November 13, 2019

You did the third reading.
Sen. Vance Campbell: Yes.

The President: Is there any objection to the passage
of this Bill?
No objection. The Bill is passed.

[Motion carried: The Government Loans Amendment
(No. 2) Act 2019 was given a third reading and
passed.]

Sen. Vance Campbell: Thank you, Madam President.

The President: Thank you, Senator Campbell.
We will move on now to the second Order of
the Day, and that is the Casino Gaming (Miscellan eous) Amendment Act 2019.
Is that your Bill, as well?
Sen. Vance Campbell: That is mine, as well, Madam
President.
The President: You have the floor.
Sen. Vance Campbell: If I could have a second just
to change gears.
[Pause]

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

SENATE VISITORS

The President: We seem to have some represent atives from the BMA [Bermuda Monetary Authority]. And I just want to welcome you and [the] Finance
[Ministry ].

The Clerk: Mr. Stephen Gift from Finance.
The President: Yes, Mr. Stephen Gift, from the Mini stry of Finance.
Welcome to you all.
Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President.
The President: Carry on, Senator Campbell.
Sen. Vance Campbell: I move that the B ill entitled
the Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act
2019 be now read a second time.

The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection.
Carry on, Senator Campbell.

BILL

SECOND READING

CASINO GAMING (MISCELLANEOUS)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019
Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President , the pu rpose of the Bill before the Senate today , entitled
Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2019 , is
to make amendments to the Casino Gaming Act 2014.
Madam President , the Casino Gaming Regulations 2018, which were made 26 September 2018,
represented only a portion of the casino gaming regulatory package. I can now inform the Senate that the
Casino Gaming Amendment Regulations 2019 —the
remainder of the regulatory package—ha ve been
made operative, effective as of the 12th of September
2019 and ha ve thus completed the casino regulatory
regime.
Madam President , the Casino Gaming
Amendment Regulations 2019, made pursuant to section 196 of the Casino Gaming Act 2014 and subject
to the negative resolution procedure, makes provision
for the following matters:
a) advertising and promotion of casinos and c asino gaming;
b) provision and use of cashless wagering sy stems;
c) provision and maintenance of patron accounts;
d) resolution of gaming complaints;
e) problem and responsible gaming;
f) exclusion orders;
g) provision of credit;
h) service of liquor;
i) betting;
j) casino marketing arrangements;
k) temporary managers; and
l) disciplinary p rocedures.
Madam President , for the purposes of and in
respect of the amendments to the regulatory regime, there have been a number of proposed amendments
to the Casino Gaming Act 2014, the Prohibition of
Gaming Machines Act 2001, and the Casino Gaming
(Casino Fees) Regulations 2017. These amendments
have been consolidated into the Casino Gaming (Mi scellaneous) Amendment Act 2019. To that end, the
amendments seek to:
1. clarify various provisions of the Casino Gam-ing Act 2014 in order to better support the u nBermuda Senate derlying policy and to enable such policy to be
carried out via the regulations;
2. make provisions for the various fees, which
have now been provided for in the regulations;
and
3. make general housekeeping amendments.
Madam President , with respect to the pr oposed fee amendments to the Casino Gaming (Cas ino Fees) Regulations 2017, the Bermuda Casino
Gaming Commission consulted with established gaming jurisdictions, well -known and respected testing
laboratories, and experts in technical areas, as regard to those regulations in relation to the appropriate fees
to be levied. It is important to note that, while some of
the fees proposed at this time are necessary in rel ation to the opening of a casino, there will be further
amendments to the fees in respect to operational matters, which will be proposed at a later date.
Madam President, let me be clear. It is the i ntent of this Gover nment to move forward with gaming,
as we believe that this will enable economic growth, as well as create jobs and opportunities for Bermudians.
Thank you, Madam President .

The President: Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Would any Senator care to speak on t his Bill?
Senator Jones, you have the floor.

Sen. Marcus Jones: Good morning, Madam Pres ident.
The President: Good morning to you.
Sen. Marcus Jones: Good morning to my fellow colleagues, and, of course, good morning to the listening
audience.
We on t his side of the aisle can see the i mportance of these amendments. We understand that
these amendments hail back to the initial inception of
the Casino Gaming Act of 2014. And when one looks
at the year that this was first launched, 2014, and we
are looking at 2019, it does leave cause for concern,
especially for those hotels that have actually applied
and received approval for a licence, that it has been
five years now. And I would encourage the Gover nment to continue to communicate with both the Legi slature and the public as a whole in the progress of the
ongoing evolution of this industry, actually not only being launched in word, but actually being launched in
deed.
This particular legislation, at least in my mind,
caused me to question a number of things. We know
that part of the delay in the operations of the casinos
is the banking piece. We understand that, the world
over, many banking institutions are very leery when governments are too involved in the actual operations
of casinos. And we know that, f rom recent legislation
that has been done, the powers that be had decided for the Government and the Minister in question to
have more oversight in, for example, the choosing of
the board members and things of that nature. And so,
we question and we wonder if, possibly, that could be
part of the delay.
We are also raising the question, has there
been any pushback from the hotels that have laid out
the funds to initially acquire the application? We know
that the initial flat fee is $600,000. The annual fee is
$1 million. So, that is a heavy, high price. So, we
could definitely appreciate the fact that these— we call
them “ business partners ” with the government —would
be concerned that things have not moved along. And
then, there is the question about the executive dire ctor. We know that the Government was working very
diligently to find an executive director. I am not sure if
one has been hired as yet. We then asked the ques-tion, the Board of Directors of the Gaming Commi ssion, if it is not in operation, if no hotels in this country
are actually taking advantage of the licence, what are
they doing?
So, we know that the annual expenses for this
commission, I believe it is somewhere around the ar-ea of $1 million a year. And we know that the Government has to carr y the cost of having that Gaming
Commission functioning. We know that the original
mandate for the Gaming Commission is that they
were going to be an independent body that can act ually finance itself.
So, these questions arise as we look at these
amendments that are necessary, that are required for the operations to work well. Questions arise when we know that we have not gotten too far from the initial
launching of this Gaming Commission to its actually
being applied within the country, as an industry, w here
we can stimulate the economy, where we can create
jobs. It would behove the Government to keep the
public informed of the progress on a regular basis.
And with those questions, Madam President, I
thank you for your time.

The President: Thank you, Senator Jones.
Would any other Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
Then, Senator Campbell, it is over to you.

Sen. Vance Campbell: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, yes, there have been delays. In 2017, we had a change in government. We
had a change in commissioners at the Bermuda Cas ino Gaming Commission. There was a change in Mi nisters and Permanent Secretaries. And getting each [of those] up to speed has been a protracted process.
Not ideal, but necessary.
In accordance with the National Anti -Money
Laundering Committee's agenda and normal sectoral
procedures, it is obligatory upon the Bermuda Casino Gaming Commission to execute the suitability process
in a thorough manner, which takes time and r e688 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate sources. And it is not a simple process. As [w ith] incorporating a company, it is very complex, and it is a
process which involves agencies beyond our shores.
And to answer Senator Jones's questions as
to whether there has been any pushback from the ho-tels that have been granted a provisional licence , to
date that has been no pushback.
We in the PLP know this is not a cure- all for
our economic woes or our challenges. It is one piece
in an intricate puzzle that will assist.
And with that, Madam President, I would say
we will continue to do our due di ligence so that when
that first casino, the first two casinos are open, they
will be open with the appropriate regulations, controls
and protections for our reputation already in place.
And with that, I conclude my comments.

The President: Thank you, Sen ator Campbell. You
will now do the second reading.
Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Bill entitled the Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Act 2019 be now read a second time.

The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 26

Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Standing Order 26 be suspended in respect of this
Bill.

The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection. Carry on.

[Motion carried: Standing Order 26 suspended.]

Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Bill entitled the Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Act 2019 be now read a third time.

The President: Is there any objection to the third
reading?
No objection. Carry on, Senator Campbell.

BILL

THIRD READING

CASINO GAMING (MISCELLANEOUS)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019
Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Bill do now pass.
The President: It has been moved that the Bill ent itled the Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous) Amendment
Act 2019 do now pass. Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection. The Bill is passed.

[Motion carried: The Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Act 2019 was given a third reading and
passed.]

The President: Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Sen. Vance Campbell: Thank you, Madam President.
The President: We now move on to the third item on
the Orders of the Day. And that is the Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2019.
Senator Campbell, you are on a roll today.
Sen. Vance Campbell: That is mine as well, Madam
President.

The President: You have the floor.

Sen. Vance Campbell: If I could have one moment?
The President: Certainly. Take a few minutes to collect yourself and prepare to present the Bill.

[Pause]
Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Bill entitled the Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2019 be now read a second time.
The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection. Carry on, Senator Campbel l.

BILL

SECOND READING

INCORPORATED SEGREGATED ACCOUNTS
COMPANIES ACT 2019
Sen. Vance Campbell: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President , I am pleased to present to
the Senate the Bill entitled the
Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2019 . This Bill seeks to
introduce a new corporate group structure for use by
local and international clients who wish to conduct
business in Bermuda.
Madam President , before I go any further, I
would like to highlight the fact that there are two cor-rections to be made in the Bill that will be made prior
to assent, the first being on page 35, clause 41(2), in
the penultimate line, where we will delete the word
"been." So, "has been given" becomes "has given." And again, on page 43 of the Bill, clause 61, we will replace the heading with "Striking off ISAC." So with
that, Madam President, I will continue.


Bermuda Senate Madam President, Bermuda has historically
been a pioneer in developing segregated cell accounts company structures and concepts. The development of the Bermuda segregated accounts companies regime from the early 1990s took the form of pr ivate Acts and has evolved into the enactment of the
Segregated Accounts Co mpanies Act in 2000. The
overriding aim of this Bill was to ensure that Bermuda
remained at the forefront of international corporate law
developments so as to maintain our competitive edge
in order to take advantage of any future growth oppor-tunities.
This Bill seeks to further modernise our segregated accounts companies [SACs] regime. The seg-regated accounts companies concept, originally em-braced by Bermuda’s captive market and larger commercial insurers and reinsurance industry, has since
been extended t o use for other purposes —for example, the investment funds business. It is therefore unquestionable that SACs have worked well in Bermuda,
just as cell companies have done in a growing number of competitor jurisdictions.
The approach taken in respect of t his new Bill
is to merge elements of two concepts that are the b asis of the SAC Act and the Companies Act 1981, r esulting in the creation of a new regime governing ISAC [incorporated segregated accounts company] structures. Such structure is, therefore, a hybrid of our
existing segregated accounts company and the con-ventional limited liability company.
Notwithstanding the intention of this new legislation, it is important to note that both the new ISAC
and existing SAC structures will be offered as two di stinct and marketable corporate products.
Madam President , in order to fully appreciate
the differences between a SAC and an ISAC structure, it is important to understand the business purposes and rationale [governing] why one product may
be preferred over the other.
Madam President , prior to the introduction of
Bermuda's SAC regime, statutory segregation of assets and liabilities could be achieved only by incorp orating multiple subsidiaries by private Act or creating
trusts. Segregated accounts companies are appealing
for two main reasons: firstly, they enable the form of corporate group structure to be created, but with lower administration costs than a traditional corporate group
structure consisting of multiple individual registered
companies; secondly , the ability to take advantage of
synergies and economies of scale, such as operating multiple types or lines of businesses under one umbrella, is inherent in such structures.
Madam President, in order for a company registered under the Companies Act to achieve legally
recognised segregated accounts, it must, subsequent
to its initial registration, then register as a SAC under the SAC Act with the Registrar of Companies and,
thereafter, comply with statutory requirements as may
be applicable under both the SAC Act and the Com-panies Act, in addition to any other relevant laws, re gulations or rules, depending on the nature of its bus iness. Notwithstanding legal recognition, the accounts
underlying a SAC structure do not themselves have
legal personalities separate and apart from their i ncorporating SAC. Upon registration, that SAC is able
to hold certain assets in segregated accounts, fir ewalled from the assets and liabilities of the SAC itself,
which is the SAC’s own account and is usually r eferred to as the “general account” and those of its i ndividual segregated accounts or funds.
A fundamental characteristic of the ISAC r egime is to ensure that, where assets have been all ocated to any particular incorporated segregated ac-count, those assets are held exclusively for the benefit
of the owners of the relevant account and any counterparty to a transaction linked to such account. Under our existing SAC structure, each account established
as a part of that structure is legally constrained by the
capacity of the registered SAC itself and, ultimately,
dependent upon the decision- making and actions of
its management.
Madam President , on the other hand, using
the Delaware series structure as an example as com-pared to our SAC, each series can hold its own assets, have its own members, conduct its own oper ations and pursue different business objectives, yet remain insulated from claims of members, creditors or litigants pursuing the assets of or asserting claims
against other series. In this respect, the new ISAC
structure has similar characteristics and more closely
resembles the Delaware series structure.
For this reason, Madam President , some local
practitioners have raised concerns as to whether or not the assets, liabilities and other legal obligations of
a SAC would be effectively and legally segregated
and recognised as such by the courts in other jurisdi ctions. One of the purposes of this Bill is to alleviate
this concern and provide legal certainty to local pract itioners.
Madam President , from a competitiv e stan dpoint, jurisdictions providing alternative corporate s olutions in the form of incorporated cell companies or
protected cell companies have been successfully challenging Bermuda with a view to gaining compet itive advantages in a wide range of areas, including
the insurance- linked securities [ILS] market, which
Bermuda currently dominates. There are, clearly, clients and situations
where such structures are considered more advant ageous than Bermuda’s existing SAC regime. Indeed, the inability to prov ide a similar option, like ISACs,
may be perceived by the market to be a weakness in
our product offering, which is already being exploited
by Bermuda’s competition. At least 12 jurisdictions
currently have ICCs (which are incorporated cell companies) and/ or PCCs (protected cell companies) legi slation, including our principal insurance competitors,
namely, Cayman, Guernsey, Jersey and several US
690 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate states. And these structures have gained international
industry acceptance.
Nonetheless, Madam President, there are,
clearly, clients and situations where the SAC is considered the vehicle of choice, and for this reason we should continue to provide the SAC as an alternative
corporate structure.
Madam President , an ISAC offers even more
robust segregation of asset s and liabilities than a
SAC, because the creation and registration of incorporated segregated accounts is a more formal process than merely creating separate accounts. Additionally,
an incorporated segregated account is less dependent
upon the decision- making and actions of its management. For this reason, such structures are generally
more attractive to potential investors, as they offer
more robust asset protections amongst underlying
accounts rather than sharing in the misfortunes of any
other account w ithin the same structure or the ISAC
itself.
Madam President , although our proposed
ISAC will have the ability to operate multiple business lines, such structures cannot, however, be used for a
purpose which could not otherwise be achieved by
using a number of companies in the conventional parent holding company subsidiary relationship.
Madam President , upon the registration of
each account, it will immediately have a separate l egal existence from its ISAC that will be recognised as
such, not only in Berm uda, but in other jurisdictions. In
the same manner as any other Bermuda registered
entity, each registered account will be governed by its
own governing documents —that is, having its own
memorandum of association and by -laws, or evidence
of any other form al agreements —thereby allowing
complex binding commercial arrangements to be cr eated, adding structural sophistication to the well -
known SAC concept, and an enhanced level of flex ibility for conducting business in Bermuda.
Madam President , the key charact eristics and
advantages of an ISAC over a traditional limited liabi lity or SAC, comparatively speaking, include the follo wing:
1. ISACs provide the flexibility for each segr egated account to completely and legally sep arate its assets, liabilities, member agr eements
and other legal obligations from other accounts within the structure.
2. ISACs have the ability to enter into contractual
relationships with incorporated segregated
accounts formed under the ISAC.
3. Due to the separate legal personality of each
account, the ISAC is likely to be a consider ably easier structure for which to obtain a credit
rating, which may be a prerequisite for being able to conduct or facilitate the expansion of
business.
4. Limited liability companies and SACs can
merge, amalgamate, re- domicile, or convert into ISACs , and vice versa, thereby diversif ying the usefulness and flexibility of those structures if necessary.
5. Each account has its own board, separate from the ISAC board, which would be ac-quainted with the business conducted by that
account and in a better position to immediat ely act upon any opportunities or threats to the
business.
6. ISACs have the ability to pool professional support services such as insurance and rei nsurance management, investment management, legal, actuarial and auditing services.
7. ISACs can be used beyond insurance and
can fund sectors with ministerial consent, as
is the case with SACs.
Madam President , again, the predominant aim
of the ISAC is to utilise economies of scale. For example, the standard annual government fees for Bermuda companies will apply similarly to an ISAC and
are set on a sliding scale calculated on the basis of
the company’s accessible —or in the case of an i nvestment fund, authorised —capital. Annual gover nment fees for exempted companies present ly range
from $2,095 to $32,676 per company.
One of the primary benefits of an ISAC is that
it renders it unnecessary to incorporate subsidiaries to conduct separate businesses or hold different assets. Instead, one ISAC with minimal accessible capital can
be created, administering any number of incorporated
segregated accounts, each individually ring- fenced.
There are no limits on the number of accounts that an
ISAC may establish.
The initial registration fee to register a traditional limited liability com pany as an ISAC is $250,
and thereafter the current annual fee is $295 for each
segregated account operated by the SAC, subject to a
maximum of $1,180 per annum. Therefore, by way of
an example, an ISAC with minimal share capital oper-ating 10 segregated ac counts will attract an annual
government fee of approximately $3,275. At today’s
rates, 10 separate companies with minimal share ca pital would attract $20,950 in government fees each
year. Leaving aside the considerable savings in legal
and incorporation f ees, and ongoing secretarial fees,
which are usually payable per company, the cost be nefit of operating segregated accounts can be consi derable.
Madam President, notwithstanding the lower
cost of incorporation of such structures, ongoing an-nual and transactional fees applicable to companies (for instance, under the new Head 35A of the Government Fees Regulations 1976) will also apply to an
ISAC and each of its underlying registered accounts.
This will have the potential to increase corporate revenues for operating such structures in Bermuda.
Madam President , one of the key elements of
oversight of the ISAC structure is the notification and consent of the Registrar of Companies, and in the


Bermuda Senate case of a financial institution, the Bermuda Monetary
Authority is r equired in respect of any material changes to the ISAC or any of its underlying accounts, and
prior to strike- off or winding up, an ISAC or any of its
accounts.
When winding up an ISAC, Madam President,
a liquidator is required to deal with the assets and liabilities which are linked to each incorporated segr egated account only, in accordance with the ISAC Act. The liquidator must ensure that the assets linked to
one segregated account are not applied to the liabil ities linked to any other segregated account or to the
general account unless an asset or a liability is linked
to more than one segregated account, in which case
he shall deal with the asset or liability in accordance with the terms of any relevant governing instrument or
contract. The ISAC Act e nsures a high standard of
limited resource and insolvency protection.
Madam President , as a consequence of the
concerns and uncertainties regarding the SAC, the
ISAC structure has come to the fore as a structure that provides both a statutory and common- law basis
for the segregation of assets and liabilities.
Madam President , the fundamental benefits of
proposing this ISAC legislation are to:
1. maintain Bermuda’s reputation for being d ynamic and innovative, and to cater for the needs of existing and future business par tners;
2. provide a business framework which enables
Bermuda to compete on a level playing field
with its competitor jurisdictions;
3. continue to provide a comprehensive regul atory and legal framework for Bermuda’s stakeholders and potential customers , which
enhances our reputation as an international
financial service centre;
4. provide a legislati ve framework that is bespoke in nature and that incorporates the
commonly accept ed best attributes from other
competitor jurisdictions, but which also i ncludes unique attributes not found else where;
and
5. ensure that all local, legal and regulatory
compliance rules and regulations , and international standards , apply equally to this new
ISAC structure and each of its underlying i ncorporated segregated account s companies,
including beneficial ownership requirements in respect of transparency and compliance with
economic substance requirements.
Madam President , it is important to note that
the Bermuda ISAC regime will be supervised by the
Registrar of Companies and the Bermuda Monetary
Authority, who will ensure that Bermuda’s reputation as a leading offshore financial centre and highly reg ulated and respected jurisdiction is maintained.
Madam President , the Government intends to
ensure that Bermuda continues to lead and succeed as a dominant force in offshore product and service
development. And this has been accomplished in
many ways including by means of amendments to the
Companies Act 1981 and the enactment of legislation
in support of highly bespoke and innovat ive products
like SACs, LLCs, and now ISACs. The introduction in
Bermuda of this new dynamic, efficient and multifaceted regime will no doubt provide our industry par tners with yet another compelling reason for choosing
to domicile their businesses in Berm uda rather than in
a competitor jurisdiction.
Madam President , the ISAC Bill being debated today is as a result of the collaborative efforts of
the Bermuda Government, the legal profession and
the private sector. The Government, therefore, wishes
to thank members of the ISAC Working Group of the
Bermuda Business Development Agency, legal pr ofessionals, the Office of the National Anti -Money
Laundering Committee, the Bermuda Monetary A uthority, the Ministry of Finance, the Attorney General’s
Chambers, and the Business Development Unit of the
Cabinet Office for their assistance in advancing this legislative initiative.
And with that, Madam President, I now conclude my remarks. Thank you.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

SENATE VISITOR
The President: Thank you, Senator Campbell.
And before I turn it over to other Senators, I
would just like to ac knowledge the presence of Ms.
Maxine Binns, from the Business Development Unit.
Welcome to you.

[Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies Act
2019, second reading debate, continuing. ]

The President: Would any Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
Senat or Kempe, you have the floor.
Sen. Nicholas Kempe: Thank you, Madam Pres ident.
Thank you, Senator Campbell, for yet another
enlightening presentation.

[Laughter]

Sen. Nicholas Kempe: On our side, we support what
is being done here. Obviously, we do not want our
competitive edge to be dulled. And the productive cell
units that are being used by the jurisdictions to pr ovide greater security and comfort for either holders of assets or in vestors in the segregated portions of these
accounts, these are clearly needed to modernise our
previous SAC regime. Obviously, it is an internationally accepted business model, so moving our legislation
692 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate in that direction is useful and provides business operators greater options when doing business in Bermuda.
We have full comfort that the consultative pr ocess has been wholesome here and that this is industry-driven, as well. So, we support this Bill.

The President: Thank you, Senator Kempe.
Would any ot her Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
Senator Jardine, you have the floor.

Sen. James S. Jardine: Thank you, Madam Pres ident. Good morning.
The President: Good morning to you.
Sen. James S. Jardine: And good morning to the
listening public.
First of all, I would like to thank all the draft smen and draftswomen, and others, who have spent
an incredible amount of time putting this piece of le gislation together. I know it does not make exciting
reading for those who are not interested in it. But it is
very important legislation. And so, the listening public
may be glazing over as they listen to some of what
has been said this morning. But I can assure them that this legislation is absolutely essential and will put
us on a level playing field with this kind of structure
with our competitors to the south and also to the
Channel Islands. So, this is extremely important legi slation. And I would just like to say that, obviously, I
support this legislation.
I did plough through all 48 pages of it, as I am
wont to do. And there are one or two typos, I think, in
the legislation, nothing significant. But I would like to
draw the Government’s attention to them. The first is
on page 40, and it is with respect to clause 50 in the
second paragraph, which begins, “unles s an asset or
liability . . .” And then, on the second line it says, “shall
deal with the assets or liability . . .” And I think that
should be singular, “asset.” So, it is like that is just a
typo there. The “s” needs to be removed.
And then, on page 44, clause 64(1)(a), it talks
about the accounts. And if you look at the third line of that, it is “segregated account.” It should be “segr egated accounts,” plural.
And then, on page 32. And I am going back to
this one because the first time I read it I had a query
with respect to a nomenclature that was not included
in there. And then I had further discussions and second reviews. And I still think that there probably is a typo there. If you look at clause 39, it is headed “N otice of registration of incorporated segregated account
. . .” Then if you look at clause 39(1)(a), it says, “the
name of the proposed company, which shall not i nclude the expression ‘ISAC’ . . .” I think that should be
“ISA,” I -S-A. There is a definition for ISA, and it appears
earlier in the legislation on page 7. And it is the only
place in the legislation where it appears. And it is in clause 4(1)(a) right at the end. And it talks about “of
each account to include the letters ‘ISA’ . . .” So, I
think, if I am correct, there is a typo there, and that
should read “ISA” as opposed to “ISAC” [at page 32].
So, with those comments, Madam President, I
support this legislation. Thank you.

The President: Thank you, Senator Jardine.
Would any other Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
No? Then, Senator Campbell, over to you
again.
Sen. Vance Campbell: Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Jardine, for pointing out
those typos. And thank you to my fellow Senators for their support of this Bill.
With that, Madam President, I would l ike to
move that the Bill entitled Incorporated Segregated
Accounts Companies Act 2019 be now read a second
time.

The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection. Carry on, Senator Campbell.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 26

Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
Standing Order 26 be suspended in respect of this
Bill.

The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection.

[Motion carried: Standing Order 26 suspended.]
Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Bill entitled the Incorporated Segregated Accounts
Companies Act 2019 . . .

The President: Senator Campbell is being asked to
check something. So, we will give him a moment to
confirm something.

[Pause]

The President: He did confirm something with the
technical officers.
Senator Campbell, it is over to you.

Sen. Vance Campbell: That is correct, Madam Pres ident. I am told I must state that they are in agreement
with the suggested corrections and that those corrections will be made before the Bill is made final.



Bermuda Senate The President: Good. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
And thank you to the team.
You can carry on now with the third reading.

Sen. Vance Campbell: Yes. So, Madam President,
that having just been said, I move that the Bill entitled
the Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2019, with the included corrections, be now read a
third time.

The President: Is there any objection to the third
reading?
No objection.

BILL

THIRD READING

INCORPORATED SEGREGATED ACCOUNTS
COMPANIES ACT 2019

Sen. Vance Campbell: Madam President, I move that
the Bill do now pass.

The President: It has been moved that the Bill ent itled the Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2019 do now pass.
Is there any objection to th at motion?
No objection. The Bill is passed.

[Motion carried: The Incorporated Segregated A ccounts Companies Act 2019 was given a third reading
and passed.]
The President: Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Sen. Vance Campbell: Thank you, Madam President.
The President: We will now move on to the final O rder of the Day. And that is the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019.
Senator Richardson, it is your Bill. You have
the floor.
Sen. Anthony Richardson: Good morning again,

Good morning again to you.
Sen. Anthony Richardson: I am actually pleased to
do this on behalf of Madam Attorney General.
Madam President, I move that the Bill entitled
the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019 be
now read a second time.

The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection.
Carry on, Senator Richardson.
BILL

SECOND READING

MISUSE OF DRUGS (HEMP)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019
Sen. Anthony Richardson: Madam President , I am
pleased to lead the debate on the Bill entitled the
Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019 , which
was laid in this Honourable House on December 27,
2018.
Madam President , the purpose of this Bill is to
amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 to create a legal
distinction between cannabis and hemp. Currently, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 the definition of
“cannabis” can be interpreted as including hemp. This
has caused problems, as consumers expect to be able to legally purchase hemp- based products locally.
Madam President , hemp is a strain of the
cannabis sativa plant species that is grown for the
industrial uses of its derived products. It can be r efined into a variety of commercial items including food,
clothing and textiles.
Madam President , although the cannabis as a
drug and hemp both derive from the species cannabis sativa, hemp has lower concentrations of the psych oactive component tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Both
cannabis and hemp can produce cannabinol (CBD),
with hemp producing higher amounts of CBD, the
non-psychoactive component which, essentially, decreases the psychoactive effect. Madam President , the legality of hemp varies
between jurisdictions, with some governments permi tting only hemp with an especially low THC content.
Madam President , in the Misuse of Drugs
(Hemp) Amendment Bill, the new definition of “hemp”
provides for a THC concentration of not more than 1 per cent.
Madam Pr esident , over the last 5 to 10 years,
there has been a global influx of hemp products avai lable at various outlets. These include products rang-ing from soaps to cosmetics, handbags and shoes, hemp seed oil and protein powder, rope, canvas, carpeting and fuel.
Madam President , this Government acknow ledges that there is a distinction in the composition of cannabis and hemp, and the need for this to be r eflected in legislation. The definition of “cannabis” will
be amended to exclude “hemp.” Although the definition of cannabis has been amended, cannabis r emains a Schedule 2 controlled drug, which remains
unlawful to import, supply, sell and possess, subject to
the Misuse of Drugs (Decriminalisation of Cannabis)
Amendment Act 2017.
Madam President , the new defi nition of
“hemp” will be inserted into the Misuse of Drugs Act
1972 to differentiate hemp from cannabis and to allow
694 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate for the proper import, supply, sale and possession of
hemp products in Bermuda.
Thank you, Madam President .
The President: Would any Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
Senator Jones, you have the floor.
Sen. Marcus Jones: Thank you, Madam President.
We definitely do agree and concur with the
purpose and the write- up of this particular legislation. I
like to call this type of amendment a “common- sense
amendment. ” I am sure that vendors and proprietors
of products that have hemp in the makeup of their
product will be very happy, because I believe this will eradicate a lot of the confusion and the anxiety that is
caused from the authoritie s responsible for inspecting
products. So, this distinction is applauded in the legi slation, this amendment. And we are in full support of
this particular Bill. Thank you.
The President: Thank you, Senator Jones.
Would any other Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
Senator Jardine, you have the floor.
Sen. James S. Jardine: Thank you, Madam Pres ident.
I hear the words a common- sense Bill, and I
think, by and large, that is true. Certainly, in the United States, as I understand it, the commercial level i s
specified at 0.3 per cent as opposed to 1 per cent. I
do not necessarily have a concern with the 1 per cent.
I would be concerned, obviously, if that 1 per cent
were to vary substantially from that level. And I notice
in the definition of hemp, it says t here, “with a THC
content of not more than 1% or such other concentr ation as may be specified by the Minister by Order published in the Gazette . . .”
So, my concern is, or I should say I would just
like to say my concern, and that is that I hope that the
Minister in the future, if he decides to vary the 1 per
cent, is . . . I mean, I am aware of the fact that it has a
very low THC content in it; hemp does. But I would
like to ensure that this 1 per cent does not vary signif icantly upwards in time. And I w ould just sound that
caution in supporting this Bill.
Thank you very much, Madam President.

The President: Thank you, Senator Jardine.
Would any other Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
Senator Michelle Simmons, you have the
floor.
Sen Michelle Simmons: Thank you, Madam Pres ident.
Senator Richardson has addressed one of the
questions I had, because I was trying, as I read through the Bill, to get a clear idea of the intent. I am sure all of us, including many people in the listening
audience, ar e aware that there are hemp products
already being sold in Bermuda. But my understanding is that this has been restricted right now to pharm acies, and it has been made impossible for other i mporters to bring in hemp products. And I am not just
thinking of those products that have pharmaceutical
applications, but also, as Senator Richardson mentioned earlier, things like soap and rope, other beauty
products and so on. There are many, many things that are manufactured using hemp.
One of the questions I have that still is not, or
has not been answered is, How can we ensure that the 1 per cent is being adhered to? I guess we depend on labels on items to tell us what composition is contained in those items. But does that apply to ever ything that has hemp in it? I just wanted to make sure
that there has been some consideration given to how
the authorities —I am thinking particularly of Customs —would ensure that things have no more than a
1 per cent concentration of THC.
And I think that is the only question I stil l had.
And I would appreciate a little clarification, if that is possible.
Thank you, Madam President.

The President: Thank you, Senator Simmons.
Would any other Senator care to speak on
this Bill?
No. Then, Senator Richardson, you had a
couple of ques tions.

Sen. Anthony Richardson: Thank you, Senators and
Madam President.
In commenting or trying to respond to the
questions raised, I will offer a few comments, please.
And one is to answer the question, [(a)] Are hemp and
cannabis the same? And the answer is no. Although
they are part of the cannabis sativa plant family, ther e
are some key differences between hemp and cann abis. Hemp contains little to no tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the compound in cannabis that produces the
psychotropic and mind- altering effects that get you
high. Hemp, for the purposes of this jurisdiction, c ontains not more than 1 per cent THC, while cannabis
contains more than 1 per cent THC. Both hemp and
cannabis contain cannabinol, which is CBD, which
does not produce the psychotropic or mind- altering
effects. Hemp naturally contains higher amounts of CBD and contains a lower concentration of THC.
This actually addresses the question or comment from Senator Jardine in terms of the Minister
potentially allowing a higher concentration of more
than 1 per cent THC. And based upon this, [(b)], the
answer would be no because the higher the concentration, the more you are allowing the hemp to be more similar to cannabis. And (c) about a distinction is
that hemp and cannabis plants’ appearances are noBermuda Senate ticeably different. Cannabis plants have broad leaves
and dense buds. Hemp plants, on the other hand,
have skinny leaves that tend to be thicker toward the
top of the plant.
Another comment, in responding generally [to
the question] Is hemp lawful in Bermuda? Presently, hemp is not lawful in Bermuda. And this goes to, I
think, the comments from Senator Simmons. The
Pharmacy Inspector has been properly advising di stributors and merchants that hemp is not lawful for sale and should be removed from shelves. The Go vernment is aware that there are many hemp products
current ly available, which is the reason why we are
making a clear distinction in this legislation to avoid or
minimise the current confusion.
And (d) with only one Pharmacy Inspector, it
is difficult to monitor all products that are available for purchase on th e Island. But that is the regime that
currently exists.
Another general comment is, Would members
of the public and visitors be able to import hemp or hemp products into Bermuda? And the answer is yes.
Hemp and hemp products, subject to this Act, can be
lawfully imported into Bermuda by the residents of
Bermuda as long as the THC content is no more than
1 per cent. And no special category has been made in
reference to visitors. Therefore, visitors will be treated
the same as Bermuda residents.
And then, a key point, or another point, I
guess, that is important to stress is, Does this
amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 make
cannabis lawful in Bermuda? The answer is no. Cannabis is still classified as a Schedule 2 drug, and it is unlawful to import, possess, supply and sell, subject to
the Misuse of Drugs (Decriminalisation of Cannabis)
Amendment Act 2017.
So, Madam President, I trust that those comments do answer the questions that were raised by the Senators. And I know that, even in preparing and
going through the brief, it has been an eye- opener to
me because I thought of all these things as being the
same. But clearly, based upon what I have just said,
there is a distinction between cannabis and hemp. And the hemp products themselves can be used w ithout causing any undue psychological changes to the individual user. So, I guess we should look forward to—

Sen. Nicholas Kempe: Madam President, I actually
have a point of clarification I would like to raise, if possible.

The President: Senator Kempe has a point of clarif ication.
Senator Richardson, will you accept the point
of clarification?

Sen. Anthony Richardson: Yes, Madam President.
The President: Senator Kempe, you have the floor.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION

Sen. Nicholas Kempe: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Richardson.
Listening to the Senator’s closing remarks,
Madam President, there were a couple items that
jumped out at me and raised more questions. One
was what we are effectively doing here is defining in
Bermuda what is hemp and what is cannabis. And it seems to be less of a botany issue and more of a
concentration of THC. So, the other visual cues to
distinguish which plants have higher CBD values and
which plants have higher THC values seem, essentia lly, wholly irrelevant . It is going to come down entirely
to the THC content.
So, Senator Richardson suggested that, bas ically, the Minister would never be able to define hemp
as having more than 1 per cent because then it would,
for some reason, become cannabis. But we are defi ning, in these Chambers, what is hemp and cannabis.
So, the percentage that cuts it off is not based on a
global standard; it is based on what laws we pass
here or what is gazetted, as this law gives ample right
for the Minister to do.
My other questio n is, as the Senator stated,
there is a lack of officers to police what is on the shelves in retail stores and pharmacies and this kind
of thing. And if that problem existed when the allowed
percentage of THC in products was 0.0 per cent, how
does that problem go away when all we are doing is
changing the potency benchmark to 1.0 per cent? Is
there going to be an increased funding of control of-ficers inspecting whether goods have 0.5 per cent or
4.0 per cent? This does not seem to actually address
that chal lenge at all; it is just simply shifting the point
of measurement.
The Senator’s answers left me with more concerns or more questions rather than clarity. So, I was
hoping to get some further and better particulars from
the Senator.

The President: Thank you, Senator Kempe.
Senator Richardson.
Sen. Anthony Richardson: Thank you, Madam President.
I just want to clarify. I am not stating that the
Minister cannot raise the percentage. I am speaking
more to the likely impact in that we are currently trying
to define the distinction between hemp and cannabis.
And so, the impact . . . it is not a definite. The Minister
can, obviously, under the Bill make an adjustment. But
again, I would just emphasise that it is unlikely to go
higher. And, to be honest, given that in other jurisdi ctions the allowable concentration is lower, the Minister
has the discretion to make it lower or also higher. So,
effectively, that is argument that is going to be given.
696 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate And in terms of the regime (I want to call it) for
inspecting products and the like, I do not have an answer at this stage. But I will take it under advisement
and provide the information at a different stage.
But I want t o emphasise that the goal of the
legislation today is to remove some of the ambiguity and make it clearer that persons can import hemp
products subject to the definition that we are talking
about today. And we know in the marketplace that
there are many persons who do provide hemp- based
products, and they have been asking for this change
to be made. And I want to say that this is another
demonstration of how the Government is prepared to
listen to those in the community who have valid concerns and try to adjust as appropriate. And therefore, we will be providing through this legislation more opportunities for economic activity on the Island.
Thank you, Madam President.

The President: Thank you, Senator Richardson.
Do your second reading.

Sen. Anthony Ric hardson: So, Madam President, I
now move that Standing Order 26 be amended in r espect —

The President: The second reading first.
Sen. Anthony Richardson: (Oh, I am sorry.) I move
that the Bill entitled the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019 be read a second time.
The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection. Carry on.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 26
Sen. Anthony Richardson: Thank you, Madam President.
I move that Standing Order 26 be suspended
in respect of this Bill.
The President: Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection.
[Motion carried: Standing Order 26 suspended.]

Sen. Anthony Richardson: Madam President, I
move that the Bill entitled the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp)
Amendment Act 2019 be now read a third time.

The President: Is there any objection to the third
reading?
No objection.

BILL

THIRD READING
MISUSE OF DRUGS (HEMP)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019

The President: Thank you, Madam President.
I move that the Bill do now pass.

The President: It has been moved that the Bill ent itled the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act
2019 do now pass.
Is there any objection to that motion?
No objection. The Bill has passed.

[Motion carried: The Misuse of Drugs (Hemp)
Amendment Act 2019 was given a third reading and
passed.]

The President: Thank you, Senator Richardson, and
thank you, all Senators.
We will now move on through the agenda.

MOTIONS

The President: There are none.

CONGRATULATORY AND/OR
OBITUARY SPEECHES
The President: Would any Senator care to speak on
this issue?
No.

ADJOURNMENT

The President: Senator Caesar.

Sen. Crystal Caesar: Thank you, Madam President.
I move that the Senate do now adjourn to next
Wednesday, November 20th.

The President: Would any Senator care to speak on
the motion to adjourn?
Senator Kempe, you have the floor.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PENSION SCHEME

Sen. Nicholas Kempe: Thank you, Madam Pres ident.
I would like to speak about a point of angst
that I am hearing a lot of in the community, especially
out on the doorstep, which has ramped up of late. And
it has t o do with pensions. The Premier —in not even
the other place we usually refer to, but in the quasi -
Throne Speech —made a lot of grand references to
changes to the pension scheme, talked about inves tments in co- ops and other things like that. And whet her it was by design or by fault, it was a very ambiguous statement of intent. It was lacking details, lacking


Bermuda Senate a kind of a plan surrounding it. And I trust we will hear
more on the 15th.
But the way it was framed, the way it was a nnounced, it has caused considerable concern, consi derable angst in the community about whether pe nsions are going to be seized or for ced to be invested
in certain products, which I do not believe to be the case. But again, I have to read between the lines of
what the Premier stated in another place.
I would strongly encourage that some clarity
be provided around these grand reforms that were suggested, because it is causing considerable concern in the community about what is happening to
people’s savings, what these investments may be,
whether it is going to be mandatory or not. So, I would
strongly encourage that the communication on t hese
plans . . . it seems to have been a bit of a theme today
in the Senate about the angst that lack of communic ation can cause to the general public. And that is all I
have to say on that, Madam President.
The President: Thank you, Senator Kempe.
Would any other Senator care to speak on the
motion to adjourn?
Senator Richardson, you have the floor.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PENSION SCHEME

Sen. Anthony Richardson: Yes, good morning,
Madam President.
I think for us it is interesting that one of our
responsibilities is to provide information when questions arise. And really, with respect to the pension comments, the Premier has been very consistent over
the past couple of years, actually, in terms of what is
intended. And I too have interacted with me mbers in
the community, and they have basically asked for clarification.
I have answered by saying that what the
Premier has said broadly is that at this stage Gover nment has responsibility for investing certain assets.
And those assets, by and large, are invested overseas
in companies and otherwise. And what he has said is
that it will make sense, it will be practical to ensure or
to allow for some of those assets to be invested locally because the Bermuda economy also needs to be activated to some degree.
And so, it is not a question of persons in any
way being irresponsible in terms of using those i nvestments, but simply being practical and realistic in
terms of [the fact that] there are times when we want
to do things locally, and we can be allowed to do so.
One of the interesting comments in terms of
our personal investments, for example, might be that if I happen to have an investment portfolio of, let us say,
I do not know, $500,000 and I need to or I would like
to purchase a house, and I do not hav e the down
payment, it is not impractical for me to use some of
my personal investments to make the down payment for the house, especially because having a house
provides stability for me and my children [now] and
thereafter. And so, there are some definit e advantages in doing so.
And again, I just want to emphasise that one
of our responsibilities is to provide information when persons do ask us to do so. And that is my comment
for today. Thank you.

The President: Thank you, Senator Richardson.
Would an y other Senator care to speak on the
motion to adjourn?
Senator Jones, you have the floor.

Sen. Marcus Jones: Thank you, Madam President.
I believe that topic that was just raised, I can
concur with some of my colleagues that this has been a question th at has risen to my attention, as well.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Sen. Marcus Jones: But be that as it may, my topic
of discussion [on a] motion to adjourn issue has to do
with something that is near and dear to my heart. As a
Government, it is quite clear that its responsibility is to
create an environment for its citizens, one that will
foster prosperity and peace, and in this country be
able to engender an atmosphere where we as citizens can discover and experience the Bermudian dream.
Now, not many peopl e have been able to
clearly define what that Bermudian dream is. We all
have our own opinions of what that would be. But
surely, every man, woman, boy and girl in this country
who has the right and privilege to live here should be afforded the opportunity to enjoy the quality of life that
we believe Bermuda can provide for us.
So with that introduction to where I am going,
my concern is the Government’s journey into the w aters of providing universal health care for its citizens.
A noble desire, we can all attest to that. But in the
Government’s quest to create an environment of
peace and prosperity, they need to make sure that
there is prosperity —i.e., there is sufficient revenue, an
economy that is buzzing along, [making sure] all of our assets and government investments are tight and
tidy so that we can afford to do this.
We know that the Minister of Health and her
team have been doing the roadshow and presenting
their plan to the general public. I was fortunate to be
able to attend one in the West End i n September. And
many questions were raised. I am glad that I was
there, because I was able to see first -hand not only
the questions that were asked, but also the body language, the nonverbal communication that was coming
from residents, both middle- aged and seniors, who
had some legitimate questions, questions some of which were not answered, some of which were sort of set aside because all of the information was not there.
698 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate But there seems to be a general anxiety in the country.
I am reminded of the story of Paul Revere, the
American patriot during the American War with Britain,
when he was riding to Boston to let his fellow patriots
know that The British are coming! The British are
coming!, to prepare for impending doom. Well, I would
not go as far as to say that this journey is doomsday.
But I would say that the Government would need to
take a breath, pump the brakes and give more thought
and a listening ear, especially to the professionals within the industry who have been practicing their
trade— i.e., th e doctors and the professional pract itioners who have voiced their opinions.
Now, we understand and know, Madam President, that consultation is part of the order of the day. Whenever the Government is bringing about pr oposals for changes in the way they do business, es-pecially something as large and expensive as health
care, consultation is important. And I was mindful of
the town hall meeting that was held in St. George’s. I was not fortunate to be there; I was able to look at it
online. I was cognisant of some comments made
about the conduct of some of the doctors and phys icians and professionals who were attending that particular town hall. And there were comments made that
some of them were rude and some of their comments were inappropriate. And it was stated that they hec kled and booed the Minister.
Now, I do not in any way agree with that type
of behaviour. Having said that, we do recognise that
the right to protest and the right to voice your dis agreement to something are part of the rights of every
Bermudian who lives here. And just as an observ ation, it is interesting in this country that certain issues
generate feelings of heroism in some sector of the
country and make villains of others. We know that for
the issue of the pepper -spraying incident, those who
were protesting, some disobeyed the law, some blocked politicians from getting into the House of A ssembly to do the people’s business. And many of
them were made as heroes. And those who were
voicing their opinion in this town hall, not breaking the
law, but just expressing their concern, are made out to
be villains.
Be that as it may, Madam President, I would
just say that . . . and I would advise the Government,
when embarking on consultation, it not only needs to be the applicable practice of having consultation for
feedback to garner advice, input from the public for
their buy -in in a spirit of full disclosure, but once you
have already made your decision, which appears to
be the case in this situation, then the public and those
key stakeholders feel like their opinions have been
discarded even before they have been able to give
them. And that really, really was borne out in a num-ber of different articles in the newspaper.
In the Royal Gazette, we find that the Berm uda Medical Doctors Associat ion [BMDA], a group of physicians, have stated their displeasure of this i mpending proposal. We find that here recently, there has been a group called Patients First Bermuda,
which is made up of about 75 physicians, and they are
showing and displaying and communicating their co ncern.
So, Madam President, under the overall umbrella of a Government whose number -one mandate
is to create an environment for its people and its cit izens to live a high- quality life and to be able to provide
the funding for things like this without overtaxing them with policies and other over -burdensome levies, I
would caution the Government to listen to its people.
We did experience the situation wit h the Corporation of Hamilton and the Corporation of St.
George’s, where the Government was trying to push
through legislation that would actually curtail the d emocracy of people within this country. And we find
that a high percentage of the people who wer e surveyed were against what the Government was plan-ning to do in regard to the corporations.
We find that even with this group, a survey
was done amongst the doctors of the BMDA. And of those participants, 95 per cent of those doctors who
were surveyed w ere against the proposal that was
being put forward by this Government. I recognise that we have a representative democracy, meaning that its
people vote for persons to represent them to govern the country. From time to time, we are able to have a
referendum, where the people actually, Madam Pres ident, directly have a say in how certain policies of national importance can be implemented and decided by its people. But a representative democracy can be
slightly different in that its representatives actually
govern.
So, we understand the power and the author ity that the Government has. But we do, at the same
time, caution those who are the decision- makers to
have another look, to listen very carefully, to understand the implications, to be aware of the unintended
consequences that can arise from reforming a system
that this Government promised (a) to find a way to
decrease the cost of health care in this country; and
[(b)] to cover those who are under - or not insured.
My questions to the Government of the day, to
the Ministry of Health, is, Have you done everything within their power to facilitate those who are less fortunate, who do not have full insurance? Have you
done everything in their power to decrease the costs
that the everyday citizen has to pay out?
One of the number -one voting blocks of their
platform is to lower the cost of living. The profession-als who are in this industry are telling us ever so forc ibly that this new reformation will not lower the costs.
And the information that has been amassed to make
this decision, from my observation, is not complete.
So, with those words, Madam President, I lay
out a challenge to this Government to have another look. Do not be . . . and I appreciate the fact that the


Bermuda Senate consultation has been long. The period of time that
has been dedicated to the consultation, I am in total
agreement with. You would know, Madam President,
that on different occasions I have hemmed and hawed
about the Government’s fast -paced speed in which it
comes up with these decisions. So, I am encouraged
that the Government has displayed an amount of deliberation.
But once the public and the key stakeholders
got a hint that the decision had already been made, it
created a fair amount of anxiety both within the pr ofessional side, the providers of the services for health
care, as well as with those who are the recipients and
consumers of health care.
And with those words, Madam President, I
thank you for the time.
The President: Thank you, Senator Jones.
Would any other Senator care to speak on the
motion to adjourn?
No. Then, Senator Caesar, as Acting Go vernment Leader, it is over to you.

BYE-ELECTION —CONSTITUENCY 17
Sen. Crystal Caesar: Thank you, Madam President.
As Acting Leader, I would like to just say a
few words on the motion to adjourn. In just over a
week, we will be undergoing a bye- election in consti tuency 17. And I would like to highlight that both of the
gentlemen who are standing to become, or vying for a
position as a Member of Parliament are young men in
the community. And I think it speaks to a level of community -mindedness, service and also somewhat
of political prowess, although both are relatively young
in the political process.
So, I would just like to acknowledge that these
are both young men under the age of 40 who have
decided to step up and serve their community. I think
that they need to be lauded. I think that their contribution and their sacrifice should be acknowledged.
With that said, I would also like to appeal to
other people in their age group, say, between the a ges of about 30 to 45, to become more invested in what happens in our country. I have heard as a result of
this bye -election that, oftentimes, people in that age
group are not the ones who vote, which I actually find
somewhat bizarre, because these are the people who
ultimately will have to live the longest with any dec isions. Well, obviously, people younger than they are,
as well. But these are the people of voting age who
actively will be able to take advantage of any dec isions that are made by the Government of the day, no
matter which Government that is.
So, I would just like to [say to] young people,
that I know that we get inundated with our lives, that
we say, I’m busy. I’m building a career. I have a family. I have things that I need to address now. But I b elieve that in order for us to become and feel invested in our society we have to become interested in how that society is run and to take an active part.
When I was younger, I always heard people
saying, Well, you know, politics is for older people
who are retired and what have you. I do not actually
think that this is the case. So I use the two young men
who are running in the bye- election, and I wish them
both the best of luck. But I admire their willingness to
step out and serve, and I hold them up as examples to
other young people to do the same.
And with that said, Madam President, I believe we are now done for the day. So, I finish with those comments.

The President: Thank you, Senator Caesar, the Ac ting Government Leader in the Sena te.
The Senate stands adjourned until next week,
Wednesday, November the 20
th. Thank you.

[At 11:49 am, the Senate stood adjourned until
10:00 am, Wednesday, 20 November 2019.]


700 13 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda Senate



[This page intentionally left blank.]