 7 which will be
repealed, allowed the landowner to be made aware when the land is to be valued,
and this is done through a notification in the Gazette and in one daily newspaper.
The amendment that you are putting in the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill,
2009 at clause 7 new section 6(1) states:
“Every owner of land in Trinidad and Tobago shall, by April 1, 2010 make, with the
Commissioner, a return of the land in the form set out in Schedule II.”
Clause 7 new section 6(2) says:
“Where the owner of the land fails to file a return by April 1,2010 the
Commissioner shall by Notice inform the owner that he is required to file a
return, failing which he may be liable to conviction under this section.”
What I am saying is that in the old law you had to place in the Gazette or in
the newspaper, a notice telling the landowner when his land is to be assessed, but
in this new law there seems to be no obligation for you to inform the landowner. I
find something is wrong with that. Now, it is here in clause 7 new section 6(1)
which says:
435
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
“Every owner of land in Trinidad and Tobago shall, by April 1, 2010 make,
with the Commissioner, a return of the land in the form set out in Schedule
II.”
That is if he has the Act when it is passed, then he can respond.
What has happened was that in the old law, a notice was placed in the Gazette and
the daily newspaper. Why can we not have that? Why can this not be reintroduced?
[Interruption] It is not there. You have repealed it. Now, what it is saying here in clause
7 (2) is that if you do not file the return, then they will inform you by registered post
that you did not comply. [Interruption] What I am reading here is that you are going to
get by registered mail, a notice telling you that you did not file and, therefore, you are
liable to whatever. Now, what I am saying is to put back in that section that has been
repealed and let there be a notification in a newspaper or the Gazette stating that the
land is going to be assessed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these are all the points I had in mind to raise. I want
to tell you again that this property tax is not going down well with the people in
Trinidad and Tobago and, therefore, we are suggesting—the suggestion was also
made by the Member for Oropouche East—that perhaps you should hold back on
passing these Bills this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. [Desk thumping]
Mr. Subhas Panday (Princes Town North): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank
you. Having heard the hon. Member for Diego Martin West, one would think that
this Government would be prudent enough to withdraw this Bill at this point in
time. The Member said that because of this taxation, the population will not
benefit directly and that the people are angry and disturbed. I want to confirm that
in my constituency the situation is the same.
The hon. Member for Diego Martin West made a good point that where most of the
resources of the State are being spent, it is equitable for persons who get all those things—
all the good roads in Valsayn; all the lights in Valsayn; and police responding quickly and
so on, but I am certain those people in Valsayn would not object to that high tax.
In San Fernando, they are creating a situation where they are putting the
country against itself. For example, the people you are saying that are paying the
8 per cent tax in San Fernando, they have the sewer section, lock joint, roads and
the police. In Rio Claro and Princes Town people use cesspits. They have to pay
$20 to get their cesspits cleaned, and when they pay their money they cannot get
their cesspits cleaned for six and eight months, and you are talking about equity!
436
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
You are saying that you are going to level the playing field, but the playing
field for whom?
I want to warn the Government here that the people who they feel they are
levelling the playing field for are there with them. They are not somewhere else,
and the time has come when you must ensure that you do not brutalize your own
poor PNM people like those in Sixth Company, Monkey Town, Princes Town
South, Rio Claro, Moruga, La Lune and Marac. Those persons those who voted
for the PNM have to go through gravel road in Marac. In La Lune there is no pipeborne water, in La Ruffin there is no pipe-borne water, and you are saying that
you are going to have a national tax of 3 per cent and 5 per cent where you are
levelling the playing field, and more resources have been spent and continues to
be spent in the high class areas, and the poor people have to pay for that. The
people are angry.
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: What is a high class area?
Mr. S. Panday: Like where you are living.
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: In Point Fortin!
Mr. S. Panday: You are from Point Fortin! You only go to meetings down there.
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: That is my address.
Mr. S. Panday: That is your mailing address. You go down there once a
fortnight. That is your mailing address. Do not come—according to the Member
for Diego Martin West—and bramble the people! So, when you see those people
marching here today—[Interruption] Your husband‟s place is in Diego Martin
where they killed the people.
Hon. Member: Do not go there.
Mr. S. Panday: How do you mean not to go there? [Crosstalk] “All yuh
nests feathered and you don‟t care about the poor people.” And you talk about
PNM cares. You do not care about the poor people. That is the point I am making.
[Crosstalk] You see, I am telling you that this taxation is an unfair taxation; it is a
draconian taxation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am certain, like the Member for Diego Martin
West, that when they collect this money, it will be going to the Consolidated Fund
which is called the “black hole”, and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will
decide where that money will be spent. Having regard to the history of the PNM,
that money will be spent in certain places on certain projects, maybe like the
437
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Waterfront Project and so forth, and the people in La Lune and Moruga are crying
out for roads. Those people will always be on the tail of the donkey. You will
always keep the poor people outside on the periphery.
You are bringing a tax here today to say that you are equalizing. You cannot
equalize in a situation where there has been inequity and inequality. You cannot
say that you are passing this measure to create equity when there is a system in
the society which has been stratified with inequality and inequity. We humbly ask
you—we feel that you do not know what you are doing—that the time is not too
late to withdraw this legislation and let us sit and review it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Diego Martin West spoke
and who has really energized me and has caused me to look at section 55 of the
Municipal Corporations Act—if he was here I would have told him that the Prime
Minister said that Tobago was a special case and in Trinidad and Tobago, if you
give them autonomy, “Do you want to have 13 Prime Ministers?” Do you
remember he said that? So the Government‟s plan is to undermine local
government and this is the first step here to make local government irrelevant.
They have fooled the local government regions. They have fooled them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an Act No. 21 of 1996, the Local
Government Act, and there is an entire area which speaks to local government.
There is a whole section under the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap 25:04, a
Part V which was passed by the NAR Government which deals with taxation.
What this wicked Government did is that they have fooled the local government
authorities, especially those who were not collecting taxes like the
Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Regional Corporation, the Princes Town Regional
Corporation and Mayaro and Sangre Grande regional corporations and told them
that the law is in place and then send the OJTs out there to do a new valuation. The
moment the valuation was done—Tim look at Part V there for me?
10.30 p.m.
Dr. Gopeesingh: Part V?
Mr. S. Panday: Yes. Part V deals with giving local government the power to
collect taxes and rates.
The point that the Member for Diego Martin West was making, if you allow
the local government authorities to collect their taxes and keep their taxes then
you could make your local government representatives responsible, but what we
are doing here, they are taking away the money.
438
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Dr. Gopeesingh: What part?
Mr. S. Panday: Part V. Moneys which the local government should have
taken, today they have come before this Parliament and the Municipal
Corporations Act is amended by repealing Part V.
So what they are doing is—[Interruption] Part V of the Municipal
Corporations Act speaks about house rates and the assessors. They fooled the
local government authorities and now having done the work, they come like a
“tief” in the night and repeal the legislation, taking away the power from local
government. This local government reform is a big farce and a fake, and they
talked about decentralization, but the local government, in the reform that they are
bringing they are really over-centralizing and making local government totally
irrelevant and this is the first step in this act.
As the Member for Diego Martin West stated, people would not mind if they
have to pay taxes because if they want a box drain, they will say, “Look they
raised my tax, you took my tax, you have my money so you fix my box drain”. If
that happens people would not be annoyed with the tax, but what this Government
intends to do is to grab this tax and put it in the—black hole—Consolidated Fund
and then do what they want with it. There is no guarantee—and the nonsense
somebody spoke on the other side, “so where are they getting the money from”?
The Member for Diego Martin West told you that after all of that expenses are
taken out then they will put them on the tail of the iguana.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: A donkey or iguana—[Inaudible]
Mr. S. Panday: Yes, and I feel you represent both of them. Minister, I feel
you represent both of them.
This legislation will indeed go nowhere and it is really aggravating the people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, another area—I want to ask them here today, to tell
you how they start their wickedness already. In every constituency where there
are UNC Members of Parliament, they have shadow Ministers and what they do, is
having emasculated local government, they have these special purpose
companies, like PSAEL and the Ministers or shadow Ministers go to Palo Seco
Enterprises and tell them where work must be done. [Interruption] Not that, the
work is done in such a way that there is no procurement process. So, when you
take these taxes here and you put it in the Consolidated Fund and it is taken out,
you are giving your own companies without any procurement to fix places only
that you want to fix.
439
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
If you watch in the Princes Town constituency you will see in polling
divisions only where PNM won their seats that they are fixing the roads.
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: That is not true.
Mr. S. Panday: That is true. [Interruption] You all are really shameless you
know. You are shamelessly denying that! I am telling you it is true. I am in
Princes Town. Are you living in Princes Town? I am telling you, I am there.
There are places for example, that the roads are terrible—last week they repaired
Sisters Road which was in fairly good condition and there are many other roads,
for example, St. Julien Road, polling division 3615 where there are almost 15
landslips in a distance of three miles and not a single landslip has been repaired.
You have the Thomas Ross Road, they would not fix it, but places where when
you check the voter turn-out and the PNM has won, they are taking the resources
and putting it in that direction.
Mr. Imbert: But he asked me to fix Sisters Road—[Inaudible]
Mr. S. Panday: Show me where?
Mr. Imbert: You wrote me and told me to fix the road.
Mr. S. Panday: Let me tell you something, that Member for Diego Martin
North/East. I am not one of those—you do not speak to me as though I am a
slave.
Hon. Member: What?
Mr. S. Panday: Get up! Get up! Find yourself there, [Laughter] and you all
run like little slaves. [Interruption] Do not try that with me. [Crosstalk] Get in the
House!
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: I think we need to use the breathalyser tonight.
Mr. S. Panday: Breathalyser, I am not a slave, my lady.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: I know, we are not saying that. You need the
breathalyser.
Mr. S. Panday: Madam Deputy Speaker, what I am saying is that when these
taxes are passed—
Mr. Imbert: He has to drive home tonight.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Get a designated driver.
Mr. S. Panday: A designated driver?
440
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Imbert: Yes, you are not in a position to—
Mr. S. Panday: You are trying to be personal? My son has not been charged
with marijuana, you know. Try to be personal.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Who is he talking about? You could not be throwing
that for me. I hope you are not making an assumption because you will have to
withdraw it. If you make [Inaudible] you will have to withdraw it. [Inaudible]
Mr. S. Panday: What did I make you do?
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: If you refer that to me, I will make you withdraw it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will ask him to withdraw that statement and apologize
because it is absolutely not true and he has to withdraw it.
Hon. Member: But he never said you.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: But he said it is me. [Crosstalk] I asked. [Crosstalk]
Mr. S. Panday: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Continuous crosstalk] Why
is it you are so thin skin?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, if it is that you are attributing that
statement to the hon. Member for D'Abadie/O'Meara, unless you have personal
knowledge of that, please withdraw the statement.
Mr. S. Panday: I said my son.
Hon. Member: No. [Crosstalk]
Miss Panday: He said, my son was not—
Mr. S. Panday: Check the records!
Miss Panday: He did not say your—
Mr. S. Panday: Anyway, this is too important to—all yuh want an apology?
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Apologize.
Mr. S. Panday: Apologize. [Crosstalk]
Madam Deputy Speaker, you see, they try to heckle people and when they get
it back they want the Chair to call on us to apologize. [Interruption] But this
debate is too important and they are trying to distract me so that I would not be
able to make my points in time. So please—turn your back if you want, it does not
matter. [Interruption]
441
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we raise the taxes, are we sure that St. Julien
Road will be repaired? Are we sure that Thomas Ross Road will be repaired? The
Buen Intento Road in Hard Bargain, the condition of the road, Brothers
Settlement—tell us what would be the situation of those roads? Garth Road, what
will be the situation? The people in Tableland have no water; the people in St.
Croix Road, no water; the people in Lengua Road, no water and you are telling
me you are trying to raise the taxes on people like those. That is why the people
are annoyed. The people are annoyed because this Government is providing no
services for the people and they are merely taxing people. That is why we say that
if you want to have—
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: [Inaudible]
Mr. S. Panday: What?
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Not you.
Mr. S. Panday: Not you, thank you. [Crosstalk and laughter] Madam Deputy
Speaker, this property tax is unfair, unjust and we are taking advantage of the
poor people who cannot bear it. They are raising the property tax—they said in
Port of Spain it will go down, San Fernando may go down, but the rest of the
country, what will happen to the rest of the country?
Taxes in the rural areas will be increased and the people in the rural areas do
not have the services as the people in the other areas and those are the people who
you are trying to raise this tax on. So, when you level the playing field, you are
levelling the burden, but you have not levelled the services and that is why this
legislation should not be pursued.
As the Member for Diego Martin West has stated, “You all are brambling
with people”. What is necessary—
Dr. Gopeesingh: Brambling and dribbling. [Crosstalk and laughter]
Mr. S. Panday: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want your protection,
because he was in CAREC and so many people died with swine flu—
Dr. Browne: What?
Mr. S. Panday:—in San Fernando General Hospital and he was in CAREC—
Dr. Browne: Madam Deputy Speaker, he will have to withdraw. I never
worked at CAREC.
Mr. S. Panday: You have contacts in CAREC.
442
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Dr. Browne: He needs to withdraw and apologize.
Mr. S. Panday: Withdraw and apologize, withdraw and apologize!
Dr. Browne: Standing Order 36(5), untrue. Never in my life! [Crosstalk]
Madam Deputy Speaker: He did apologize. He did it so quickly you did not even
hear. [Crosstalk]
Mr. S. Panday: Madam Deputy Speaker, they are trying to discriminate because
the population is against them.
Dr. Browne: Improper motives.
Mr. S. Panday: How will you share the resources? In San Fernando General
Hospital, in one month 14 persons died with the symptoms of swine flu and up to
today the Government and the Minister have not come out and explained to the
persons what the situation is.
I have a Motion in the Parliament, and the way this Government is arrogant, I
am certain that the Minister of Health will not come here this evening to respond
to the Motion. [Desk thumping] You want to raise the tax on people and you are
killing them in the hospital. The PNM is killing the people in South Trinidad and
now you want to raise taxes on them.
Dr. Gopeesingh: And they are lying about the H1N1.
Mr. S. Panday: I think that this debate must be brought back on rails, and
therefore, I will stick to the closing of the Bill and try to explain to the people out
there who are anxious, the people who are disgusted with you all, the people who
are angry with you all to put the cards on the Table.
First of all, we speak about the constitutionality of the Bill. The hon.
Member indicated that section 6 is saved by section 6 of the Constitution, but
one wonders, when one looks at the Act itself, one would see that there were
certain amendments which were carried out on the Lands and Buildings
Taxes Act, Chap. 76:04 and if the Government feels that because that law
was there and because that law had infringed constitutional rights it is saved
by section 6 of the Constitution, the Member for Tabaquite will go into that.
However, when one looks at the Act one would see that the draconian parts of
this Act were amended in 1994, that is after the coming of the republican
Constitution. Did you check and find out whether those sections in the Act of 1994 you
had the special majority for those? Because if you did not have the special majority for
those sections then therefore, the sections which you attempt to bring into this
443
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
legislation will be unconstitutional. We do not know if, as in the TICFA case, which the
Member for Tabaquite—the Cess case we could sever it from the rest of the Act so that
the whole Act does not go through as unconstitutional. So, that is a legal point that I
raise to substantiate the point.
People spoke about the need for constitutional majority. [Interruption] The hon.
Minister indicated the draconian legislation had been there before since 1940. That is in
the time of King George or King Edward? The last time was Queen Victoria. Now
what you are enacting in 2009, they are reenacting legislation which came from the era
long before Queen Elizabeth, but I think it is King George V, or VI, or one of them. We
thought that when you come here today and you bring legislation they were novel
legislation, instead what they did, they basically copied the Lands and Buildings Tax,
Act, Chap 76:04.
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: So you are familiar with it?
Mr. S. Panday: Pardon? Yes, I am, I do my homework unlike—
Miss Panday: You.
Mrs. Nunez-Tesheira: Unlike whom? [Crosstalk]
Mr. S. Panday: You see, you all are merely followers. [Interruption] Look,
look, do not provoke me, do not provoke. [Interruption] Do not force me to ask
you if you all could make a living outside, you know. Because to be treated like
that, the way I see you all were treated today, I wonder if you all could make a
living on your own on the outside. But that is neither here nor there.
Hon. Member: What is your concern? [Crosstalk and laughter]
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Panday: We speak in this Bill about owner. The interpretation section states:
“„owner‟ includes the owner or occupier of any land, and the receiver,
attorney, agent, manager, guardian or committee of any such owner or
occupier and any other person in charge or having the control or possession of
any land…”
The definition of owner includes occupier. At the end of the day, the charge is
not on the occupier but on the land. That is a terrible situation. They copied that
exactly from Chap. 76:04.
The Bill speaks of the preparation of the assessment roll, evaluation roll and
exemptions. They said that certain persons‟ rates may be deferred. In clause 23
444
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
they said that certain organizations as churches and land that would be exempted.
They went on to speak about the deferral tax. I wonder if this deferred tax in
clause 23(1) falls within section 6(1) of the Constitution. It says:
“The Board may upon the application of the owner of land authorize the
deferral of the payment of the assessed tax on the land on the grounds of the
impoverished condition of the owner and his inability to improve his financial
position significantly by reason of age, impaired health or other special
circumstances, that undue hardship to that owner would otherwise ensue.”
We are asking: Why defer it? If the person is ill and cannot pay, then why not
do a detailed investigation? If the person is a genuine case that would not be
many cases. Exempt the person and free the property.
Hear the persons who are getting deferred. Before I go to that point, suppose
the other person does not fall under the category of the Act which says that if the
second group is so impoverished, you could apply to have it exempted. Suppose
that person is a working poor who is barely making ends meet. In order to inherit
that property that person gets that burden. If the tax on that property was deferred
for 15 years, it does not say that there would be no interest on the capital.
They have said in this legislation, I think 3 per cent; after September 10th or
whatever date, 10 per cent and after that 15 per cent. They have not said in this
legislation whether it is simple or compound interest. If that is compound interest
and for five or six years the person who is inheriting that property might not be
able to clear the taxes and if that person does not fall under clause 23(2), then that
person would not be able to inherit that property from the parent. That is a
dangerous situation.
If that is the way you want to go we might as well reintroduce inheritance
taxes. Basically, what is happening here is that when you are about to inherit that
property, you may have to pay money almost to the extent of the value of the
property. You may not be able to go at it. If you want to raise the taxes, it is better
to let us know where we stand early so we would know what percentage tax you
will have to pay. You cannot bring an open-ended tax on the people. With
inheritance tax you would know that it is not open-ended. With this legislation it
is so vicious and open-ended that when you go to inherit you would not be able to
inherit. It is a frightening thing. You will see that later on they would seize your
property.
Who could get deferral? Persons on public assistance grant; disability grant;
senior citizen's grant which they have reduced and put a ceiling to; and the
445
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Trinidad and Tobago cash transfer card. As the Member for Diego Martin Central
has said, there are many smart men who got those smart men cards. [Interruption]
Pardon? So there are no smart men? There are not undeserving persons who
have obtained the Smart Card. [Interruption] No! No! You would get a chance
to answer. You all do not want to talk but you want to heckle. You are so weak
and incompetent that you cannot debate. Only four persons on the side debated on
such an important issue as land tax. All your constituents have not been given the
opportunity to hear you talk and you want to heckle and disturb.
We know. We have evidence where PNM people, four persons from the same
home have been given smart men cards. People like those would achieve this
unfair benefit. Knowing the PNM, you are encouraging it. That is one. Can you tell
me how many PNM? No. Stand and debate. I do not want to hear you now. Do not
waste my time.
Dr. Browne: Thank you Member for giving way.
Mr. S. Panday: Do not waste my time. Sit down!
Dr. Browne: You are a coward.
Mr. S. Panday: A coward? You are—Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go
at him. You are trying to derail such an important debate where every person will
be suffering. We know that the PNM by its record of discrimination and taking
care of its own would create a situation where their people, maybe after two
generations of smart men card might get the exemption.
Clause 27(1) says that on the death of the person the deferment comes to an
end. The deferment comes to an end on the death of the owner or the person
concerned. It says that when the person dies the taxes are immediately due and
payable out of the estate of the owner. Do you mean that at that stage the estate
must pay the money? If the person who is inheriting cannot pay the money,
would the property be sold in order to get the money? This is a frightening piece
of legislation. You can laugh. You can make a joke of this. If there is a genuine
person, there has been a deferral and the person dies, the taxes would become
payable immediately. They say that it must be paid out of the estate. Therefore,
the Government has its eye on the estate to seize it and sell the property on your
death. Although they give the impression that they are giving you some
assistance, in truth and in fact they are setting you up to seize your property.
It goes on with recovering of the taxes. This is the frightening situation and what
the public wants to hear. We want to tell the public about it. That is why you cannot
446
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
derail me. I am sticking on this Bill to explain it to the public. Hear how they did not
think about this properly. They are so hurry to tax and burden the people.
Clause 31(2) “RECOVERY OF TAXES” says:
“Notwithstanding subsection (1), the amount to be collected from the owner of land
may be collected from the tenant or occupier of the land or any part thereof and the
tenant or occupier may deduct the amount paid from the rent payable by him in
respect of the land.”
In Trinidad and Tobago, we have the Land (Security Tenants of Tenure) Act of
1981. I think that it is Act No. 11 which came into effect on June 01, 1981. This speaks
about security of tenure. You had rates and rents at that time being very low. You do
not have a rent board to go to the High Court and to raise rent from $100 to $200 might
not be worth the while. They are saying that that landlord because of all the constraints
of the law may be receiving a small rent.
However, they would assess your place. If the place is assessed, hear what to
do. Pay the tax firstly, and if after you pay the tax it is more than what you should
pay, then deduct the tax from the rent that you are paying the landlord. That is
what the section is speaking about. If you pay your tax you could deduct it out of
the rent which you are paying the landlord. They have included in the rent the tax,
although the landlord may not get the tax. It is frightening.
Suppose you have a situation where the rent is very small, the tax is very high and
you want to take the tax out of the rent, will we arrive at a situation where the landlord,
although he owns land would get no benefit from his land? Could that happen? These
are things which we must look at. That is why we must be careful with this law as we
move along.
If the Government wants to introduce this land tax, there are many persons who
have been tied up with the Land Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act, entering into an
agreement with those landlords whose lands have been tied up until 2011 and after that
they would get another lease for 30 years. It may be necessary, in those circumstances,
to offer the landlord to buy the land. The government can take the land and work out
the tax with the occupier. That might be a more equitable situation than having a piece
of legislation like this.
[MR. SPEAKER in
the Chair]
Hear what section 31(3) speaks about. It says:
“Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as affecting any contract
between the landlord and tenant with respect to the payment of such tax.”
447
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
They are saying that the taxation on the property is a first charge.
In clause 31(4), it goes on to say:
“Where the owner of land has contracted to let the same to a tenant at a stated
rent and the annual taxable value of the land is subsequently increased by
reason of the fact that account is taken of machinery and plant therein...”
When one looks at the Schedule one sees that the taxation on machinery, I
think, is 6 per cent. They are saying that if at one time you rent your property to
somebody and subsequently, they bring machinery into the property and they
have to pay 6 per cent tax on that property, 5 per cent tax on the building, owner it
is for you to “ketch”. They say that since the trail is on the land, the owner has to
pay the taxes. Although the tax is more than your rent, it is for you to “ketch”.
I will read it again, not for you all but for members of the public.
11.00 p.m.
I will read it again for members of the public.
"(4)
Where the owner of the land has contracted to let the same to a tenant at
a stated rent and the annual taxable value of the land is subsequently
increased by reason of the fact that account is taken of machinery and
plant therein…
(a) and plant belong to the tenant; "
It says you have to pay that tax although you do not have the money.
Suppose the landlord does not have the money to pay the tax, then 10 per cent
and 15 per cent interest will accrue. You the owner are entitled to recover from
the tenant, as a civil debt, the amount by which the tax payable by him has been
increased by reason of the fact of the plant and machinery.
Why are you so wicked? Why are you forcing landlords to pay taxes which are
higher than the rent; to take money from his pocket and pay you and then go to the
person as a civil debt? Do you know how a civil debt operates? You go to court; the
person leaves the property; you have to spend money to find him; serve him; he goes
before the court and says he cannot pay the money because he has gone bankrupt and
sold all the machinery. He says: "You know what I will do? By judgment summons, I
will pay you $50 per month." That is the effect of this law.
It is frightening and draconian; not well thought out. What are you doing to poor
people in this country? Why do you not go against the man as a civil debt? You do
448
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
not want to have to do anything. Government grabs the taxes from the landlord
and tell him "he to catch". This legislation cannot be fair. We cannot support this
legislation. I ask the Government to review this situation.
When you talk about equity and inequality, look at what you are doing to people.
When one reads into the Bill, one sees the unnecessary burden you are placing on
landowners. If the tenants leave the place and you did not collect the rent, you may
have to take him to court, if you can find him. You may have to go to court to find him.
Do you know what happens after the tenant goes? In clause 32, it says that:
"Any annual tax due under this Act together with any statutory increase…"
—that is the 3 per cent, then, in September, 10 per cent and then 15 per cent. That
is a charge on your property due to no fault of the landlord. That is a charge on his
land; that cannot be just; that cannot be just.
It says:
"…tax due under this Act together with any statutory increase which may
have accrued under this Act"—that is the interest—"shall, until paid, be a
charge on the land in respect of which the annual tax is due and payable on
and without prejudice to such charge to the power of sale conferred by the
Rates and Charges Recovery Act."
Is that fair?
It says later on that he could take legal action. Why are you putting a poor
landlord under such stress and strain to extract from him taxes he did not
anticipate when he rented his place and for which he has committed no wrong by
renting the place? This is the effect of this Act.
It says in the said clause 32(2):
"(2) Where the land consists of moveable tenement and the tenement is
removed before the annual tax due thereof is paid, the annual tax shall
remain a charge on the land and may, without prejudice to the charge
and to the statutory power of sale for enforcement…recovered from the
owner…by action in any Court of competent jurisdiction."
It speaks about tenement. What is a tenement? They copied this law; do they
understand what they have copied? Tenement is found in subclause (3), which says:
"For the purpose of this section, „moveable tenement‟ means a residential unit
which is not permanently affixed to the ground..."
449
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
In Barbados, they call them chattel houses.
In Trinidad, we do not have any chattel houses. Did you read the law? Did
you study this? It is totally irrelevant to Trinidad and Tobago. We do not have
chattel houses in Trinidad and Tobago. [Interruption] It says that the annual tax
payable in respect of every land shall be paid by the board.
Coming back to this point, assuming the person has a caravan and takes up his
caravan and disappears, the landlord has to suffer for that. That is why when
people speak about the constitutionality of the Bill, one would see that it is
draconian indeed. It says if you, Mr. Landlord, who due to no fault of yours, have
found yourself in this predicament—this is statutory legislation and says:
"(3) Where any amount of tax is not paid on or before September 15(a) a further sum 10 per cent”
—and you are telling us here that that is to help people.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member for
Princes Town North has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Dr. H. Rafeeq]
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. S. Panday: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not speak to those
who have said no, but to the population, which is angry. I am giving the
population the explanation of how dangerous the Bill is.
The Bill says, under clause 37, that if you do not pay the taxes—and they are
going to tell you that this was the law and they just copied it. We are saying that,
having regard to the percentages you put there, it is unfair to hold on to that old
legislation in this new legislation.
If you do not pay it, they can take the goods and chattel of the owner and they can
distress and sell it to pay the arrears. This PNM Government which cares is doing that. It
says that they can distress and go with the rent. Hear what this wicked PNM
Government is doing. Although we are in a situation where they are putting
unnecessary burdens on the people, they are holding on to legislation for the purpose of
levying any distress under this clause: "any person", any Tom, Dick and Harry; any
PNM fanatic, if expressly authorized in writing by the board, execute a warrant of
distress if necessary and break open your building for the purpose of levying.
450
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
Mr. Speaker, you know the law. Under civil law, when you distress, you
cannot break open people's place under the common law. If the door is half open,
you can slip through and get in, but the PNM, after they put this burden of tax on
the people, are saying that they are maintaining the law where they shall break
down your door. Vagabonds, rogues and criminals speak like that. You will break
open the poor man's house to levy.
Hear what the Government is saying. Today, people were brutalized out there.
Clause 39(4) says that:
"…an officer of the board, now in their executing warrant, under distress of
this section, may call the assistance of the police and it shall be the duty of
every police officer when so required to assist in the execution…"
So they are not only breaking down your place when you are not home, they
are bringing the police. When they break and take whatever goods, they leave
your house open for bandits to steal the rest.
This poor landowner, when he comes home and sees everything gone, they
can keep it for four days—this is the law they are passing—at the end of which
they will sell it. We, who know about levying, know that they break everything;
grab it like rubbish and, at the end of the day, when they sell goods they have
distrained upon, they sell it as a fire sale. Nine out of 10 times, it cannot pay for
the taxes being levied. After they sell them, they skin you like a fig—television,
stove, fridge—and go with it and after that they come later for the property. This
is what the Bill is about. It says that at the end of four days, at which time, the
actual cost and charges of an incident of the distress is not paid, the same may be
sold.
Hear what the Government is doing "out of the proceeds of such sale, there
shall first be paid the cost and charges". So you are paying the police to keep you
out of your own house; the charges of an incident to the sale and keeping the
distress and subsequently the amount due in respect of tax, et cetera.
If anything remains, the landlord gets it. Nine out of 10 times when they move in
and mash up your house, you expect you will get any money from that? This is what
the Act is about. Do not come today and tell me that it was in the Land Taxes Act
74:05. We are in a different situation. There has been a shift in the taxation where you
say long ago you are paying $100 and you have this law. You can say that fellow is
playing the fool and you deal with him, but when you put a person in a position where
after 3 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent that tax goes up so high that the man cannot
pay for it, is that what you are going to do him?
451
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
It says that they just signed the warrant for the future. There is no due process
in this; no going to court and this is taxation legislation to raise revenue. They can
fool you and say they will ease you up. This Bill does not make provision to pay
that amount by instalments. The moment they levy on you, you pay all or lose
everything.
This Bill does not have a single line to say what happens if the man is working
and he comes and he cannot negotiate with the board to pay $X a month until he
clears it. This legislation and if you do not have that provision, no member of the
board can ease you up. PNM suck your eye and dig out your liver. This is what
PNM is doing to the poor people.
They are not going to court for this money you know. They do what they have to
do and the President—I do not know if they are looking for Constitution reform, but
it will be the Cabinet advising the President who may merely issue a warrant.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a simple matter. It says under clause 41 if the taxes
have not been paid for five years the President may, by warrant seize your
property and sell it. When they forfeit your property, it is said that the property is
vested in the State. I do want to bring you in this debate, but listen to this, I know
that you are an expert on land.
“…shall be forfeited, and shall vest in the State, in absolute dominion, free
and discharged from all rights, estates, interests, equities and claims of any
other person.”
Do you know what that means? If I have a property and I give the property to
myself for life and after I die, to my child, when they take your property, your
child has nothing to get. All rights of others persons and all interests of other
persons, though they were a part or the system; your children would be placed on
the streets. Your children cannot get anything from this legislation.
Hear what happens. We know about conveyance. I am a junior in that. People
sell the surface rights and maintain the oil rights. I want them to explain:
“…vest in the State, in absolute dominion, free and discharged from all
rights…interests…”
Is it that people who have the oil rights and mineral rights are gone too? Tell
us. This is important. The people want to know this. The people are frightened
outside there. It also states "any equity". For example, if the property is
452
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
mortgaged—Mr. Speaker, you know better than I do. There is the mortgager and
the mortgagee who will have an interest in the property. The mortgager will have
the equity of redemption. We want to find out what is the position with the
mortgagee. Is it that his money is lost too? Is it that he has to "chase ah man" to
get back the money and this person has no property? That is why those people
who were marching did so because they had an intuition. I am certain when they
see the law and they have the law explained to them, thousands of people will
come out and march, having seen what this legislation is about.
All rights, all estates and all equities, should the Government do the poor
people of Trinidad and Tobago this? This is plenty money we are speaking about.
With the compounded tax, they have not indicated whether the tax would be
simple interest or compound interest, but they will grab the property and go with
it. They will take possession, with the police. After they have taken all your goods
on this land and "dey sell away all yuh goods and leave yuh penniless and without
amenity, and in the fire sale in which they have sold all your goods for nothing,
probably to their friends and family, you are still owing all de money.” They
would then go and take away your land. So they are leaving you a pauper. This
legislation will pauperize people. This legislation is draconian.
Do not use the excuse here today that this is saved by section 6 of the Constitution.
You should not use that excuse at all, because it is a different situation from that date.
They merely copied this from the 504. I thought the hon. Minister would have come to
the Parliament and not merely recite the various clauses, but tell us:
"Any land forfeited under this Act may be dealt with as vacant or waste State
lands."
What does that mean; it is gone?
Hear what happens, the President—maybe that might be the Prime Minister,
or the Cabinet. All of you here, every one of you, when we say President, it means
you the Cabinet. You are the persons who will be taking this decision to pauperize
the people. You, all of you. That is why I want to tell you one thing; this might be
your waterloo. Not only UDeCott, this would be your waterloo.
Hon. Minister of Education, I am certain that you did not read this, because if
you had read it you would have seen the complexities of the legislation.
"44(2) The President may fix any higher price than the upset price …for any
such forfeited land…wholly or partly cultivated…"
It says if they sold the land and they got extra money, a chi-chi, they might
453
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
give you some. But, from experience we know whenever lands are sold, it is sold
basically at a price that covers the encumbrance and the land owner gets nothing.
Mr. Speaker, hear what it says again; hear how this Act is complex. If you
have a piece of land—do you remember the law of adverse possession? They
have introduced the law of adverse possession, under Chap. 5:07. I think it is the
Limitation of Real Property Ordinance that they have introduced that law into this
law, where the Government will grab your land under the principle of adverse
possession. In adverse possession, if your have your land and you did not attend
to it for 16 years and somebody is on your land for 16 years, that person would
claim your land. That was introduced into this legislation. It states that:
“45(1) Any land which for a period of sixteen years has been unoccupied and
un-assessed, and upon which during such period, no taxes have been paid,
shall be liable to be forfeited by the State.”
That is frightening.
Look at this situation. For example, the people in Marabella, with respect to
the fire, suppose they were owing taxes for four or five years on that land and
they owed those taxes but a fire, emergency or disaster took place and they die
and they leave this property to a two-year old. They are already owing five years
on that property, that means before this child reaches the age of 18, the child
would lose the property because 16 years would have elapsed. This is a situation
that can take place. Maybe if the person is so poor and has—for instance the
people in the Mange who receive lands in 1812 when the American soldiers
landed in what is called the “Company”.
There are large tracts of that land which were given to the Marshalls and the
Benwars, because it was like a community and people occupied one another's
land. There are large tracts of land in the companies which have not been
occupied. Do you know what the State says? It says: "You the have people of
Sixth Company, Fifth Company, Fourth Company and Third Company have not
regularized your position in the past and, therefore, we are saying…" Do you
remember Circular Road, Sixth Company? That piece of land between Circular
Road that is unoccupied, the State could walk in any day now and seize that land.
Because of the history of the land culture of the people, everybody is family. They
did not probate and put their house in order. This law has created a situation,
where, using a principle of Adverse Possession or not occupied or assessed for 16
years, the Government can grab your land and seize it. It does not only happen
with the people in Sixth Company and the people who came here as American
454
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
settlers, but many Indian persons and illiterate persons who came here. They did
not probate their estate. They had little problems with their family. While they are
fighting over that, the land would be gone to the Government. “While families
have ah little confusion, de Government gone wid the land.” [Interruption] Many
indentured labourers came here and they were illiterate and did not put their house
in order. Furthermore, let me tell you, many of those Indian people live in
extended families. [Interruption]
Hon. Member: Indian, Indian.
Miss Panday: He is speaking specifically about that.
Mr. S. Panday: I am speaking about Indian immigrants. You do not have to
get hot under the collar.
Miss Panday: They cannot say the word.
Mr. S. Panday: I said that the people who moved into the companies were
African people who fought in the American Civil War. After the war they came to
Trinidad. [Interruption] I am not—you all are so racist. If people make a
comment like that and they interpret everything in race—anyway, wasting time.
Again, with respect to that piece of land it states that:
“45(2) The President may, by warrant under his hand, reciting such land has
been occupied and un-assessed for…”
that number of years, just sign a warrant and it is taken by the State:
“in absolute dominion, free and discharged from all rights, estates, interests,
equities and claims of any other person.”
That is frightening. They will say it was in the law before. The law has been
observed in its non-implementation, but by seeing the PNM bringing that
legislation and increasing the taxes and maintaining this part of the law, it is clear
that the PNM is coming for the people. At this time, although it was not
implemented before by raising the taxes and keeping these draconian provisions,
it is clear that they are coming for the people.
These are the dangerous sections in this Bill. There are other little problems
which were not properly done. For example, they speak of you being prosecuted
and the cost of $5,000. If you are prosecuting you must have an alternative. They
are so hurry to put their hands on people's money that they have not drafted the
legislation properly. Because if you look at the offence, hon. Attorney General,
you will see where if you obstruct anybody, a witness who made his declaration
455
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
on conviction and indictment is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of
$5,000, not alternatively. I would have thought that we will bring a civil debt, so
that we would have the alternative.
It says:
"47(1)
Subject to this Act, an offence under this Act may be prosecuted and
any penalty or forfeiture imposed by this Act may be sued for,
prosecuted and recovered summarily, and all sums whatsoever payable
may be recovered and enforced in the manner prescribed by the
Summary Courts Act,…"
Hear how this legislation is so designed only to grab the landowners/the poor
people by their throats and drag them to court.
"47(2)
A person authorized in writing by the Board may prosecute and
conduct any complaint or other proceedings under this Act in
respect of any offence or penalty."
It says, again, in clause 49:
“Anyone who prevents any person authorized by warrant under this Act from
taking possession of any land, or who molests, obstructs or hinders…”
“When dey coming for you if you only stand up, yuh obstruct meh; watch
meh hard, ah kill yuh.”
“or who molests, obstructs or hinders any such person in taking such possession, or
who assaults, obstructs, molests or hinders any person whomsoever in the
execution of his duty or in doing anything which he is empowered to do by any
regulation…”
You are imposing here:
“…commits an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of
five thousand dollars.”
What you are saying here is that you are going to impose penalties on persons
on regulations which have not been made as yet, which we do not know about as
yet. This is the kind of legislation that we have before this House today. This
legislation is draconian. Some people say that it requires a constitutional majority.
Some people say no. But, what I want to tell the population out there, this is what
the PNM has in store for you. This is what the PNM intends to do to you; use this
legislation to hurt the people and to take the money. When they take these taxes
456
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. S. PANDAY]
and sell your, there is no guarantee that you will benefit from this property,
because of the biased way that this PNM Government operates.
Mr. Speaker, I humbly ask this Government to review their position, because
if they did not review their position, the people will become angrier and angrier
and a situation will arise where more people would have to be brutalized than
those who have been brutalized today on the pavements of the Parliament.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
11.30 p.m.
Miss Mickela Panday (Oropouche West): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to join this debate entitled a Bill to make provision for the assessment
rating and taxation of land and for matters incidental hereto.
Mr. Speaker, what this Government is trying to do to the people of Trinidad
and Tobago with the passage of this Bill, at the eleventh hour, is nothing short of
callous. There are no words to describe the con job they are attempting to commit
against the citizens of this nation by the almost sneaky passage of a Bill that very
few people understand. Thanks to the Member for Princes Town North, they now
have a much clearer understanding. I say so because what other conclusion are we
supposed to come to. Only months ago, during the budget debate—I believe it
was on September 19, 2009—the Minister quite skilfully, in about three
paragraphs, mentioned the reform of the property tax regime, which really
explained nothing about the tax itself, but described how easy it was to collect it.
Fast forward, months later, after hearing no detail about this tax, out of the
blue, the Leader of Government Business, mentioned last Friday that the
Government will be laying this Bill, which is really quite big with 57 clauses,
seeking to describe a whole new regime for the imposition of a property tax. In a
matter of a few days, it turned out to be a week, after the laying of this Bill, they
expected it to be debated in full on December 18, 2009, the last sitting of this
Parliament and the week before Christmas, when families are busy preparing for
the festive season.
Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself: What was their intention? Were they
hoping that the people‟s attention would have been focused elsewhere? So, the
first time they would hear any details about this particular Bill—the first time they
would understand the serious implications as was pointed out by the Member for
Princes Town North—is when they are expected to pay it, because they would not
be paying attention to what is happening today. Could this Government—after
457
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
witnessing all the suffering that the people of the country have had to endure
under their governance—still add insult to injury and be so callous?
How can this Government seek to justify this tax that has simply crept up
upon us? More importantly, why has this tax just crept up upon us with such
urgency? Why is the Government in such a rush to pass this Bill which they say
must take effect from January 01, 2010? We must ask ourselves that. That is what
the Government has to tell the country, or at least the Minister must explain to the
country tonight when she responds. We have heard so far justification after
justification, but we have not heard the truth, and that is this tax is being
introduced with such speed and haste and, in fact, what I see in a sly manner, as
simply the result of this Government‟s wanton expenditure. You have heard my
colleagues talk about that.
The Government has run out of money and now it is the taxpayers who have
to pay the price. They are scraping the barrel. We have seen taxpayers‟ money
being flushed down the drains without prioritizing, and that is most important, as
my colleague said, to improving the lives of the nation and making the people‟s
lives better.
This Government has not spent one-third of the money it should have spent in the
last seven years on roads, water, bridges, security, health care and education. What they
have done is spent over a billion dollars on two conferences; $160 million on
refurbishing diplomatic buildings; $15.5 million on refurbishing Whitehall; $3 million
to upgrade the Attorney General‟s office in Tobago; and yet $11 million more to do
what God knows at the Prime Minister‟s residence. I do not want to go on with the list,
because that is just the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Speaker you see, after all the frills and
fancies, we in this country are no better off than we were after all this money has been
wasted. In fact, because of all the wanton wastage and expenditure, we are actually in a
worse position than we were prior to that, and you really do not need an economic
degree to figure that out, and now up comes this property tax. Mr. Speaker, that is the
reason for the imposition of this tax. We need to say this because it is so easily swept
under the carpet.
We are in a budget deficit in this country. To make matters worse, instead of
doing that which is necessary to clear the debt, the Government continues
spending more than we have, and boldly feel that after having done so, they can
put this burden on the taxpayers and make them cushion their fall. That cannot be
right. That is heartless in a time like this. It is selfish and it is irresponsible. It is
unfair that after they have made their mess, we the people of Trinidad and Tobago
458
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MS. M. PANDAY]
have to pay for it. This is the PNM Government led by the Member for San
Fernando East for seven years. In my view, this Government has shown nothing
but contempt for the people of this country. That is the reason we in the
Opposition continuously speak about Government prioritizing.
You have heard us say this over and over again, that it is not about how much
money you can spend; it is about how much you can spend to improve the quality
of lives for the people of Trinidad and Tobago regardless of colour, creed, gender
or age. We in this country must start to practice politics of the people and not of
ourselves. Sadly, however, this Government has lost its way. They have lost their
way when they started or decided to dip into taxpayers‟ money with a threat to
taking away their homes. Before anybody jumps up, I would go on and explain.
It is not the fault of the taxpayer that this Government has presided over the
death of over thousands of our citizens; 547 last year and 479 to date, more than
half of which comprised the youth of our nation. It is not the taxpayers fault that
pregnant women and the elderly have to sleep on chairs and benches in our
nation‟s hospital; it is not the taxpayers fault that there is no continuous supply of
water. The people have to drive on the nation‟s roads, some of which, especially
in the southern constituencies, are impassible but, most of all, it is not the
taxpayers fault that the future of the youth of the nation has been compromised by
this Government‟s failure to save for a rainy day. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the
Government to explain to the population so that they would know and understand
the repercussion of such a tax on them individually.
Earlier on, I heard the Member for Tunapuna saying that she was on her way
up and she heard a lady called on the radio, and the lady sounded desperate and
anxious. The people are desperate and anxious because they do not believe what
you say and they have a good reason to not do so. On one hand, you are saying
that no one would lose one‟s home and, on the other hand, you have the valuation
survey stating property seizure as a last resort. There is a continuous mixing of
messages and people just cannot believe this Government anymore.
Some of my colleagues have mentioned that we in the Opposition have been
conducting a series of meetings throughout our constituencies, and we were doing
this, not only to enlighten the people, but to really get some kind of feedback as to
how they feel about the imposition of such a tax so that we could be their voice in
the Parliament. The consensus has been, at least from my experience and the
Members for Caroni East and Fyzabad, that when the Government gets this
money, what are they going to do with it? The people are concerned. Are they
going to waste it and then come back to Parliament and increase the same tax, or
459
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
are they going to come up with some new random tax out of the blue quite
sneakily? That is the problem. The people of this country are nervous, hysterical
and anxious, because they do not trust this Government and because you do not
have a good track record.
How do you expect people to react with the imposition of a new property tax
for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural? How do you expect
people to react when in the past, this Government had billions to burn, and the
quality of their lives did not improve, and the money is finished? It is not rocket
science. You need to perform; you need to work for the people and not against
them, and then they will believe that the Government has their best interest at
heart.
The Minister of Finance talked about the Government sensitizing the
population about the imposition of such a tax so that they know about it. That was
not our experience. That is what she said, but I am saying that they have failed to
sensitize the population about the imposition of this tax. The entire exercise was
not aimed at doing so. This was an exercise in public relations and, obviously, it
would not achieve what it was supposed to.
As the Government attempts to pass this Bill, one of the bigger issues—
believe it or not, a number of persons in my constituency are still wondering how
could a property have a rental value, if it is not actually being rented by the
owner, nor is it the intention of the owner to rent it. It seems like a basic question
to us. It is really not for us to sit here and sound great. Since the people of the
nation did not get a chance to know what this Bill is about, it is for us to relate to
them, in a way that does not “blar blar” too much.
We are talking about rental value and all the properties in Trinidad and
Tobago have a rental value. That is what we saw in the Bill. By that you mean
that every property has the potential, whether it is the intention of the owner to
rent it or not, but what is the potential rent? As the Minister has said, the rental
value is determined by what rent the property would fetch on the open market if it
were put up for rent.
11.45 p.m.
We were in our constituencies explaining that to people. You see, the problem
is that when you explain that to them they say, and so it follows that not all
properties on the same street would necessarily have the same property taxes. The
problem is, they are preaching that they need this because they want to promote
equality—so they would not have the same property taxes to pay because the
460
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MS. M. PANDAY]
Minister said “the rental value of houses on the same street may vary according to
classification of the building, floor area of the building, age and condition of the
building, utilities available such as water, telephone, electricity”—those were her
own words.
Tell me then, by a process of elimination and as my colleague from Princes
Town North said, if this is the case, the money you are collecting surely would
not be used for the improvement and development of any particular area, which is
really what, as many of the Members here have said, it should be used for, and
that is what is done in other countries. How can this system then be classified and
how can we explain it to our constituents and sell this idea to them? How could it
be classified if it is fair and equitable, when clearly, by the mere imposition of the
tax it is not?
Is this so that the Government—and they ask, people are experiencing
discrimination, whether people here want to discuss it or not. So, of course,
people in our constituencies are going to ask, is this just another way for them to
practise discrimination, which, of course, this Government is so infamous for?
What about those in society—this is really a deep concern of mine—who are in a
more vulnerable position, and by that I mean students, the elderly, and you would
find today—and I am sure my colleagues would agree—a number of single
mothers, what is their position?
Did the Government take them into
consideration? They did not, because on mentioning them earlier on—when I
heard the Member for St. Augustine—the Members opposite got defensive.
Mr. Speaker, with particular reference to the students, and I know it was
mentioned, but just to reiterate with particular reference to the students in the
country, I want to make special reference to the non-proclamation of the Rent
Restriction Act which continues to act as a yoke around the necks of the youths of
our nation who are really trying to do nothing else besides make a better life for
themselves. Sadly, because of this situation, sometimes we find—and it is not any
insult to landlords, but sadly we find because of their situation students are left at
the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. It exists whether we like it or not. We
cannot therefore, as responsible legislators—and we must not allow this to take
place, especially in light of the fact that a large percentage of the 16,000 students
who rent very close to the University of the West Indies campus would now be
left open to bear even higher rents, as obviously when the tax is levied on the
landlords, it is then passed on to them in the form of higher rents.
The Government—and I am simply saying without going into too much
details—has to take responsibility and implement, where they see necessary of
461
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
course, the legislation that would protect, both the landlord and the tenant. There
are a lot of families in this country who have sacrificed almost everything in order
to send their children to university. Those families are from various parts of the
country, but I can say a number of those families are from South Trinidad and
from my constituency, they find themselves, because of the chaotic traffic
situation that you have to face every morning, really having no choice but to rent.
It is painful to think how they will now cope with this additional financial cost
of paying this increased rent whilst at the same time having to deal with the
payment of their own property taxes for their homes and in some cases small
businesses if they have one. This Government fails to realise—I mean it seems
almost ridiculous—that more than 200,000 people in this country live under $14 a
day. That is what we are dealing with. As my colleague said, "this is not just a tax
on your home, it is residential, it is commercial, it is agricultural and it is
industrial.” So that means—and I speak of the farmers because that is particular to
my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, we speak about the farmers who are under a significant amount
of pressure, who now have an additional cost to worry about. The same farmers
that they refused to provide subsidies for; the same farmers that they refused to
provide access roads for and compensation for when there is flooding, these same
farmers now have to pay an additional tax. So, tell me, Mr. Speaker, what are they
trying to do? Cripple this country for the majority of the citizens? Everybody is
going to be affected. It is not simply that when you pay a residential tax that is it,
it does not stop there. The cost of everything in Trinidad, as the Member for St.
Augustine mentioned to you will end up going up. Is it not the case that with the
imposition of a commercial tax, et cetera, ultimately, the cost of goods and
services are going to go up, and ultimately, that is going to be passed on to the
consumer?
Where exactly is this Government? The lights are on but no one is home.
Does this Government not see that the imposition of this tax is going to have a
devastating ripple effect on the population? When you sit and you think of it and
you look at it objectively, I have to say, no. I think this is because, sadly, this
tax—and after reviewing and reading a number of things, it really does not take
into account the gaping wide inequality or inequity in the prevailing human
conditions that exist in this society today.
I must say and some of my colleagues commented on it, really, one of the
most incredulous parts of this Bill has to be the penalties and appeal process. I
will tell you a great deal of people—while they were willing to accept, okay, we
462
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MS. M. PANDAY]
have this tax to pay—were very concerned of their inability to pay as opposed to
them simply not wanting to pay it. I do not want to go into too many details of the
actual sections, because my colleagues have, but I think it is important to just
show the layperson perhaps, how it actually works. Really, it begins by saying:
“An owner of the land who is dissatisfied with the Assessment Board”—this is
21(1) which people have heard about, but let us just say you are dissatisfied, you
have 21 days, which my colleagues have said, after the tax becomes due and
payable to notify the board in writing.
So this, for the people in my constituency who have been asking the
question, is how I would explain it. This is how it would play out; somebody
from Derbessa Trace believes that the assessment board is wrong in the
amount they have been asking for. I believe this is the only time anybody
would think that the assessment board is wrong and saying that the cost of
their house or the value of their house is less than it should be, but let us sa y
somebody says that. If they disagree and say their rent has been assessed
lower than what the board is saying, they would have to wait at least a year
before they hear anything.
Now they say in this Bill, “within a year”, I am saying, we all know in
practice, that means a year, so they make their complaint and they wait within a
year to hear from the board. If you are then dissatisfied—so they have made their
complaint within 21 days and they are now dissatisfied with what the board says,
they say you can then go to the Tax Appeal Board, which we know takes a
minimum of two years to be heard. The senseless part is, there is also a clause in
here and I do not want to go into reading clause, I just want to make it simple to
understand as possible, if you do not hear from the board within 12 months they
say, that person can then go directly to the Tax Appeal Board.
The logic in that I would like the dear Minister to agree—anyway, let us go
on, if they disagree with you and then you do not pay, that is when your troubles
begin regardless of what this Government is going to say to you today and has
said to you today, that is when your troubles begin. Really, it is a process of
waiting to kick you out. If you are not paying, according to 34(1) regardless of the
section, a notice of non-payment is sent to you telling you that you did not pay
your tax and telling you the interest amount that is due. They also tell you in that
notice of non-payment, the liability of his land to be detained against or forfeited
if the amount is not paid, et cetera. What they are basically saying, they are going
to come for your property but they are taking their time before they actually do it.
463
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
So you get the notice of non-payment, then comes the notice of penalties; after
that, comes the notice of demand, that is notice telling you what they are going to
do.
They shamelessly then go on to say in 37(1), and if I could just quickly:
“Where any tax assessed under this Act or part thereof is unpaid, the Board
has served Notice under section 36 and twelve months have elapsed since the
same became due and owing, the Comptroller of Accounts, District Revenue
Officer or other person to whom the same ought to be paid may at anytime
before actual forfeiture under section 41 authorize the levying of a
distress”—and they go on to say:
“upon the goods”—and all of that.
In other words, where any tax assessed is unpaid, under clause 41, they can
levy a distress upon the goods, chattels, effects of the owners, et cetera, all of
which they will take and which will be at your own expense.
But worst yet, Mr. Speaker, as you have heard my colleague speak about the
warrant of forfeiture. If you are not a lawyer you may not understand exactly what that
is. That is where the State via the President can take your land. That is the basic
language we have heard and my colleague has already pointed out the clauses, but that
is what it was. So not just your belongings as I have just said, they can take your land. It
is further under 41(3) which says:
“In order to obtain possession of any lands forfeited…the Commissioner of
State Land shall issue a warrant under his hand directed to the Board,
Marshal, police officer, or other person authorizing him to take possession on
behalf of the State”—and this is it, Mr. Speaker—“and to evict all other
persons occupying the land.”
Now tell me, is this the caring and prudent Government that they
continuously, week after week speak about, where if you fail to pay your
residential tax you could lose your possessions, your home and be evicted? This
is nothing but another piece of draconian legislation to pressure and suppress the
people of this nation. To be honest, there is simply no reason for this kind of
heavy-handedness by the State. It is draconian regardless of what procedure is
used to, under any circumstances, take someone's home that they have worked, in
some cases, all of their lives for.
Therefore, in closing I want to say to the Government, my colleagues, you must
have a heart. You need to abandon this crazy piece of legislation and really find more
464
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MS. M. PANDAY]
innovative ways to raise revenues like diversifying the economy instead of raising
taxes. Start by investing in agriculture, re-opening Caroni, by now you would see you
would get lots of money, because sugar is king.
On several occasions—and as this is our last sitting I must say, you hear
Members on the opposite side saying, we oppose just for opposing sake. On the
outset let me begin by saying, it is not because we are in the Opposition it is our
job to oppose. In fact, the reality is quite contrary, as the Opposition it is our job
to call the Government to account and to force them to explain to us, the citizens,
their actions or inactions as the case may be.
12.00 midnight
In this case, I ask the Government—after hearing the voices of the citizens
over the past few months and outside the Parliament today, and listening to the
debate and one of our colleagues still has to speak—to do the right thing for the
citizens of this country. Give them something good to look forward to in the new
year, instead of another year of doom and gloom under this PNM Government.
I thank you. [Desk thumping]
Mr. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC (Tabaquite): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
and thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I think
that this Bill is of great public importance to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. It
impacts on their properties. By the provisions of this Bill when made law, people
can lose their houses and land, whether chattel or otherwise.
Land and property have always had an important part to play in the protection
of rights and people's interests. The saying is, a man's home is his castle. This
Bill, although it is of such great importance and makes a new paradigm shift in
the way tax is to be assessed, the Government did not consider it necessary to give
the population of Trinidad and Tobago, procedural fairness in giving them an
opportunity to get all the information; adequate time to comment on it and have
an informed view in order to be able to participate in what is happening today.
This is very serious. This is the major reason the people of this country are
angry. They feel very rebellious. I appeal to the Government to reconsider its
policy in respect of rushing through this piece of legislation. There is no need to
rush it through. It may be, that at the end of the day when this is explained and
people understand it, if it can be supported by the assessment which is being made
by the Government—the Government's position is that in some cases this would
be a lesser tax and in some cases it would be higher. I am not too sure that the
465
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
assessment of the quantum of the tax which the Government is saying in its
publication would be accurate. If this is not accurate and people have to pay
higher burdens than is expected, you are talking about people could become
homeless if this law is implemented. If you have a law and do not implement it,
then, you bring the law into disrepute.
Suppose the population decides that you are the Government, you want to be
stubborn, you are not giving an opportunity to practise fairness to us and for us to know
about matters which are affecting our properties—suppose hundreds of thousands of
people decide that they are not paying these taxes and moving from their houses, what
is the Government going to do? Are you going to put out hundreds of thousands of
people from their houses? What would be the result of that?
Why is it essential for us to pass this Bill today or Monday? Is it that this country
needs this money so much for three or four months that it cannot wait? They cannot be
serious. The Government has spent—I do not want to repeat—millions of dollars on a
flag pole and billions all over the place. This has to do with people‟s houses. Some
persons have worked all their lives to build a house, long before the PNM even came into
existence. People have built their houses gradually. Are you saying that for 40 or 50 years
they have built their houses, you are going to charge a tax on the value of that house
today? It is not only unfair, it is inhumane. It amounts to a crime against humanity.
We cannot be here governing the country, being in Opposition, supposed to be
acting in the interest of the people and behave with a piece of legislation in this
contemptuous way to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. We cannot do that.
Look at what has happened outside Parliament today.
People are showing their anger. We did not have cause for an activist to be arrested.
What signal is the Government sending? Is it that if you come around the Parliament
and protest you would be arrested? This Government should learn from what has
happened with major property tax in other parts of the world. In a very civilized
country like the United Kingdom, it almost had a people revolution for what is called
the council tax or the council poll. Sorry a poll tax.
We are talking serious business. I have waited patiently in this matter. I have
remained here. I wanted to hear. The way that I propose to deal with my contribution is
to deal with some political issues and implications of this matter. I also want to deal
with some of the constitutional issues for the Government to consider. I have not
formed a concluded view on the constitutional issues. I spoke to the hon. Attorney
General and he has been kind enough to pass a case recently decided by the Privy
Council. It may seem that that may or may not apply. I did not have sufficient time to
466
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
make a concluded view. I owe a duty to put my view on record because having regard
to what I have been hearing outside, I do not know where this matter would reach. I
also owe a duty to the country to put these things on record.
I read a letter from one George Stephens of Diego Martin which appeared in
the Newsday of October 03, 2009. I think that I should read that letter because it
places in context, the implications of this Bill and how a little man in Diego
Martin is looking at this matter. He said:
“This is an open letter to all pensioners…who have been on a fixed pension since
their retirement, some of them in excess of 25 years and in receipt of the same
pension.
Like myself, through thrift and careful management of a small monthly
salary you were able to acquire a home. In some cases you are still resident
in the same house which you purchased in the 1940s or 1950s.
As the number of children grew you did renovations and additions to the
original house, more often through loans. The children are all now grown,
live in their own homes and have families of their own.
You and your wife both now past the three score and ten, are struggling to
purchase food and medicine on your small Government pension and together
with the $1,000 per month NIS pension you cannot meet your current expenses.
You are receiving assistance from your children who pay your utility bills. You
can no longer afford to purchase gasoline for the car on a regular basis and use of
the car is therefore limited.
In the meanwhile the value of your house has escalated upwards. You
purchased it for $40,000 in 1952, but being in Woodbrook, St. James or
Diego Martin, it is now valued at $1,000,000 or $1,200,000.00. Should you
live in the original Diamond Vale house which you purchased for $15,000 in
1961, it can now fetch $900,000 or more.
My neighbour is the widow of a Government pensioner, and since the death
of her husband six years ago, she has been experiencing great difficulty in
making ends meet, like so many others, including the widowed mother of at
least one Government Minister whom I know, she has to depend on the
financial ssistance from her children.
Now we pensioners are faced with a substantial increase in property tax. Can we
pay it? Do we lose our homes of 40 or more years for failure to pay this
thoughtless and hasty increase in tax?
467
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Should pensioners continue to be silent on this matter? Then this caring
Government will interpret our silence as consent to the imposition of this hasty
and substantial increase in property tax. Has the Government considered all the
implications?”
This is one individual writing a letter.
I want to know as an MP, how could I convince my constituents in the
constituency of Tabaquite, if I vote for this Bill? What could I tell them?
Tomorrow at 8 o‟clock in the morning or later today at 8 o‟clock, I have to be in
Stone Road in Tabaquite which has not been fixed. I am not blaming the Minister
because the Government should have given him more money. The Government
has refused to fix it. The local corporation has refused to fix it. I have to get
money contributed by the private sector. I have to get a roller, backhoe and buy
road building material to fix a road and a land slip.
I have to be there with other members of the community. This is the third road I
have had to fix in my constituency like that. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. If
you do not fix it, the ambulance and garbage truck cannot go in and children cannot go
to school because when it rains they cannot walk. Taxis are not going in that road. How
could I go in my constituency and say I voted for this measure? They would run me.
How could I justify the same point the Member for Diego Martin West made?
You have one rate across the board for residential houses, no matter how deprived the
community is. I will come back to that. It may be that this whole measure is
disproportionate, irrational and arbitrary and there are certain legal implications for that,
if it is so. It may be too that it is discriminatory. It may be that it offends the unequal
treatment clause in the Constitution because all residents are comparators.
Are they being treated equally? Are they getting the same benefits? If the
Government is happy that this is the road to go in spite of what is being pointed
out to them, let them go. It would seem to me that this is the kind of measure on
which the Government should try to get consensus, not only in Parliament but
also from the national community. The population is entitled to know about this
measure. It affects their houses. They need to know the information. They need to
study it. They need to have adequate time to be able to consider it. They need to
make informed representation. The people of Diego Martin had no time to make
representation to their MPs. Today, here it is they would be voting for it without
their constituents knowing all the facts. Is that fair? It cannot be fair.
Let us look at this Property Tax Bill. Under the present law, the Lands and
Buildings Taxes Act, section 22, the formula which is used to assess is the
468
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
rateable value of the property based on the annual rent a tenant may reasonably be
expected to pay considering the purpose for which the house is to be occupied and
the potential purpose.
12.15 a.m.
What will happen is that the formula, as the Bill recognizes in the preamble,
will change and you will have a situation in which the value of the property will
be used as a base and you use a percentage—3 per cent for residential homes; 5
per cent for commercial premises; 6 per cent for industrial; 1 per cent,
agricultural. You even have vacant agricultural lands, 2 per cent; and others.
The way it will work is that the annual taxable value, which is the value of the
property, will be multiplied by the percentage. The formula puts, as the new basis, the
capital value of the property. So, it is a fundamental shift and, in the existing law, there
is a situation where you would have had to consider, in each case, the conditions in the
locality. It was not 2 per cent or 3 per cent across the board. So, for a house in
Tabaquite, the rateable value would have been a different kind of value to a house in
San Fernando. So, we are really having unfairness on the face of the legislation.
Before I go further, I think there was a bit of inaccurate information by the
hon. Member for Tobago East and I want to put it on the record. The three pieces
of legislation, which constituted the land package legislation in 2000, the Land
Adjudication Act, the Land Tribunal Act and the Registration of Titles to Land
Act, had nothing to do with property tax. The combination of these three pieces of
legislation was to avoid people having difficulty and having to go to court for land
disputes. There was the Land Adjudication Act which, in the surveys and the
boundaries, there was a system to deal with that before you reached to court and
you may not have had to go to court.
There was the Land Tribunal Act, which dealt with land disputes, and the
Registration of Titles to Land Act to make sure that the titles were registered. It
had nothing to do with property tax.
I do not think this country does not recognize that this law is old. The Lands and
Buildings Taxes Act is old and I would say it needs reforming. The issue is not whether
or not it should be reformed. The issue is the manner and process being used to make
fundamental changes to a law that can affect people's homes—they can lose their
homes—and the contempt with which the Government is treating the population.
I agree that the 1920 law needs revising and the public interest demands that it
be reformed and revised. I am not saying that the public interest demands that you
469
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
make measures like these which can have serious implications for their property
and not give them sufficient time and information to consider it.
I want to make it clear that the existing law gives the power to forfeit, so it is not a
new measure in this Bill. Under this Act, sections 22 and 27, there are similar powers. I
will read them because this may be giving the wrong impression. Section 22:
"Where any tax or any part thereof is unpaid, and three months have elapsed
since the same became due and payable, the Comptroller of Accounts, District
Revenue Officer or other person to whom the same ought to be paid may, at
any time before actual forfeiture, authorize the levying of a distress—
(a)
upon the goods, chattels and effects of the owner; "
So, you have a situation now where, if you do not pay rates and taxes, your
property can be levied against. The position with respect to land is in section 26:
"Every building charged with any tax, if the taxes due shall not be paid by the
owner, shall, in addition to the powers of distress, seizure and sale herein
provided, be liable to be entered upon and forfeited for non-payment…"
A judge does not order the forfeiture under the existing law; it is the Executive
Officer. I think it is fair to say that the existing law provides similar machinery for
goods and land to be forfeited or distrained as the case may be.
That is not the issue. The issue is not only that; that will become an issue with
respect to the constitutionality of these provisions. The issue is that you are making a
new formula, which can be very unfair and which can cause people not to afford to pay
tax. It is not sufficient to say that we are going to defer it for the category of persons
who get a Public Assistance Grant, a Disability Grant, a Senior Citizens' Grant or a
cash transfer card. That is not the issue. Even if you defer it, it becomes a charge on the
property and when the person dies, it is still a charge on the property. So it is a worry.
Can you imagine a person having this Public Assistance Grant and knowing that
this is deferred? The torture and worry alone will kill the person. The Government has
to consider this and give a whole loaf. It has to be an exemption and maybe they will
have to consider the former sugar workers, who were promised land as part of their
VSEP. Up to now, they have not gotten a deed; they have to go to court. Now a letter is
being written that they have to pay money for it, although it was not mentioned in the
agreement and it was not discussed in the court—between $25,000 and $30,000.
Here you have over 10,000 sugar workers, getting land as part of their VSEP,
agricultural as well as residential land. You have not given them a deed for so
470
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
long, will you not include them and think of other categories of workers in a
similar situation?
I find it difficult for the Government, in the circumstances of what is
happening in Trinidad and Tobago today—probably if the legislation was coming
at a different time. There were many contributions in this Parliament telling the
Government to stop spending all these moneys that they are spending. I remember
Ministers getting up and saying that there would be no problem. The Governor of
the Central Bank begged the Government not to spend—overheating of the
economy—and the Government continued to spend. Now the country is in
difficulty. We have a deficit. So, now the people are asking: Why should we pay
tax for their mismanagement of the economy? That is what is causing some of the
anger. You are stubborn. The Prime Minister got up in the Parliament and said all
sorts of things, but he continued to spend recklessly. But you do not to pay for it;
the citizen and the little man have to pay more for this.
Whenever you look at the situation, the ripple effect is that the little man will
have to pay the full music for this. When a man at the upper level has to pay
increased tax, will he not take it out from the little man? This is really where the
little people in this country will face the full brunt. I find this unfair.
I believe that the Government, on that basis alone, should accept full
responsibility for bringing such a tax as a burden on the people and should find
other ways of getting the money. They should certainly not pursue this at this
time. The Government is not sensitive to the cry of the people.
Quite apart from what has been said already, I also find it very difficult that
there is this waste. There is evidence before the commission of enquiry on the
construction industry and, notwithstanding the breach of all these procedures,
moneys are being spent through UDeCott, with contract after contract. I believe
that people are annoyed that the Government can condone this corruption; this
waste and they should have to pay for this protection of UDeCott. Therefore, I
think the Government would have to give an explanation to this country in this
debate, in the winding up, as to why the people should now have to pay for all the
problems facing the country.
I would like the Government to convince me, to convince the constituents of
Tabaquite and the country why they should pay more tax when they are not
getting the everyday benefit in Trinidad and Tobago; things that affect their daily
lives. If you are paying taxes, you should get the services to compensate for the
taxes you are paying. They have to explain also why the Government still has
471
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
UDeCott
going ahead. Why does UDeCott still exist, getting contracts, even though
there is waste and there are irregularities?
The Government may say that they have the majority; that they have two or
three years to go and they can do whatever they want, but this issue has
highlighted the actions of the Government and that there is need for reform of the
laws in Trinidad and Tobago for the people to have the right to recall a
government before five years. If that law were in Trinidad and Tobago, the people
could have decided whether the Government could have been recalled. Because
there is that law and only the Prime Minister can determine when an election is to
be called, there is the situation in which Government can become very arrogant.
This incident has also highlighted that the people need to have the option of a
referendum on issues like these. If there was a law for a referendum, it would
mean that the people would have a direct say as to whether this is a good policy at
this time or not.
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has obviously decided that it is going with this
measure. It has decided that Christmas time is no reason to stop them. It has
decided that even if the population is annoyed and even if an the old man in Diego
Martin and so many other pensioners throughout Trinidad and Tobago, when this
is passed, will have an unhappy Christmas. The Ministers would probably have a
very good time with their lavish settings and these pensioners; these poor, little
people, would not be having a good Christmas. They would be saying: "We do
not know what will happen to our homes." How could you sit at Christmas time
knowing that your home may be taken away in one year or two years' time? What
the Government is deliberately doing is making sure that little people in Trinidad
and Tobago do not have a happy Christmas. What they are doing is that they are
giving little people more stress.
The Minister of Health has said in this House that stress is one of the biggest
killers of human beings. I do not understand it. On the one hand, the Government
is saying that its policy is to give everybody a home in Trinidad and Tobago. That
is what it is going all over the country saying. The Government's policy is to give
everyone a home. If the Government's policy is to give everyone a home, how
could you put a property tax in which you can get thousands or hundreds of
thousands of people homeless? It is inconsistent; totally inconsistent.
472
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is, I would like, through this Parliament
and through you, because I know many members of the public are listening, is to
ask every MP, Government and Opposition, to justify to their constituents why
they should pay this tax. Give them the information.
Mr. Imbert: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I have been listening to
your contribution. I do not believe that you have a proper understanding of how
the tax would be calculated. The person that you referred to in Diego Martin
whose property might be valued at $900,000, when you apply the formula in the
Valuation of Land Bill, you will get an annual rental value of somewhere in the
vicinity of about $30,000 and when you apply the property tax of 3 per cent of
that, the property tax would be an annual sum of $900 per year. If you took a
property in these other places that you have spoken about, valued at probably
$300,0000, the property tax would be $300 per year. If you go further into the
rural areas such as the Member for Cumuto/Manzanilla spoke about, the property
tax might go down to $200 per year. In the context of those figures I have just
given you, where is the inequity and what is the problem?
Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC: That supports my view, that there should be proper
information and people should be able to study it. I want to tell this honourable
House that I have gotten three different lawyers to assess this measure and I have
gotten three different answers as to the computation of the tax. Now I got a fourth,
from another lawyer. Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Member for Diego Martin
North/East has done is strengthen my argument that this is a measure that should
not be rushed into. [Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: Thank you very much. Assuming that my calculations are
correct, just assuming, you do not have to agree, and the Diego Martin person will
pay $900 per year and the Cumuto person would pay $200 per year, do you still
have a problem?
Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC: Yes, I have a problem, because it is not for me to be
convinced; it is for the people to be convinced and for the people to get the
information. What we have to understand is that this does not only affect my
home. This affects the homes of everyone in Trinidad and Tobago. They are
entitled to get the full information for them to be satisfied. You know how people
distrust politicians. I do not think it is important for us alone to get the
information.
I believe that what the hon. Member for Diego Martin North/East has done for
me today is that he has shown how you can have different interpretations of the
473
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
measures as to how this tax is to be computed. Under his formula or assessment, it
will be less; different to what the gentleman in Diego Martin is thinking. It will
also be different to what I am thinking. I have seen different assessments made of
this particular aspect of it. Therefore, I think it is important enough for people to
know how the taxes on their homes are going to be assessed.
I did not hear, I do not know if the Government did, a scientific survey or any
survey with respect to these measures and the effects they will have on pensioners
and persons from different societies.
Normally, when a government is going to take this kind of step, it will have to
do a study to be to consider the implications, because on the one hand you cannot
say you want to fight crime and you are going to put a measure like this and you
do not know if it will cause people to become homeless or vagrants. If it is that
the Government did a study, I would like the Government, in its reply, to tell us
that it did a study and what the study showed, because that study should be
circulated to the Members of the House and it should also be made available to
the national community. It may be, if the Government has done its study and
homework, able to convince the population of what the hon. Member for Diego
Martin North/East is saying. I am not saying, because I do not know myself. I
have had difficulties computing it and I decided to get help and I got three
different answers. You could imagine the ordinary person outside there.
[Interruption] Otherwise I could have come straight to you.
Mr. Imbert: And get the correct answer.
Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC: Mr. Speaker, what I want to do now, because I think
it is very important, is to deal with some of the legal issues that I feel arise on this
matter. I would like the Government—I want to say at the outset that I have no
concluded view. There are certain learnings when it comes to a tax. When there is
a tax, even if the Government passed the law, which it says is a tax, the court has
the power to set aside that tax law, even at common law.
In the book by Cooley on Constitutional Limitations 1972, a reprint, at pages
479—481, it speaks about the learning on which a tax can be set aside.
“The imposition of a tax does not violate the right to property unless it can be
established that the statue imposing it is so arbitrary as to compel the
conclusion that it does not involve an exertion of the taxing power, but
constitute in substance and effect the direct exertion of a different and
forbidden power, for example the confiscation of property.”
474
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
If it is that one can look at this law and can say although it states that it is a tax
and the Government has the power to go to Parliament and to impose a tax, there
is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of the Government's action. If the
court finds that having regard to the provisions, that it is really a colourable
device and it is not in substance a tax, but it amounts to confiscation of property
and it has arbitrariness and amounts are excessive, the court can set it aside.
This issue arose in a famous case from the Caribbean, the Antigua Times case,
in which the Privy Council had this to say—that was a case in which there was a
licence to be paid by a newspaper for its registration; if you wanted to operate a
newspaper.
“The only part of the Act which affected the newspaper, was the requirement
to pay their annual fee for the licence. The imposition of the licence fee to be
paid annually was a tax and as such it did not infringe the constitution if
reasonably required to raise revenue for defense or the other purpose stated in
this section. The presumption that the Act was reasonably required had not
been rebutted and their Lordships did not regard the amount of the fee as
manifestly excessive and of such a character as to lead to the conclusion that it
was not enacted to raise revenue but for some other purpose.”
If it is, quite apart from the Constitution, that this is really excessive in the
circumstances, even at common law, I think it could be set aside. I am not saying
that on the facts of this matter, it can or it would be, because I have not had a
concluded view, I am merely saying the issues that were raised.
I would like to deal with the constitutional issue. In Trinidad and Tobago,
after we got a written Constitution, the constitution guaranteed fundamental rights
and the Constitution imposed a fetter upon the exercise by the State, the Judiciary,
the Executive and the Legislature in respect of those fundamental rights. In other
words, the Parliament is constrained. We all know that even if the Parliament
passes a law, the court can strike it down, even if it is passed with a special
majority. The Constitution provides that in section 13: An Act which is an
enactment, which is passed and inconsistent with the Constitution, requires a
three-fifths majority. Under section 54 of the Constitution, the Constitution
provides that in certain sections of the Constitution what sort of majority is
required.
Under section 6 of the Constitution, it deals with saving existing laws. In
section 6, it says:
“(1) Nothing in sections 4 and 5 shall invalidate—
475
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
(a) An existing law;
(b) an enactment that repeals and re-enacts an existing law without
alteration; or
(c) an enactment that alters an existing law but does not derogate from
any fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter in a manner in
which or to an extent to which the existing law did not previously
derogate from that right.”
It would seem to me that what section 6 did is that any law passed before the
Constitution came into force, there could be no doubt that it was constitutional,
even if it derogated from the Constitution.
In respect of an enactment that repeals and reenacts an existing law without
alterations, that also is saved. If, for example, this Act had repealed the existing
laws and it re-enacts the same law without alteration, then there could be no
challenge to it. That is the position which I say we must look at.
“(c) an enactment that alters an existing law but does not derogate from
any fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter in a manner in
which or to an extent to which the existing law did not previously
derogate from that right.”
12.45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Mr. H. Partap]
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and Members for
giving me the opportunity to complete my contribution. The case which was
shown to me by the Attorney General was a case from Trinidad and Tobago
which was decided on December 14, 2009. The name of the case is Hosein
Johnson and Bhagwan and the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago. This
case had to do with the question as to whether an existing law can be regarded as
unconstitutional. It had to do with one of the public service regulations. I think it
is the Public Service Commission Regulations. The question which arose was:
What is the effect of an existing law?
Mr. Speaker, what the Privy Council decided is that the existing law was
discriminatory, but the effect of section 6 which deals with an existing law was
476
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
that it constitutionalized the existing law even though it was discriminatory. So,
for example, let us take the death penalty of Trinidad and Tobago. Although the
death penalty in some countries is held to be unconstitutional, for example in
South Africa and India and before the European Union, the law in Trinidad and
Tobago is that the death penalty is an existing law and, as such, the imposition of
the death penalty itself cannot be challenged as being constitutional. So, in this
case, it was dealing with a similar situation that the existing law itself cannot be
regarded as being unconstitutional.
At page 6 of the judgment, after quoting the entire section 6(1) and (2) of the
Constitution, Their Lordships in paragraph 13 said the effect of section 6(1) is that
an existing law is not to be invalidated by section 4 of the Constitution, and is not
to be regarded as inconsistent with the Constitution by reason of anything in
section 4 which guarantees fundamental rights. To put the point another way,
section 6(1) makes an existing law constitutional consistent with the Constitution
even though it would conflict with section 4, if that section applies to it.
Mr. Speaker, this case, in my respectful submission, was really dealing with
section 6(1)(a) because it had to deal with whether an existing law was
constitutional. I am saying that we have to look at section 6(1)(c) which says:
“an enactment that alters an existing law…”
It is my contention that this enactment alters an existing law.
“but does not derogate from any fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter
in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did not
previously derogate from that right.”
So, I am saying that the existing law derogated from the right. It may be that
an existing law would be deemed to be constitutional, but what section 6(c) is
saying is that it is different, because the section is making a distinction between
an existing law; passing a law which was there before. In section 6 (c) it says:
“an enactment that alters the existing law but does not derogate from any
fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter in a manner in which or to an
extent to which the existing law did not previously derogate from that right.”
My contention is that the Government should look at this section very
carefully, because what this section is saying is not whether the existing law is to
be regarded as constitutional, but whether the existing law derogated from the
right. The existing law did derogate from that right, but before 1962 you could not
declare it unconstitutional, because you did not have a bill of rights. So, the
477
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
existing law which is the Lands and Building Taxes which was passed in 1920, where
you have an executive officer making an order to forfeit land and where you have that
your property could be taken away from you without due process of law without a
court making an order, that is a violation; that is a derogation of your right.
So, we are now having an enactment that alters an existing law, but does not
derogate from any fundamental right guaranteed by this chapter. We have an
enactment which is altering an existing law, but which derogates from the
fundamental right.
Mr. Speaker, I think my point is being made very clear in section 6(2), and I
told the Attorney General that he should really look at this carefully. It says:
“Where an enactment repeals and re-enacts with modifications an existing law
and is held to derogate from any fundamental right guaranteed by this
Chapter in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did
not previously derogate from that right then, subject to sections 13 and 54,
the provisions of the existing law shall be substituted for such of the
provisions of the enactment as are held to derogate from the fundamental
right in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did not
previously derogate from that right.”
So my contention is what this section is saying is that if it is that an enactment
alters an existing law, but the enactment does not derogate from any fundamental
right thence it is saved, but in section 6(2) it shows that if it does, then subject to
sections 13 and 54—section 13 deals with if a law is inconsistent with the
Constitution and section 54 deals with the required majority.
Mr. Speaker, for the record “alters” is defined in the section and it says:
“„alters‟ in relation to an existing law, includes repealing that law and reenacting it with modifications or making different provisions in place of it or
modifying it;”
So, it would seem to me that what the Government is doing here is repealing and
reenacting with modifications and making different provisions in place of it and
modifying the existing law. So, I would say that the question which arises is whether
this Bill falls within the prohibition of section 6(1)(c), and in order to see that one has
to look at section 6(2) and the meaning and definition of the word “alters”.
Mr. Speaker, even if the Government is right to think that this case, the
Johnson case, gives it the authority to go ahead with this Bill, my contention is
that there is another issue which has to be considered. That issue is that if it is that
478
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. MAHARAJ SC]
I am correct that the way that this tax is going to operate can constitute an equality
of treatment in that persons in different parts of the country can say that they are
being treated unequally, because of the conditions under which they live, for
example, a person who has to pay this tax in Naparima must have the same 3 per
cent for residential property; 6 per cent for industrial property, they can say that is
arbitrary.
Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record that the courts of the Commonwealth have
already held that one of the ways in establishing unequal treatment is if it can be
established that the Government’s action or the measures were arbitrary. In other
words, if the Government’s action in relation to the measures which it has put forward;
that is to say the provisions of the law, if they can be considered arbitrary in action to
take people’s properties. It would seem to me that there is an argument—I would not
put it higher than that—that these measures may constitute unequal treatment. If they
do constitute unequal treatment, then it means that the Government’s interpretation of
section 6(c) would not apply, because it would mean that it is an enactment that alters
an existing law in a manner in which the existing law did not deal with the matter at all;
it is now unequal treatment.
In other words, before, although it amounted to a denial of property without due
process of law and although it may have amounted to a breach of the separation of
powers, the fact of the matter is that it did not deal with unequal treatment. In other
words, in the existing law, the Lands and Buildings Taxes, there can be no contention
that there was unequal treatment arising in the application of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I know that law can be very boring at times, but I need to put on
record one other issue with respect to this matter. I am sorry that the Attorney
General is not here. Mr. Speaker, there is a line of cases which has been decided
by the Privy Council. I remember the name of one of the cases, I cannot
remember the others, and that is a case of the DPP and Mulinson that came from
Jamaica. In Jamaica, you had the president who was, in effect, performing what
was considered to be judicial work. That is to say the President could have
commuted the death sentence, and the question arose whether the president should
be able to exercise that power. The Privy Council took the view that the president
was usurping the judicial function and decided that the provision was inconsistent
with the doctrine of the separation of powers, and substituted certain provisions
which showed that the court had to make that decision. There were other cases
that went with it.
Now, in this matter, the existing law permitted the president also to make the
decision that is in this Bill, and permitted executive officers to also make decisions
479
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
which normally a judge would make if you have to order the forfeiture of property, et
cetera. What the cases show is that where you have the doctrine of the separation of
powers, and it is a basic feature of the Constitution, it is not expressly guaranteed in
sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution, since it is a basic feature of the Constitution, there
can be no question of the Executive performing those judicial functions.
So, it would seem to me that although in 1920, when this law was passed, that
may have been constitutionally permissible. It would seem to me that the question
really arises whether now with the development of constitutional law—what the
Privy Council did was deleted and amended the provisions of the Jamaica law to
give effect to the judicial power of the state.
So, if it is that those principles apply to this matter which I think it may apply to
and it ought to apply—I think the Government has to give careful consideration to it—
the courts would have the power to be able to delete the provisions of the Bill, because
it would hold that it was unconstitutional. If the law is implemented—I am not asking
the Government that if it is convinced about this policy and it wants to go with it, it
could ultimately go with it. I may not agree with it, but if this Government rushes and
goes with it, and it turns out three or four years afterwards that this law was
unconstitutional, it can have serious repercussion and, therefore, I would respectfully
suggest to the Government that it is a kind of measure which should not be rushed.
1.00 a.m.
Therefore, I would respectfully suggest to the Government that it is the kind
of measure which should not be rushed; it is the kind of measure which the
Government should probably consider and come back early in the new year—here
will be no damage to the public interest in bringing this before the Christmas. The
Government should conduct a proper consultation exercise and I know the hon.
Member for Diego Martin North/East is a well read person with the law. I know
that he even reads judicial review books now, and that is a very good thing
because anybody who is Leader of Government Business, even if not a lawyer
should be able to be familiar with that.
What you have now is a legal principle of what is adequate consultation for
persons. And adequate consultation in law—and probably I could give you the
name of the case, you could find the reference.
Mr. Imbert: Go ahead [Takes out pen]
Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC: Coughlan.
Mr. Imbert: Spell that?
480
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC: C-O-U-G-H-L-A-N. [Interruption] Re: Coughlan, right?
It is one of the leading cases, and what happens is that in the United Kingdom the
Government put forward guidelines for Government consultation on matters of
policy and some of the guidelines were that the Government must put out the
information to the public, prepare a document as a consultation document with the
essential features and give the population sufficient time to comment on them and
then the Government must consider it.
Now, the Government can consider it and reject it, but must consider it and
show that it genuinely considered the representation. The Coughlan case seemed
to have adopted some of those principles, so now it is a principle of law, and that
is one of the argument in the Smelter case, because it is a principle of law now that
governments and public bodies, where there is a duty to consult or where it would
be fair to consult, either where there is a statutory duty or where, having regard to
all of the circumstances and all of the circumstances would include whether your
fundamental right is involved.
Where your fundamental right is involved the courts have held that you must
consult, and if you are consulting you must follow the principles of adequate
consultation. Which means, full information, giving sufficient time for
representations to be made, show that you have genuinely considered the
representation and then you are entitled to reject it. But even when you reject it the
citizens can still go to the court to say it is an unreasonable decision. So, Mr.
Speaker, I think I have said what I wanted to say in this measure.
In conclusion, I would like to make an appeal again to the Government, I am
sure some of my colleagues on the other side go into their constituencies—I want
to congratulate the Member for Diego Martin Central, I know some of the social
grants which are being provided, those grants have caused some help to people.
In the constituency of Tabaquite we do not have the offices nearby and people
have to go into Port of Spain and different offices. But I am sure that my
colleagues go into their constituencies, they see the people and I think that the
general feeling about this measure is anger and I think it will be a great service to
this country if the Government can say—well, we have heard the voices, we
believe that there should be fairer treatment and we would at least allow the
citizens to enjoy their Christmas, consider the matter over the holidays and then
come back and decide exactly what it wants to do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
481
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Chandresh Sharma (Fyzabad): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It
would have been very valuable if the Government had a caring heart. When the
Member for St. Augustine presented the arguments on behalf of the Opposition,
he made it very clear what obtains today in Trinidad and Tobago and he went
further to say, “Listen, there is still room for negotiations”.
Many of our citizens and constituents will not be aware that we left home
yesterday, Friday, to come to the Parliament and today is Saturday, we are still
here at the hands of a very uncaring Government. [Interruption and laughter]
I just heard the Member for Tabaquite advising the Leader of Government
Business of the books he reads and suggested that he read some on judicial
review. I want to suggest that he starts reading some books on human
compassion. [Laughter] How to treat with humanity, because this is the
Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago and when you look at the last couple of
sittings they have all been about punishments. Last week it was about punishing
prisoners who are citizens of Trinidad and Tobago among others, the week before
it was about tobacco, punishing again citizens.
What would have been nice—now it is very clear from all of the arguments
presented thus far that the Government has wasted billions of dollars and they
have come like a “tief” in the night to see what they can “tief” again to put into
the coffers.
Mr. Speaker, part of the debate since yesterday coming into today made the
point of constitutional reform and perhaps constitutional reform which would also
include some of our Standing Orders. I would like to see the day when a Speaker
with your kind of knowledge and experience has the constitutional provisions or
the Standing Order provisions, when an argument is presented like what was
presented by the Opposition to call in the Leader of Government Business and
say, “Listen guys, you are doing something wrong, not in the interest of the
people of Trinidad and Tobago and let us revisit it, because this is punishment”.
Here is the Opposition presenting all the information that is available, in-depth
research showing you how this is going to go. We too are citizens of this country; we
want the best for all the people. The way the thing works one time you are in
Government, one time you are in Opposition and you must prepare for either one. If
you are in Government you must prepare to go in Opposition and if you are in
Opposition you must prepare to go in Government. We must look at our history,
because a lot of history was spoken about, we went to 1928 and 1948 up to 100 years.
482
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. SHARMA]
In 1970 the citizens of this country revolted in a bloody way and lives were
lost, property was lost and then in 1990 the same thing happened. There was a 20
year span. Next couple of days is going to be 2010, 20 years later and if it is that
history repeats itself it is fearful to think what could obtain. The Opposition is
saying, we need to avoid such situations. What obtained outside of this Parliament
today is a very ugly incident and this has been transmitted the world over, so a
few days ago we were hosting the world leaders—53 leaders—and some 53 hours
later our citizens cannot have peace around the Parliament of Trinidad and
Tobago.
The constitutional reform and the Standing Orders should also allow a Speaker to
determine who is in charge of the precincts of this Parliament. Because the pavement of
the Parliament belongs to the Parliament and the Speaker in any House in any
Parliament must command. What message is it sending? What are we going to tell our
constituents tomorrow? You were in the Parliament when you allowed that to happen?
What were those people doing? They were protesting property taxes. All of the
arguments the Government cannot fool anyone. All the arguments presented. The
Member for St. Augustine went at pains to highlight from of the kids attending the
university—our children—to the employers, to the house owners, to everybody saying,
listen, we need to revisit this.
The last speaker made the point again. What prevents the Government from
adjourning the debate and say, “Let us come back and really revisit this.” Is it
hate? This cannot be an act of love. This is the period of Christmas where all of
our people come together, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Indians, Africans,
Chinese and others; they come to celebrate the birth of Christ that represents
something. Is this a reflection of the Christmas? Is this the PNM way of telling the
citizens of Trinidad and Tobago have a Merry Christmas.
Why is this country being punished like this? It is almost like a curse. Why is
this PNM like a curse on the people of Trinidad and Tobago? How does this PNM
demonstrate any act of love and any act of care? Which piece of legislation has
this PNM Government brought for the last umpteen times to say this adds value to
the life of any citizen? Look what has happened, billions of dollars wasted away
and the citizens are now asking, and they are asking all loyal Members of
Parliament on both sides of the House, the taxes that you are going to raise here,
is it going to be used as it was used in the past? Is it going to be used to
discriminate?
Mr. Speaker, you saw year after year from 2002 scholarships given to friends
and family of the PNM without any advertisement. When we raised it I remember
483
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
the Member for St. Joseph getting up there forgetting that he was a Member of
Parliament for a minute and thinking he was a priest, saying, “that is not so”. The
evidence has unearthed and this is where this country has reached. Year after year
you are seeing the same names over and over.
When you look at the distribution of houses our taxes payers are asking, are
you going to use this money to discriminate? Because the houses are distributed,
nobody knows how. They are going to be spared having to pay this property tax
as well. So, are we passing legislation that discriminates against people, our own
citizens? And as loyal Members of the Opposition, should we come and pretend
those things do not exist or fear to speak the truth hoping that you will win some
favour. When you raise issues in this Parliament, Ministers of Government jump
up and say you will not get this or that.
Mr. Speaker, what is the responsibility of the Parliament? That is very central
in today's debate. We have a duty to which we took an oath of office to discharge
our duties in such a way, that it is first within the Constitution of Trinidad and
Tobago, and secondly, that brings the greatest benefits to the greatest number of
people. This far, when you look at this PNM Government at work we are not
seeing that. You have seen—they talked about potholes, poor road conditions and
drainage, where is it most? It cannot be by accident that the taxpayers' moneys
from taxes and other things are least spent in UNC controlled constituencies. It
cannot be by accident. It cannot be that in the constituency of Fyzabad under this
PNM administration eight homes have been built. So, what am I here to do? I am
here to say, collect taxes but build no homes in the UNC controlled constituencies.
More than that, when you look at the distribution of these homes, whether
eight in Fyzabad or 800 in El Dorado, or Chaguanas East, or Tunapuna; it does
not reflect the Trinidad and Tobago potpourri. It does not at all! When you look
at the award of scholarships, when you look at the first hundred names in each
one of the years, 2002—2006 it seems as if it is calculated to leave out the
Ramsinghs, the Maharaj, the Hoseins and the Mohammeds and that cannot be and
I was waiting for that. [Interruption] Here is the Member for Point Fortin
pretending that does not exist. Did you see the list?
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Yes.
Mr. C. Sharma: And you are satisfied?
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Satisfied.
Mr. C. Sharma: Very shameful! Very, very shameful!
484
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. SHARMA]
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Point Fortin is a child of this country, hopefully
a mother, sister and daughter, and she pretends and that is how the Government
exists. When you do that, what are you signalling to those people looking and
listening to this radio broadcast tomorrow or the day after? You are developing a
kind of hate that demonstrated and manifested itself in 1970, in 1990 and perhaps
in 2010, and you will be contributing to it.
You cannot say—in the Point Fortin area for instance—that taxpayers' moneys that
build these homes do not reflect the mix of Trinidad and Tobago. We cannot be passing
legislation here day after day that treats with our citizens in a particular way. The
Constitution does not agree with that at all. In fact, I heard my good friend from
Tobago East referring to a newspaper article and they only refer to what is convenient.
Has the Government wasted money? You ask anybody in this country if the
Government has wasted money and the answer is yes. Do you know the word for yes
in Spanish, they will tell you it in Spanish too. Do you know it in Hindi? They will tell
you it in Hindi too; in any language. For this senior Minister who oftentimes has very
little to say that is intelligent to read for a newspaper—
1.15 a.m.
For instance, Senior Citizens Grant, $1.3 plus billion. How many people have
you seen in the print and electronic media complaining about accessing those
grants and the level of discrimination that obtains in it? Educational institutions,
have you looked at the distribution? Our taxpayers‟ money. Again, unequal
distribution. Regional Health Authorities, $1.7 billion.
The Member for Lopinot/Bon Air West in a previous manifestation when he
was a member of the UNC, worked at the San Fernando General Hospital and
would tell you that under the UNC administration, every health centre in this
country was equipped with a doctor every day. That never obtained under the
PNM. Further, in every health centre in this country a pharmacy was installed with
a resident pharmacist. That did not obtain under the PNM. What obtains today,
$1.7 billion and hospitals are without beds. Basic diabetic drugs are not available
at the health centres. Where is this money going? A lot of it is stolen and
mismanaged. The PNM has mastered the art of stealing.
The day the Member for St. Augustine raised this matter about the flag, I got
emails from 61 countries in which citizens of Trinidad and Tobago reside. They
could not believe that a minister of government in the person of Mr. Gary Hunt
making himself an international comedian, $2 million and justifying a set of
foolishness about what happens in cricket or swimming. What is more frightening
485
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
from the citizens of the 61 countries is that this Minister threatens to install five
more flags. I do not want to tell you where they suggested that one should be
installed and it would not cost $2 million. They will prepare it for $2.
[Interruption] You want me to come? What do you want me to do? Come?
Mrs. Gopee-Scoon: Come back.
Mr. C. Sharma: Come back. Sorry.
Local government bodies across the country—we have argued time and time
again that the regional corporations are grossly underfunded and do not have
money to do basic things, while they are wasting money in so many other places.
When the Government recognized that potholes and drainage were affected in
many areas, what did they do? I would tell you what they did. They have starved
the country of basic facilities.
Under the UNC administration with oil between $9 and $15 a barrel, we were
able to ensure that most homes had water at least two to three times per week.
Under the PNM, $1.4 billion and today, more homes are without water.
Corruption, mismanagement and jobs for friends. We had a minister of
government whose spouse was an SRP if I remember and got a security consultant
job at WASA. We had a minister of government who went with a government
card—when citizens see this and they say that you are in Parliament but you are
not talking about this, you are allowing them to continue—taking taxpayers‟
money on a credit card to do her hair. We cannot allow that.
Infrastructure Development Fund, $7 billion. What do we have to show in this
country for this? Now they want to raise money from poor families to do what? To
have corruption? We have seen in every project undertaken by this Government, the
citizens and I cannot think of a single project that has not been within budget. All over
budget. In some instances by 3,000 per cent. How do we communicate with our
citizens? They are so fed up with what obtains with this Government.
Today, citizens of Trinidad and Tobago are asked to fork out more money. All
the information has not come out. A young couple with a first child or two
children, as the case may be, paying a mortgage, now has to pay this additional
tax. You know the culture of this country is to try to provide for your children. I
am sure that you have done the same. You choose to buy a lot of land for your son
or daughter as the case might be.
The current rate of a lot of land is about $300,000. Assuming your first child is five
years old, the couple is paying a mortgage and say that they have to prepare for their
486
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. SHARMA]
child as well so they would buy a lot of land. They buy a lot of land for $300,000.
You wait for this child to obtain this land, perhaps when the child is 25, 20 years
later. At 5 per cent per year the value of the land is the tax you have to pay on
that. In 20 years you would be paying an additional $300,000 on that land. More
than that, you would be paying the interest on it courtesy the PNM Government.
The Government has not thought out this.
Under the UNC administration, we were encouraging people to become real estate
holders, to purchase land and build houses. Why are you punishing people for wanting
to own a house? What number of citizens of Trinidad and Tobago are not
homeowners? They are tenants. When the landlord has to pay this tax to whom does
he pass it on? You are punishing people twice. It is clear that this Government is doing
something to irritate the people of Trinidad and Tobago. It seems as if they are pushing
them and they are getting fast to the edge. The Opposition has a duty without fear or
favour to represent the people of Trinidad and Tobago to raise their concerns. You can
hide behind the mask that every time you raise something, it is about this or that. The
truth remains the truth 24/07, 365. The truth of the matter is that you are not treating
with the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
I see that you have been looking at the Standing Orders, Minister Gary Hunt.
Do you want to raise something? I would give way. [Interruption] Sure, to pay
my ticket. If I got some of that $2 million, I would pay for all the tickets in the
country. What commission did he earn on it? I am asking a question, Mr.
Speaker. I am asking what commissions you earned because I got some
information. You are not allowed to earn commissions even if you do it on
Radical or whichever name you have.
We are paying out $17.4 per cent on interest payment. When you look at what
these moneys were borrowed for and the wastage—I think that the Member for Caroni
East made the point of a particular hotel outfit in Port of Spain that moved from $1.6 to
$4.4 billion. Are you not ashamed that you wasted this money? How do you feel? Do
think that it is normal? The National Performing Arts Centre in Port of Spain,
$400,000 per seat. Where in the world does that happen? Nowhere in the world. There
are countries that are more corrupt than the PNM administration. We are aware of that.
Not very many, but they would not spend that kind of money. You sit there smiling.
Everything is okay. We would get around tomorrow. We would be in government
tomorrow and next week and you can say as much as you want there we are going to
continue wasting.
What have you delivered? Where did you come from? Are you from Trinidad
and Tobago, that you allow all this wastage to take place?
487
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Capital expenditure, 8.3 per cent was spent and net lending. We have argued
time and time again that every country needs to have infrastructure. What every
country needs to do is to check the cost of it. We heard from the Government after
we gave them so much of taxpayers‟ money that management was the problem.
We heard from Minister Gary Hunt when asked about the stadium in Tarouba that
management was the problem. That was the first thing he established. Where in
the world a government cannot say the cost of project “A” or “B”? We are still
looking at the figures. Nowhere in the world this obtains. I cannot see how this
Government is allowed to continue doing this foolishness.
My friend, the Member for Tobago East—I do not know if in Tobago they
speak a different English—is arguing that the current administration has allocated
a higher percentage of its total budget to subsidies and transfers than the UNC.
What was his point? All that came out of that was that there was a higher level of
corruption.
The Member for Diego Martin Central identified in Parliament that persons
who were not qualified to receive the Smart Card received it. Our taxpayers‟
money is going to pay subsidies. They would get $24 million I think on back pay
on those, including those persons. This is the Government with whom we have to
be sitting in Parliament. In another place you know what would happen. People
get fed up of this kind of thing.
How can you identify that there is corruption and families with four, five and
six cards when they should not even have one. Now you are going to give them a
backpay on that. You announced it at a press conference. I hope that 2010 takes a
long time to come. It is frightening. I wish peace, happiness, love and joy to
everyone. The pattern of the PNM—that curtain hides the bullet hole that was
made in 1990. We should remove that curtain to remind us of what obtains, the
photograph of our Member of Parliament, Mr. Des Vignes.
The PNM has been able to allocate a higher percentage of its budget to capital
expenditure than the UNC. He is correct. A higher percentage allocated means
higher corruption. I have presented international statistics that the Member for
Diego Martin East tried to hide. The construction cost in Trinidad is $1,100 per
square foot for commercial buildings. The PNM is doing it at $3,000. When you
look at the Prime Minister's residence, it is the most expensive building in the
world per square foot. You cannot argue that. Get up and say which other building
when you look at what obtains to the industry standards. The Member is an
engineer by trade and he is aware of that. You cannot pretend.
488
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Imbert: Will the Member give way?
Mr. C. Sharma: Sure.
Mr. Imbert: I thank the Member for giving way. It is a matter of record that
the cost per square foot of the Prime Minister‟s residence is less than $1,000 per
square foot. You are just plain wrong.
Mr. C. Sharma: At 1.28 a.m. there are silly moments. The Member is going
through one of his silly moments. Foolish. He is the Leader of Government
Business. My son who is 16 or 17 and he has a son about my son‟s age. When he
sees a senior Government Minister gets up and makes himself a fool, what would
go through his mind? Should I be in politics?
Mr. Speaker: As you said, it is 1.28 a.m. I am sure you do not mean that the
hon. Member for Diego Martin East is a fool. It is 1.29 a.m. Whatever you are
saying in terms of that article that you are quoting from, could you please relate it
to the Property Tax Bill and the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill before us.
Mr. C. Sharma: Mr. Speaker, I knew you would come with that. Every time I
identify it. I have also said that this is the document that the Member for Tobago
East used as well. I would qualify on every occasion for the rest of the evening. I
think that I have about 45 more minutes.
While public servants had salary increases during both periods, a smaller
percentage of the PNM budgets was allocated to wages and salaries than under the
UNC. Tax dollars must be in the interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago for
the provision of goods and services to pay their salaries. I hope that I am doing
good with linking it.
We made sure that more money was available because we wanted our citizens
to have money to meet their needs. He is boasting. The headline of the article
says: Has the Government wasted money? The answer is yes.
1.30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on the allocation of goods and services, what are we saying to
citizens? The Member for Diego Martin West made the point and many speakers
made the point: What are the incentives for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago?
You are asking them to pay this tax. What are they going to get in return? Will
they get a high level of corruption; less value for money; less infrastructure? Can
you imagine if the Government decides to build a house for every Minister of
Government? Using the calculations of the Member for Diego Martin West, our
great, great, great grandchildren will be paying for that.
489
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Imbert: [Inaudible]
Mr. C. Sharma: Then I will have to withdraw. I just realized that anything
the PNM does is in US dollars and the Minister said it was less than US $1,000.
When I said $1,100, I meant TT $1,100. That is what this Government has done to
this country, anywhere you go.
I thank the many Ministers who have sent us Christmas cards. Mr. Speaker, I
hope you got some yourself. [Interruption] I am glad you did not. This is an
abuse. I have seen Christmas cards come in costing between $30 and $40 per
card. [Holds up a card] Not this one; this is a little cheaper. This is an abuse. Is
this what my taxpayer's money is doing? Well, I will have to do like the Member
for Diego Martin West and mark my dollar.
What goes on in a government Minister's head? Does he or she think: I must
buy the most expensive card and send it out? To prove what? [Interruption]
Hear the foolishness of the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, who does not think half
the time: We should not send the cards. That is not the point.
When we were in Government, we went to the Government Printery and printed
cards at 60 cents per card. You cannot buy a card for $30 and send it out. This is not
your mummy's money; this is the money of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. It must
be better spent. We must have tablets and public transport. Becoming a Minister of
Government does not give you the right to go into any expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, when I was in the Ministry, we were having a meeting with the
senior staff. Lunchtime came and I said to the PS: “I think we are going into the
lunch hour; could you be kind enough to arrange some lunch?” She said: “Sure,
can I have your credit card?” I said: “What do you mean?” She said: “You want
to buy lunches for them. I am the PS; I am the accounting officer; I cannot use the
government's money for that.” Things have changed under the PNM. Have you
gone to one of their parties? Food to eat today, tomorrow, straight into the New
Year; and to carry home too. That is how the PNM operates.
As a Member of Parliament, we sometimes travel. We go to local functions
and meet persons from all over the world. Last night, I was at a function and we
met persons from different parts of the world. When they realized that this is a
country in which taxpayers' money is used to put up a flag for $2 million—they
said the flag is supposed to be waving; I understand that the Minister wants
$200,000 to buy a fan now to blow the flag. [Laughter] This is the foolishness to
which this country has reached.
490
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. Speaker: I think that the early morning is humbugging you. Come back
to the Bills before us!
Mr. C. Sharma: Most times, if it is this late, rather than drive to Fyzabad, I
consider staying in Port of Spain.
Ms. Kangaloo: Yeah, at the Hyatt.
Mr. C. Sharma: We have to cut cost, so come and spend the night as well.
[Laughter]
This whole argument is about value for money and we must make every
effort. I want to read an article that appeared on November 22, 2008. This
appeared in the Guardian of Trinidad and Tobago, but was sent to me from
someone in South Africa. It says:
“According to the Minister of Sport, Gary Hunt, the Brian Lara Stadium,
originally meant to be completed in time to host the ICC 2007 Cricket World
Cup is now being completed as part of the Tarouba Sporting Complex, a large
facility comprising several amenities including a centre of excellence for sport
science and medicine. Designed by US…firm…this facility will also consist of
an…indoor gym, cycle track, car park, hotel accommodation.”
It seems that hotels are a big thing for them. Any little thing, build a hotel. I
do not know what they have with hotel rooms. I do not know how many rooms
are in this one.
“In January of 2008, Minister…Gary Hunt”—who is now world famous for
flag—“was quoted as saying: „We are going to look at a value for money‟”—
Is he looking at it with his eyes closed?— “„principle in all projects that we
execute and this project is no different‟, referring to the…Sporting Complex.
However, he was also quoted as saying: „It is not feasible…‟”
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I know you are so engrossed in what you are
reading, but the hon. Member for Diego Martin North/East has raised Standing
Order 36(1), which deals with relevance.
I confess that you are not being relevant, so I am giving you the opportunity to
become relevant, failing which, you know the drill.
Mr. C. Sharma: Mr. Speaker, I expected that and it makes no difference if I
am stopped from speaking. Standing Order 36(1) does not affect me the least bit. I
have listened to all the debates on this matter and it is nothing different. If
Standing Order 36(1) suddenly becomes effective, so be it. If you have to give a
491
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
ruling, so be it. The truth that is said in ten minutes can be said in 75 minutes. I
am relating the article to taxpayers' money. This project is not yet completed. I am
relating all of it to the collection of the proposed taxes. Very simple.
I am sure kids all over the country who might be up looking, will agree with
me. We are now saying to citizens that they need to pay property taxes. I am
asking the question and citizens are asking the question: Will this be spent—
according to Minister Gary Hunt, we are going to look for value in money.
One has also to ask the question: Who hired a project management team,
incapable of providing projected cost for a project for a given period of time?
Fundamental project management defines a project as a unique venture with a
beginning and an end conducted to meet established codes within the parameters
of cost, scope and time. Cost is usually the most important factor in managing any
project and therefore needs to be controlled.
The point that has to be made here for the one hundredth time is that
taxpayers' money could be collected through this medium we are debating today
or through any other medium. I also want to make reference to the Valuation of
Land (Amdt.) Bill. The same obtains, but I will come back to that.
I was making the point earlier about a young family purchasing land. We have
to give support to the Valuation of Land (Amdt.) Bill, but we have seen how lands
are treated in this country. Many have made the point about the Caroni workers
and we see the discrimination. They are not getting HDC homes. They slaved for
many years at Caroni (1975) Limited and part of their industrial agreement was to
make sure they get the lands. Suddenly, they are being taxed $30,000 per lot,
whereas those getting HDC homes are initially not putting out a single cent.
When the negotiations were agreed, the former Minister of Agriculture, Land
and Marine Resources, John Rahael—the Member for Diego Martin North/East
and I were Members—came to this Parliament and made it very clear that part of
the agreement was to obtain a parcel of land; nothing to do with payment.
Suddenly payment has emerged and it is targetted against a particular group of
people, all the time.
What are we supposed to do? Pretend those do not exist? Agricultural lands:
No access roads from the Government. They have taxpayers' money from this and
other things. In the last five years of PNM rule, they built one agricultural road.
Two per cent of the capital value of the lands and any buildings: how are they
encouraging agriculture? Is this an attack on a group of poor farmers, whether in
Toco, Fyzabad or wherever? They are not assisting the farmer, but they are
492
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. SHARMA]
charging them 2 per cent. Who will establish his capital value? The PNM again!
Nobody knows the system or the formula.
Residential: Vacant land, 2.5 per cent of its capital value. There is a downturn
in the economy. Many persons are without jobs. They cannot build because they
do not have the money. While they cannot build because Government has
mismanaged, their jobs are lost and they are now asked to pay 3.5 per cent of their
property's capital value.
You calculate it. If land is $300,000 and you have to pay 3.5 per cent, which is
about $9,000 per year. Is that correct? How much is it?
Mr. Imbert: $317.
Mr. C. Sharma: My Lord. We are in trouble boy. That is an engineer telling me that.
Commercial land: NEDCO gives lands in secret. Nobody knows; all the offices
are mainly in PNM constituencies and it was established at the last general
elections that part of the PNM campaign was to give supporters NEDCO loans.
Commercial vacant lands: 5 per cent of its capital value. Assuming a commercial
property is $1 million and you cannot use it for the time being; you cannot put up
a structure on it; you cannot generate the interest; you have to pay 5 per cent.
Mr. Imbert: It is .05 per cent.
Mr. C. Sharma: If you have to pay on anything on which you are not earning, it is
not fair. The idea of commercial property is to generate income; to create jobs; to
manufacture goods for export and for local consumption. If during a period it is vacant,
the person is losing money. Where is he going to find that money? You will be
encouraging money laundering, for which the PNM is well known. There has been a
concern about money laundering to which I will come in a few minutes.
I remember in the Panday Administration, whenever you were going to
advance a piece of legislation in the Parliament, you had to argue it on all fronts.
You had to make sure it meant value for people. What has happened? The
intelligence does not exist on the other side? We are all colleagues; nobody is
smarter than the other, but it is the degree of care.
Industrial vacant land, 5 per cent of capital value, less 10 per cent, multiplied
by tax rate of 6 per cent. [Interruption] This is industrial; one was commercial.
You did not read the document. The Member for Diego Martin North/East is one
of the smartest Members of Parliament we have. He reads nothing, but gets up
493
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
like an authority on everything. Ninety-nine per cent of the time he makes
himself—I know you will pull up my socks.
1.45 a.m.
Commercial land is 5 per cent of property value. Listen to this formula, the
landowner has to hire an accountant. The Member for St. Augustine is a highly
qualified accountant. It is 5 per cent of its capital value less 10 per cent multiplied
by the tax rate of 6 per cent. Is this what you are doing for people? [Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: That is SEA Maths.
Mr. C. Sharma: The foolish statement is: This is SEA Maths. Imagine this! We
have a Minister who has an SEA brain. He only knows 36(1) and he hides behind the
fact that it is SEA. The whole country is protesting. The whole country is saying
that something is wrong, let us visit. The brightest Minister, according to
himself—I understand he tries to influence the MORI poll, which I will come to in
a few minutes. The MORI poll was saying who is the most effective Minister. The
MORI guy “kind ah resemble” him and he is from England. He said: "Pardner we
from de same place." Suddenly, he knows about that. If I take any quote from the
MORI poll, he would tell me which is right and which is wrong. I will test him out
just now.
Land and buildings—this is madness—90 per cent of the annual rental value.
This is your document my friend. [Interruption]
Mr. Imbert: One hundred less 10.
Mr. C. Sharma: Lord, where are you? Put some light in the Member for Diego
Martin North/East head and elsewhere. Land and buildings is 90 per cent of their
annual rental value. You cannot change the formula now. This is what you circulated.
Plant and machinery, without buildings is 6 per cent of its current value.
Our local businessmen are very sharp, so they go in these auction sales in the
United States and elsewhere and they buy equipment. They will buy, let us say, a
welding machine that is valued at US $30,000 or US $40,000 for US $5,000 or US
$6,000 and bring it here. These welding machines are without a building. They have to
pay 6 per cent of the current value and not the value at which they bought it. It is like
foreign used, so it should be 6 per cent of the value at which it was obtained and not the
current value. One valuator would say US $100,000, another would say US $75,000 and
another would say US $85,000 and so it goes. Why are you making this thing so
difficult? Why are you punishing people? With specialized buildings, 6 per cent of the
current value of plant, machinery and buildings.
494
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
[MR. SHARMA]
The Member for St. Augustine made the point about one of the largest
bakeries. The consumer now has to pick up the cost of that. Because of PNM's
failure and inability to treat with simple issues, you now have to pay a higher
price for bread. Does that make sense? The legislation is about what? It is about
punishing people at all levels. The guy who is manufacturing any item in this
country suddenly finds himself having to pay more.
Mr. Speaker, under "Returns Required " of the Valuation of Land Act, Chap. 58:03:
“I hereby declare that I am the owner or agent of the premises mentioned
hereunder and that the several particulars stated in this return are as to the best
of my knowledge and belief true and correct.
1. Premises…………………………………………………………….
2. Name of Owner(s)……………………………………………
3. For what purpose used……………………………………………
4. Whether rented, leased or occupied by owner…………………….”
What happens when this building is not in use because there are no opportunities?
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the speaking time of the hon. Member has expired.
Motion made, That the hon. Member's speaking time be extended by 30
minutes. [Dr. H. Rafeeq]
Question put.
Mr. Speaker: I am left with no alternative but to indicate that the noes to my
right have it and a division is called for.
The House divided: Ayes 7
AYES
Rafeeq, Dr. H.
Gopeesingh, Dr. T.
Bharath, V.
Panday, S.
Panday, Miss M.
Sharma, C.
Partap, H.
Noes 22
495
Property Tax Bill
Friday, December 18, 2009
NOES
Imbert, Hon. C.
Nunez-Tesheira, Hon. K.
Gopee-Scoon, Hon. P.
Kangaloo, Hon. C.
Dumas, Hon. R.
Ross, Hon. J.
Taylor, Hon. P.
Swaratsingh, Hon. K.
Abdul-Hamid, Hon. M.
Beckles, Miss P.
Mc Donald, Hon. M.
Hunt, Hon. G.
Le Gendre, Hon. E.
Browne, Hon. Dr. A.
Callender, Hon. S.
Jeffrey, Hon. F.
Hospedales, Hon. A.
Joseph, Hon. R.
Hypolite, N.
Regrello, J.
Roberts, A.
Sinanan Ojah-Maharaj, Mrs. I.
Question negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
The Minister of Works and Transport (Hon. Colm Imbert): Mr. Speaker. I
beg to move that this House do now adjourn to Monday, December 21, 2009 at
1.45 p.m.
496
Adjournment
Friday, December 18, 2009
Mr. S. Panday: Before the House adjourn, I want to put on record that I had a
Motion on the—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: No, no.
Hon. C. Imbert: Sorry, just to make it clear; to complete the matter under debate.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned accordingly.
Adjourned at 1.53 a.m.