56. MR. KELVON   MORRIS (Minority Leader} asked the SECRETARY OF INFRASTRCTURE, QUARRIES AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT the following question:

“As it relates to a   comment made by an alleged representative of Innovative Roofing and  Contracting Solutions Limited, to a reporter of the Trinidad and Tobago Newsday   Daily Newspapers on October 28th, 2022, can the Secretary confirm if his   Division has engaged this company? If yes, can the Secretary say if his   Division is satisfied with doing business with this company?”

Madam Presiding Officer, I have read this question several times, and I cannot see to whom the question is referring to. Maybe, the Minority Leader may be the one to clarify what he is speaking about in this question.

Minority Leader, do you care to clarify?

Madam Presiding Officer, I do not know, or what kind of relationship the Secretary of Infrastructure, Quarries and Urban Development shares with his Chief Secretary, but it is public knowledge that the Chief Secretary did indicate to all and sundry of Tobago, through a press release, that a comment by someone providing services to the THA was in fact deemed in the public space as racially charged, and therefore, he as the Chief Secretary was launching an investigation; and that the contractor in question, is the contractor who happens to be providing services down at Pigeon Point with respect to one of those new roads. The owner, as far as I understand, is from Innovative Roofing Limited Solutions, who the Secretary is quite familiar with.

Can I have the question please?

The Member wanted to find out who the person is. I am telling him it is the owner of Innovative Roofing Contracting Services.

Secretary James.

Madam Presiding Officer, I have come to this House several times and I have spoken to the questions that are being asked. My research suggests that the Division of Infrastructure, Quarries and Urban Development has no contractual arrangement with a company called Innovative Roofing and Contracting Solutions Limited.

Minority Leader.

Madam Presiding Officer, the first part of the question clearly indicates that we are speaking about a comment made by this contractor, and we also referred to the newspaper article, and, therefore, the Member would have had ample time to familiarize himself with the newspaper article. Therefore, is he saying that the gentleman in question, at no time provided or was offered a letter of award with his Division? Was this contractor ever at any point offered a letter of award?

Minority Leader, I will ask you to rephrase that question because you are straying from the original intent of the question.

The Member just indicated by using a technicality that they do not have a contract, but I am now specifying whether it is a letter of award with this company.

I am deeming that question out of order. Supplemental questions are follow-up of the original questions, unless it is dealing with the alleged comment made ...

Please understand, the Member is hiding behind the technicality of whether his Division has a contract with the contractor. I am saying, it may not be a contract, but we have evidence that his Division would have issued a letter of award and that is the difference. I am just clarifying and giving context that it may not be a contract, because what has happened is that they would have issued a letter of award, but a contract has not yet been issued. That is why he is being technical and saying that they do not have a contract, but there is a letter of award with this contractor.

Minority Leader, again, I am going to rule that question out of order, unless you have a follow-up to the question on this Order Paper, we can move on. Do we have a follow-up?

No follow-up, Madam Presiding Officer.

Thank you.

Minority   Councillor.

Madam Presiding Officer, the Member is absent.