BELIZE CITY. Wed. Dec. 8, 2021– On Monday, the amendment to the Sugar Industry Act that was introduced last week in the House of Representatives was debated in the Senate, where the majority of senators opposed the bill, citing the increase in ministerial powers that would result from the passing of the legislation — something the Briceño administration in its PlanBelize manifesto had pledged to oppose. At the end of the day, Senator for Government Business, Hon. Eamon Courtenay opted not to solicit the official vote (on whether each senator rejected or supported the bill) on the bill in the upper house, leaving the bill in the Senate pending further consultation.
During the Senate meeting, however, both the senators who represent the Opposition and the senators who represent the country’s social partners expressed in their remarks in the Senate their disapproval of the wording of the bill and of the shift in power that it would cause in the sugar industry — with Senator Kevin Herrera, who represents the business community in the upper house, calling it the “worst piece of legislation” he had seen during his time in the Senate.
“Ever since I have been here, I think this is probably the worst piece of legislation I have seen come to us in the Senate. I have many problems with the Bill, Madam President. One is it doesn’t address the core issue. This is really a government overreach. Government is getting into the private affairs of associations. In my view, the government is meddling in the affairs of these private associations. Section thirty eight, I have tremendous issues with that. This really seems to be a power grab, a blatant power grab,” Senator Kevin Herrera said during his presentation.
The notion that the amendment, which would empower the Agriculture Minister to “receive and deal with disputes and complaints” related to sugar cane associations, is an act of government overreach appears to be based on a view, shared by a number of the senators, that the range of powers to be conferred on the Agriculture Minister by means of the amendment appears to extend far beyond the more narrow purpose of the bill: to ensure that the Agriculture Minister can resolve disputes which could disrupt or destabilize the sugar industry. That objective is immensely relevant given the current impasse in negotiations between the Belize Sugarcane Farmers Association and BSI/ASR less than two weeks before the date on which the sugarcane harvest/season is expected to start.
Another key objective is to ensure that rogue operatives within those associations do not take control of those bodies and prevent elections from taking place. GoB believes that a number of “rogue” officials are controlling those organizations and, due to the by-laws of the associations, there is little that can be done by the government to remove those leaders. Prime Minister Briceño had even mentioned in the House of Representatives when introducing the amendment, “…There is absolutely nothing that we can do in enforcing or ensuring that these associations follow their by-laws, not us, their by-laws, and these leaders know it, so they blatantly rub it in your face, saying that there is nothing that we can do unto them. We are not making these amendments today because we want to interfere.” The Government has said that it wants these elections to be held yearly and it wants to give the Agriculture Minister added power in case the Sugar Board is unable to resolve issues in the sugar industry.
During his presentation of the amendment in the Senate, Senator Courtenay explained,” The purpose of this bill is to provide an amendment to the law to provide a regime that will address that issue to ensure that at all times the farmers — all 3 of them, or if there are more in the future or less, will always have elections by the time certain so that you do not have executives holding on to power without a mandate from the people.”
That particular objective is actually seen as acceptable by a number of senators, including Lead Opposition Senator Michael Peyrefitte, who stated during the Senate meeting on Monday, “…As I said, we fully appreciate that the sugar industry is essential, so if you want to make mechanisms be there to say,’ listen, you have to have these elections by October, just like general elections in Belize’…certainty in certain things is critical and key and we accept that, and the board [Sugar Board] is being given more power in this aspect, because it used to be only if the associations would request the board to become involved with their elections that they could become involved, but with the new amendments it is saying that the board will do it. This law increases the strength of the board and we are saying fundamentally to protect the industry and to make sure we have a viable sugar industry, is difficult to argue with that.” But he then pointed to sections of the bill (particularly Section 38A) that he found hugely objectionable, and which he described as “pee pee” that was placed in a “nice and warm bucket of milk”.
“Section 38A, this is the law that they want to pass now: where a person is aggrieved by a decision by the board, the person shall refer the complaint to the Minister for a decision. So, they made me read the whole functions of the board just now on a hungry belly only for them to propose a piece of legislation that says all that have described that the board can do, all of these things that the board is empowered to do, a board that is an autonomous body — all of that that they do can be reversed by a decision of the Minister. So you go to the board, the board makes a decision and you don’t like it, you just go to the Minister and the Minister can reverse that.” Senator Peyrefitte remarked.
The senators on the Government side, however, argued that the view of Peyrefitte and the other opposition senators and social partner senators was based on a misinterpretation of the legislation.
Senator Courtenay, in his rebuttal of the critical remarks about the amendment, stated, “This bill does not, I repeat does not, give to the Minister, the power to reverse a decision. It does not give the Minister the power to vary a decision or to set aside a decision. It is important, Madam President, because the powers that the board has under the act, section 6 are quite extensive, and nowhere in the bill does it attempt to replace, or empower, or entrust the Minister with the power of the board.”
Lead Opposition Senator Michael Peyefitte, noted, however, that despite the added powers given to the board, the final decision-making power would be placed in the hands of the Agriculture Minister, due to provision 38A of this amendment.
He added that this would ultimately usurp the powers of the board to make final decisions.
“You have upended the powers of the board. It was you, in your PlanBelize that said you would decrease ministerial discretion and power. It was you, and now you are passing legislation to do just the opposite. You are passing legislation to increase ministerial power. You are passing legislation to have the minister in his personal discretion control the sugar industry,” Peyrefitte remarked.
The BSCFA has come out in support of the legislation, saying that it is in line with the International Convention on Human Rights and is a responsibility of the government.