Thursday, August 2nd, 2007
Madame President,
We are here today to consider an amendment to the Airport
Authority Act 2000 where it is proposed that Section 6 (2) which reads:-
“Notwithstanding Section 8, the Authority may, with approval
of the Minister, engage an independent contractor or independent contractors
to perform any or all of the functions granted to the Authority pursuant
to this Act except the function of providing airport security and fire
services”.
We are now being asked to delete the words, “except the
function of providing airport security and fire services”. Fundamentally
this is firstly, an issue of sovereignty and secondly, an issue of National
Security and our ability as a people to protect our borders.
Madam President,
I have several questions upon reviewing the amendment
and they are:-
1. Why is the amendment needed? And what is the rush.
2. What is the vision, priority and focus of this Government
bearing in mind that when we were in these Chambers last, we were made
to believe that the next piece of legislation that we would have before
us for consideration would be an amendment to the Juries Act? and
3. Having reviewed all the legislation, regulations and
agreements that are in place for the operation and management of the Airport,
which involve commercial, legal and security matters, whether this Government
had in fact taken the time to properly consider this amendment and its
ramifications.
If they had not, why should we trust them and approve
this amendment on the assumption that they would figure it out at some
later point.
TRUST
Madame President,
I have already made the position of thousands of Bahamians
clear in this place that this FNM Government, under the leadership of Hubert
Ingraham, cannot be trusted, and I have given examples which include, but
are not limited to, the following:-
1. The apparent lack of political will to move the container
terminals from downtown Nassau;
2. The re-engineering of the Urban Renewal Program to
the point where one could easily argue that it has lost its focus and objectives;
3. The suspension and/or cancellation of some $90 million
worth of contracts entered into by the previous PLP Administration including
the elimination of a contract for $22 million for the Straw Market and
exposed the public purse to liability in the region of 10 million dollars.
It is interesting to note that in response to me making this assertion
twice in this place, the Minister of Works and Transport when asked about
this liability said the following, and I am quoting from the Bahama Journal
dated Friday July 27th 2007 “ Dr Deveaux asserted that based on the assessment
of the quantity surveyor and his own review, the $2.1 million paid under
the straw market contract ‘ more than covers the work that was done… without
prejudice to anyone, I’m advised that would pretty much cover the liabilities
that the government assumed when it determined to terminate the contract…
I would have to respectfully disagree with with Mr. Fitzgerald’ He
is right that it more than covers the work done. It is about $2.1 million
dollars more than the work that was done, because the first block was not
even delivered to the site. No work was done yet. Does the Honourable Minister
think the Bahamian people are foolish, that we are stupid. This is obviously
a liability for breach of contract. But he also says that this would “pretty
much” cover the liability, which gives one the feeling that it does not
completely cover it. One has to assume that all construction contracts
for Governmnet works are pretty similar and if he is accepting this liability
he must accept all. Then it is a simple matter of mathematics and the math
adds up to about $10 million;
4. The termination of employment of hundreds of Bahamians
without cause and/or without any consideration as to the effects on their
livelihoods, after they had promised during the election campaign that
the civil service would not be downsized;
5. The elimination of the National Health Insurance initiative
and replacing it with a proposal for the dispensing of pharmaceutical drugs
after they voted in support of it in that other place and promised to institute
it if elected; and
6. And now what I consider the “icing on the cake” the
postponement of the hosting of “Carifesta” by The Bahamas from 2008
to 2012 without any consultation with the various stakeholders whatsoever.
What is the Vision, Priority and Focus
Madame President,
What in fact is this Governments’ vision, focus and where
do its priorities lie?
They appear :-
Not committed to the redevelopment of downtown,
Not committed to addressing or alleviating the social
ills in this country by essentially watering down the impact of the Urban
Renewal Program;
Not concerned about entrepreneurship as they have cancelled
millions of dollars’ worth of contracts for hardworking Bahamian entrepreneurs;
Not concerned about the average man on the street as
they have terminated hundreds of them from their employ without good cause
or reason;
Not concerned about the health of this nation and the
many people who die on a daily basis and/or suffer extreme financial hardship
because they are unable to meet the financial obligation and/or burden
associated with a major health crisis; and finally
Not concerned about culture and its tremendous contribution
to our society and way of live as they have without good reason and consultation
cancelled what was seen by many as a tremendous opportunity for this country
to showcase our culture and our vast array of talent.
I am waiting for the vision, waiting for the priorities,
waiting for the focus. So far I have seen a vision of intimidation, a priority
of victimization and a focus of inflicting fear.
Why the amendment and why the rush?
Madame President,
The Hon. Member for Cat Island put it best when he stated
in that other place during the Debate on this amendment that the Government
was in a sense asking us the representatives of the people to give them
a blank cheque as they had not fully explained the rationale or rush behind
the amendment. I listened intently during the Debate to see whether
or not those on the other side would have a clearer explanation that would
give myself and those on this side comfort that they had in fact thought
about and examined what the effect of this amendment would be, and I have
to say, unfortunately, that at the end of the Debate in that other place
those on the other side confirmed what I had thought before the Debate
commenced, which was that those on the other side had not really considered
this amendment before it was presented in that other place and now here.
Madame President,
Before I outline what brought me to this conclusion,
it may be helpful if I would simplify as best I can the events that
transpired which brought us to this point.
In 1999, the FNM Government commissioned a report called,
“The Airport Advisory Committee on the Redevelopment and Management of
Nassau International Airport”.
That report, led by distinguished Bahamians, made certain recommendations
as they relate to the operation, management and security of the Airport.
As a result of those recommendations, the Airport Authority Act was passed
in 2000. With the establishment of this body corporate, the Government
transferred certain responsibilities and assets to the Airport Authority.
However, there were certain things which were excluded from this transfer
and one was the function of providing airport security and fire services.
Further, and possibly just as important for these discussions,
is the fact that by the passing of this Act, the Airport Authority did
not have the requisite legal authority to enter into an agreement with
a private group to assume the powers conferred upon it by the Airport Authority
Act. Section 6(2) allows the authority with the Ministers approval to “engage
an independent contractor” Section 8(1) states that the Authority “ may
delegate to any of its members or employees The power and authority to
perform on its behalf such functions and to exercise such powers as the
Authority may determine” So the Authority cannot delegate other than to
its “ members or employees”
As a result, when the PLP Government determined that
it would enter into an agreement with a private firm for the development,
enhancement and management of the Lynden Pindling International Airport,
they were rightfully advised by legal opinion that this Act did not permit
the Airport Authority to enter directly into this form of arrangement as
that entity would not be a member or employee. Hence the Nassau Airport
Development Company (“NAD”) was formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Airport Authority and deemed an “independent contractor” pursuant to
section 6(2) and given a 30-year lease to manage and operate the Airport
along with the transfer of the assets from the Airport Authority.
The Airport Authority was then able, through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, NAD, to enter into a management agreement with YVR Airport
Services Ltd. on October 19th, 2006 with the responsibility for management,
maintenance, operation and the development of the Lynden Pindling International
Airport.
Madame President,
A review of the communication by the Minister for
Tourism and Aviation, the Minister of State for Tourism and Aviation, the
Minister of National Security and the Prime Minister shows the contradictions
and inconsistencies with regard to this commercial arrangement and Section
6 itself. Let me explain what I mean.
The Minister of National Security in his closing remarks
in that other place makes the following statement:-
“So, Mr. Speaker, I support this sound amendment to the
Airport Authority Act that would permit the Authority to delegate to NAD
responsibility for security and fire services. This Government regards
this amendment as key to the initiative to develop and manage the Airport
development in a rational and logical way and to ensure that all stakeholders
contribute to this initiative within their particular area of competence.”
This is somewhat confusing because, as I have stated,
Section 6 subsection (2) does not envisage the delegation of anything but
instead uses the words, “engage an independent contractor or independent
contractors to perform any or all of the functions”.
The Honourable Minister then seeks to give an explanation
and clarification as to the roles and function as envisaged by NAD and
the Royal Bahamas Police Force. He says the following:-
“NAD’s function under an amended Airport Authority Act
will be quite different from that of the Royal Bahamas Police Force.
NAD’s oversight for airport security would encompass including the screening
of passengers and baggage, securing the Airport’s physical plan, including
passenger terminals, security the Airport’s parameters, including patrolling
of its parking areas and effective fire fighting.
It would be for the Royal Bahamas Police Force to continue
to enforce the laws of The Bahamas in and around the Airport, and to confront
risk to The Bahamas national security.”
This explanation was finally given late in the afternoon
during the Debate on this amendment in that other place and finally we
were able to get some semblance of the intention of the Government in this
regard in what many have called a good patch job by the Minister of Defence.
Having said that, I am convinced that the amendment as prescribed not will
be sufficient for the Minister, Airport Authority or NAD to achieve the
intended result of “delegating” the function of airport security and fire
services without further amendments to this Act.
Madam President,
This was confirmed by none other than the Prime Minister
when he stated that NAD was a “Useless interloper” a useless intruder.
I think when he reviews this and takes advice from his Attorney General
he will find that NAD is in fact essential to accommodate the management
contract between the Airport Authority, NAD and YVR Airport services ,
and I quote:
“The Airport Authority can do all the things we need
done and contract all the services we need contracted with operation, management
and security and the extent to which we need to make further amendments
to the law to achieve that objective once the analysis is complete, we
shall return to Parliament.”
This begs the question, of course, of why wasn’t a proper
analysis before this amendment was put before us and in so doing we would
have had a full understanding of the intention and consequences of this
amendment. Instead we have wasted another day and valuable time and
money on the whim of the Prime Minister and this FNM Government.
Madame President,
The $400 million redevelopment of the LPIA was a part
of a master plan by the Progressive Liberal Party for the revitalization
and sustained economic growth of the Island of New Providence and the City
of Nassau in particular. This included the Phase III development
at Atlantis, the Heads of Agreement entered into with BahaMar for the redevelopment
and enhancement of the Cable Beach strip, the Albany project and the remodeling
of the South Ocean Beach Hotel in the southwest, the movement of the container
port from downtown Bay Street to the southwest and the revitalization and
upgrading of the City of Nassau from Arawak Cay to the Montague foreshore.
I would implore this Government to take a serious look
at this master plan for the Island of New Providence as millions of dollars
were spent, hundreds of thousands of man hours consumed and the intellectual
imagination of many persons from all walks of life from around the world
were engaged in this master plan.
Madame President,
The movement of the container port is paramount to the
redevelopment of downtown. In the overview and goals section of the
report by the Edaw states the following:
“There are three major efforts presented in this master
plan that are considered ‘the critical moves’ for Nassau. These are
projects that present a significant departure from the manner in which
Nassau has traditionally operated. The ‘critical moves’ are as follows
and will be elaborated upon in the later section of the plan.
Relocation of the container port to the southwest of
the Island.
Redevelop the waterfront to include expanded public access
– a living waterfront.
Establish a Business Improvement District Authority that
will serve as a champion for downtown development.”
I touch on this issue of the redevelopment of downtown
as I have on two other occasions in this place in an attempt to stress
the importance and significance of this critical development to the survival
of down town and the importance of moving the container port to the southwest.
Madame President,
You could therefore imagine my surprise, shock and dismay
to learn that a meeting took place between the owners of the container
ports and certain merchants on Bay Street which was chaired by none other
the Deputy Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The objective
of the meeting appeared to be to hatch a plan to move the container port
to Arawak Cay. Needless to say, this is a clear conflict of interest
as the Deputy Prime Minister, either personally or through his family interests,
is an owner of one of the commercial ports of entry. Judging from the Deputy
Prime Minister’s past performance when it comes to conflicts of interest,
I am sure this concern was not one that he gave much thought to when he
decided to call and chair the meeting. I raise the matter only to
point out that there are those who appear determined to go to any lengths
to stop the movement of the container port to the southwest portion of
Nassau where after extensive research and analysis, the EDAW Group concluded
the following:-
“The project design team investigated seven possible
new locations for the consolidation of cargo activities which included
(1) No action/optimization of the existing port facilities;
(2) Arawak Cay;
(3) Clifton Point;
(4) Power Plant;
(5) South Ocean;
(6) Adelaide; and
(7) Coral Harbour.
Relevant information for the alternatives analysis/assessement
was obtained through literature review, a series of site visits and field
inspections, interviews with Government officials, stakeholder meetings,
and preparation of an intensive coastal engineering analysis for each of
the project alternate sites. The project team used the compiled data
to evaluate each potential port relocation site according to a matrix of
criteria covering environmental impacts, compatibility with island long
term master planning, engineering and construction issues and socio-economic
concerns.”
They concluded the following:
“From their review of all available data concerning the
proposed cargo relocation and consolidation project, the project team selected
the power plant site as the preferred alternative. Relocating the
port to the Power Plant site would clearly meet the Project goals of increasing
port capacity, beautifying downtown Nassau and alleviating traffic.
In terms of environmental impacts, construction of a port facility at the
Power Plant would minimize the impact to marine resources to the greatest
extent practicable.”
Madame President,
So here we have in the face of all of this empirical
evidence and research the Deputy Prime Minister of this country is attempting
along with his private interest group to move the container port to Arawak
Cay. There appears to be a group of people which include the Prime
Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who have conspired to hold the Bahamian
people as economic hostages and thereby threatening the financial future
og downtown Nassau in order to a few self centered greedy individuals.
To make matters worse, the Minister of State for Culture,
when giving the Government’s explanation for the cancellation of Carifesta,
said that the country did not have the physical structures in order to
host Carifesta and that over the next couple of years the Government would
be moving to build the structures necessaryto host Carifesta which would
be included and integrated into the redevelopment of Arawak Cay.
So here we have a Minister of the Government publicly stating what we have
to assume are the Government’s plans to develop Arawak Cay into a cultural
center, and another Minister, none other than the Deputy Prime Minister,
meeting with others under a cloak of secrecy to hatch a plan to move the
container port to Arawak Cay! Can you believe this?
Madame President,
If this was not so serious, it would actually be funny.
Do you think that this FNM Government under the leadership of The Rt. Honourable
Hubert Ingraham is at all serious when they ask the Bahamian people to
trust them? Can they be trusted? So you have to excuse me when
after three months in Government they have given the Bahamian people no
reason to trust them, let alone restore any trust that we never had in
them in the first place.
Madame President,
Since coming to this place we have had the occasion to
discuss two amendments to two Bills, the first being the Prime Minister’s
Pension Bill which we spent a full day debating whether or not we should
allow the present Prime Minister to pay $140,000 back to the Public Treasury,
which I stated then and maintain today, was a waste of time and unnecessary.
We still have no confirmation that he paid the money back to the treasury.
I was of the view then and now that if he was as caring as those on the
other side have attempted to make him out to be, he would have given the
money to charity. Now here we are today being asked to consider an amendment
which has far reaching issues which include the sovereignty of our country
and our ability to effectively secure our borders and is obvious to all
of those who watched and/or listened to the Debate of this amendment in
that other place that this Administration has not taken the time or made
the effort to seriously consider this amendment in the same manner that
it has failed to give adequate attention and consideration to so many decisions
it has made since coming to office. Have they considered how the government
will recoup the $19 million the people of the Bahamas paid for all of the
security equipment before they turn over the management and assets
of the security services to a private firm. Can they assure us as the Minister
of State said in his address in that other place that no Bahamians will
lose their jobs during this exercise. There are already rumours at the
airport that 50% of the security personnel will be sent home. This appears
in keeping with this Governments agenda so far.
Madame President,
Forgive me, therefore, for stating that, based on the
record of this Government, I am not prepared to trust them or as someone
said in that other place, “give them a blank cheque” when they have demonstrated
that they have not given ample consideration to this amendment and have
confirmed that they will come back to this place and ask us to consider
a further amendment to this very Act. What a complete and utter waste of
time to bring us here today to consider this amendment.
Thank you.