The new Senate had its first full working session today in Belmopan. The meeting started at 10:00 in the morning and went until just a few minutes before 6:00 – so it was a very full day. A good portion of it was spent debating the supplementary appropriation bill – basically an accounting of how the government spent 44 million dollars in Petrocaribe Funds in the last three months of 2015. It generated fiery debate in the House on Friday – and did much the same today – here's the back and forth:…

Hon. Mark Lizarraga - Business Senator

"So not only are we concerned about the correctness of the numbers and how the numbers change from one set that has been presented a few months ago to the set that is being presented now; but we don't know what it is that any of this was spent on. Today we are being asked to approve 44.7 million dollars. How can we know what was spent and on what projects Mr. President? None of here perhaps knows. How can we know if we have received value for money?"

"If one receives numbers and the numbers are not consistent, if you can't rely on the numbers; granted we don't have none of the details but the very numbers themselves that they present to us continue to change. One begins to question not only competency but perhaps other things. Where is the transparency? You can't take this to a banker to get this approved, an economist, an attorney, an engineer."

Hon. Lisa Shoman - PUP Senator

"Until and unless there is any probity, there is any fiscal accountability as to the figures we're given here; I and my bench Mr. President are not going to support the passing of this supplementary because we cannot be a party under the existing law for the kinds of things that my friend the leader of government business use to rail about when he was the senator for the business community."

Hon. Anthony Sylvester - PUP Senator

"This is a farce and fraud, this bill that is being perpetuated on the people of Belize. When we actually go through as well, the actual spending, one has to be upset Mr. President because there is serious fraud being perpetuated. Senator Lizarraga pointed out that head 1828."

Hon. Mark Chang - President of the Senator

"Senator Barnett."

Hon. Dr. Carla Barnett - UDP Senator

"Yes Mr. President on a point of order we have to be very careful of the language that we use in the Senate and the issue of perpetrating fraud on the Senate is not one that we want to be speaking about."

Hon. Mark Chang - President of the Senator

"Thank you."

Hon. Anthony Sylvester - PUP Senator

"We're not calling anyone's name but Mr. President as the Senators whose attorney will tell you; you know when time something is true? It cannot be accused of impute in any in proper motive because it's truth. And we notice that between October and December, bill spend $7,572,000. Now bill as we may know or some of us may have forgotten is supposed to be in the business of constructing sporting facilities. Now I want the Senators, any one of them to show me any sporting facilities that was constructed between October and December that cost $7,572,000."

Hon. Dr. Carla Barnett - UDP Senator

"On a point of order Mr. President, that's an allocation to build. It's an expenditure of government because it's passing the money to build but it's not expenditure by bill."

Hon. Anthony Sylvester - PUP Senator

"So we're saying that bill has not spent this money?"

Hon. Dr. Carla Barnett - UDP Senator

"I am not saying that, it's what the paper says."

Hon. Anthony Sylvester - PUP Senator

"But that is the point, so that even the honourable Senators from the government know if the money gets spent. You see why I say this is a farce and a fraud?"

Hon. Mark Chang - President of the Senator

"Senator Barnett."

Hon. Dr. Carla Barnett - UDP Senator

"Please let us be clear, this is an allocation of expenditure. It's an allocation of expenditure including to bill for bill to undertake projects."

Hon. Anthony Sylvester - PUP Senator

"To spend between October and December."

Hon. Dr. Carla Barnett - UDP Senator

"No, no, no, no honourable Senator, no. It's an allocation for government to make between that period and to pay that money to bill but not for bill to make that expenditure, that's not what is being approved here."

"But I am satisfied that the items that have been put here are items that are indeed items that are worthy of being finances and I have no difficulty supporting this."

Hon. Aldo Salazar - UDP Senator

"I could stand here like some of my colleagues and make a big pretty speech for 40 minutes about political rhetoric, bang on the table and act in that manner. You (PUP Senator) should not interrupt me unless it's a point of aura, you want to illuminate something."

Hon. Mark Chang - President of the Senator

"Okay."

Hon. Aldo Salazar - UDP Senator

"So as I'm saying, I could stand up and make a big pretty speech as well but I'm not going to do that. We could mention about who can borrow and who has the obligation to repay in the past but I'm simply going to say that I am too a satisfied that the monies are being put to good use and there is no need to call for a division because I can say now that I too support this."

Hon. Godwin Hulse - Leader of Government Business

"The point I wanted to make is please gentlemen, please Senators do not impute concepts of fraud and farce because it is public officers who do this work. The accounting officers which are the CEOs are responsible for government expenditure. No minister signs on any voucher, dictates the expenditure; it is the public officers and it is unfair to suggest that we put a budget up that's manipulated and concocted. It is not fair to those persons that are the point I want to leave you with."

The Church senator voted in favour of the supplementary appropriations bill – while the business senator voted against. Again there was no senator present for Labour and Civil Society.

And that proved pivotal when it came time to vote on Senator Lisa Shoman's motion to conduct an inquiry and investigation into the Ministries of Immigration and National security in the wake of the Nanes Shnitzer debacle. There was very vigorous debate – but when the vote was taken at a few minutes to 6:00 – Shoman's motion was narrowly defeated six to five. All 6 UDP senators voted against, while the three PUP Senators plus the labour and church senators voted in favour of the motion.