November 1, 2019

Okay.
Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: It will not take me that long.
Out-of-service repairs —13
th of June 2018 to
13th of July 2018, two MAN technicians for four weeks.
[The] 6th of August 2018 to 24th of August 2018, three
weeks, two men. [The] 4th of September 2018 to 2nd of
October 2018, four weeks, two men. That was for the
out-of-service repairs.
The 2009 refurbishment pr oject of 14 buses —
29th of October 2018 to 17th of November 2018, three
weeks, two men. [The] 19th of November 2018 to 8th of
December 2018, three weeks, two men. [The] 20th of
January 2019 to 9th of February 2019, three weeks,
two men. [The] 11th of February 2019 to 2nd of March
2019, three weeks, two men. [The] 4th of March 2019
to 23rd of March 2019, three weeks, two men. [The]
25th of March 2019 to 12th of April 2019, two weeks,
two men.
Out-of-service repairs again— on the 20th of
May 2019 to 19th of Au gust, 12 weeks, one man. [The]
13th of May to 31st of May 2019, three weeks, one
man. [The] 3rd of June 2019 to 21st of June 2019,
three weeks, one man.
The 2014 series emissions project, which is
16 buses —19th of August 2019 to 6th of September
2019, thre e weeks, two men. [The] 9th of September to
27th of September, three weeks, two men. [The] 30th of
September 2019 to 18th of October 2019, three weeks,
two men.
For 2018/19, the total cost has been
$348,640. The accommodation is $36,898. Airfare, $19,707. Cycle rental, $3,264. For a total of $408,508
for that period.
For the period 2019/20 year to date, it is
$222,527 for the MAN costs. Accommodation,
$56,870. And the airfare, $1,827. For a total of $291,224.

QUESTION 3 : MAN TECHNICIANS EMPLOYED AT
DEPARTM ENT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: [for Ms. Leah K. Scott]
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Third question:
Would the Honourable Minister please provide this
Honourable House the number of local bus mechanics
that have been apprentic ed under the MAN techn icians, with a view to reducing the reliance on the MAN
technicians and increasing the knowledge and skill
base of our Bermudian technicians, and what is the
2548 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly longest work permit term granted to any MAN technician?
Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is
DPT’s policy that local technicians work alongside
MAN technicians on maintenance projects and r epairs. This provides a unique opportunity for the
knowledge, sharing and development of local technicians.
Concerning formal apprenticeships, DPT has
one recent graduate and one third- year apprentice,
and is in the process of recruiting for an entry -level
apprentice, tradesman and technician.

There are questions from
Statements, one for the Premier from the Opposition
Leader, on the Commission of Inquiry.

QUESTION 1: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO LOSS AND
DISPOSSESSION OF PROPERTY
Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Yes. I will repeat the question. I must say . . . Sorry.
I did speak with t he Premier, and he gave pr eliminary answers, but I will, for the general public’s
awareness . . . I was just curious, knowing that the
appointment has been made, on the second page . . .
or is it the third page? On the second page, down below, it says, “I am also pleased to advise the House
that senior civil servant, Ms. Marva- Jean O’Brien . . .
[will be] seconded as secretary to the commission.”
I was just curious as to the appointment and
whether the appointment has been made to replace
Marva O’Brien in the Ministry of Legal Affairs, who
that PS is.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would not be appropr iate for me to comment on matters of the public ser-vice, as those are matters that are reserved for t he
Head of the Public Service and the Governor.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
The guarantee, I understand, is for a face value of $25 million. My question to the Minister: Has he made a reserve for legal fees that will be attached to
the guarantee should it be called? So, I know you said
you put a limit of $25 million, but that would be the
face value of the guarantee. I am not certain that it will
include legal costs. Can he expand upon that, please?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickins on: Mr. Deputy Speaker, no
reserve has been made in contemplation of legal fees
associated with the calling of this particular guarantee,
for a couple of reasons. At the moment, it is my view
that the likelihood of this guarantee being called or having to be funded is fairly low. The structure of the
transaction provided for the inflow of a whole bunch of
equity capital before debt amounts were allowed to be
drawn. As I mentioned during the course of the
Statement, the $160 million is the cost of the projec t.
The project, as contemplated, is fully funded, with
$100 million of those costs being in the form of equity
and the other $60 [million] being in the form of two
bank loans —a $25 million tranche A and a $35 million
tranche B.
Our guarantee relates to the tranche A loan,
which is the most senior of the two pieces of debt. So,
inasmuch as there is a potential issue, the creditors
who would be in line to receive proceeds from any
potential sale of the asset if it had to be sold, the first
monies go to the t ranche A lenders, which is where
our guarantee sits. So, the likelihood of there being a
loss or a real need to call the guarantee for that piece
of debt is fairly remote; hence, no provision has been
made for legal expenses associated with it.

Thank you.
The second question: The Statement said that
it is important to note that the guarantee will be compensated for by . . . it says, “The Government will be
compensated for providing the guarantee.” Can the
Minister of Finance tell the Honourable House how
much the Government is being compensated for the
issuance of the guarantee?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: The Government will be
paid 25 bas is points per year, or $62,500, for the
guarantee.

Any further questions?
No further questions.
The next question is for Minister Furbert from
Mr. Dunkley.
Honourable Member Dunkley, you have the
floor.



Bermuda House of Assembly QUESTION 1: UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION
EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, and good morning, colleagues.
The Honourable Minister, on page 2 of your
Statement, the fourth paragraph says, “The USA i ssued its statement that included assertions th at it was
costing the USA a disproportionate amount of money
to ship parcels through the US.” To the Honourable
Minister, what reasons did the US provide for this as-sertion? And how is that different from the challenges
faced by any other country?

Hon. Wa yne L. Furbert: I am sorry; I did not hear the
last part.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Okay. For what reasons
did the US provide for this assertion that it was costing them a disproportionate amount of money to ship pa rcels through the US? And how does this differ from
the challenges faced by any other country in shipping
parcels within their country?

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: The whole purpose, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, was that the US asserts that it costs
them more to ship from Miami to New York than from China to New York. And so, what they are trying to
say is that we want some parity as far as . . . because
how it works is that countries are charged based on
developing . . . China is considered an undeveloped
country, interestingly enough. And so, their rates are
much lower than the United States [rates] are, hence
[the reason] why a lot of Bermudians can buy from
Alibaba, I think it is called, [Alibaba.com] whatever it
is, and get it shipped from China to here [less expensively] than it would be from New York to Bermuda.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the Minister, but maybe my question was not clear; the Minister did not answer it.
The USA says it costs them a disproportionate amount of money to ship par cels through the US.
If that is the case, what is the reason for that, and why do other countries not face the same challenges,
whether they are developed or not? The US is a large
country, but there are many other larger countries in
the world; they shoul d [also] have this challenge. So,
what reason did the US give for those disproportion-ate challenges and costs?

No, I understand. I understand.

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not
speak for the United States. But it is very clear that
they made it very clear that their rates had to go up by
July 2020. If not, they are out of the picture.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Okay. Mr. Deputy Speaker, since the Minister is unable to answer the question, the Minister did say that the USA issued a stat ement. Can the Minister provide a copy of the s tatement so [we can have] a better understanding?

[Inaudible interjections ]

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Okay. The Minister said he
does not have the statement. But it was at the conference, so maybe he can research it.

QUESTION 2: UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION
EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Second question, Mr.

On page 3, the Honourable Minister
says that Bermuda pays $80,000 to be a member of
the UPU [Universal Postal Union]. Can the Honour able Minister please inform this Honour able House
what benefits does being a [UPU] member bring to
Bermuda?

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Well, that is quite simple.
You would not be able to move your postal [items] if
you were not a member of the UPU. You have to be a
member to get your products fro m here to the United
States, here to China, wherever it is. And so, if we
were ever out of the picture, we could not move within
that chain around the world.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: So, supplementary, Mr.
Speaker.

Yes.

SUPPLEMENTARI ES

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: If the US removes itself
from the UPU, how will that upset the chain of mail throughout the world?

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Well, I can tell you very
clearly. This is how it worked: They had threatened to
remove themselves from the UPU. And the UPU is like a membership; it is like part of the union. And so,
the UPU said that we would not be able to deal with
2550 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly the United States because we are now a member of
that union, per se. And so, we would have to form our
own agreement with t he United States. And basically,
the UPU said that would not happen.
But all I can say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that
everything is ironed out. Everybody is on board. We
[will be] making more money than we were. We will be
making more money next year than w e are now. So,
everything is sorted out now.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Supplementary to that
question, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Honourable Minister, in that paragraph,
says that the UK had two votes, one for themselves
and one for the Overseas Territories. If the UK would
not allow us to vote, why should Bermuda pay the
$80,000? Why should the US pay the money? B ecause if you pay the money, you cannot vote. You are just paying for somebody else to do your work. Did the
Minister broach that with the UK, to pay our fees if we
do not get our vote?

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could
tell you I was very disturbed, very disturbed. I said my
finger was on that button. I had to vote according to
what the UK told us to do. Now, if you want to go i ndependent tomorrow, I have no problem with that. But
they told us that we had to vote accordingly, based on
the agreement they have with the UPU, and that is the
way it is. That is the way it is. Now, I have asked the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office to find a way that
the Overseas Territories can vote accordingly by
themselves. But we had to vote according to what the UK told us.

The Chair recognises the Ho nourable Member, Mr s. Gordon- Pamplin.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am just curious. The
Minister indicated that he had his finger on the button
to vote. So, the question is, if Bermuda was deemed to be effectively an observer and not a participant,
was there any reason why the Minister had the but-ton? And could the Minister not have still pushed the
button in the manner in which he wanted to?

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me
explain how it [was]. I am sitting in my seat, I got my
finger on the button. And about four people are sitting
behind me making sure how I have voted.

[Laughter]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: It is, truthfully. That is how it
went. As a matter of fact, I was so disturbed they called me outside of the room and said, You are going
to vote according to how the Overseas . . . [rather] the
UK, wants us to vote. That is how it goes.

The Chair recognises the Ho nourable Member, Ms . Atherden.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Hon. Jeanne J. Atherden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
To the Minister: Something similar happens
when you go to the WHA, the health . . . I mean, P AHO, [Pan American Health Organization]. So, what I
want to understand is . . . the UKOTs [
UK Overseas
Territories] . . . do we have one vote so that you are
there representing all of those rather than it is not just
our $82,000 [sic] that was up? Do any of the other
countries also, the territories, pay any money? So, do
they have a vote?

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: The Overseas Territories
have one vote, collectively. I had my finger on the button for all the territories. But I had to vote according to
what the UK tells us to vote.

I do not know why we are g oing dow n this road. We are not independent. We are
guided by the UK no matter where we go. Once they are there, they vote for us.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I just have one
supplementary, another supplementary, if I may.
And that is, were t here any other represent atives of Overseas Territories at the conference? And if
there were other representatives, what policy decision was made so that our representative would be the
representative for the entire number of the Overseas
Territories? Just curious.



Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: They like me, Deputy
Speaker. And they asked me to push down the button.

[Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you
know, this is becoming a little silly. There were certain areas where the UK was sitting. Like a long line that
was sitting in front of us. Here are some seats that the
Overseas Territories sat in, myself and a few other
ministers. I just happened to be close to the button. Yes.

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: No, no, no. They said, This
is the button here. You can press the button when we
tell you to press the button. I do not see a problem
with it.

That is . . . when you are [an]
Overseas Territory, you are not an independent na-tion.
Any further questions?
Okay. The next question is for Minister Burch
from Mr. Cannonier, the Honourable Leader of the
Opposition.

QUESTION 1: TEMPORARY REPURPOSING OF
T. N. TATEM FACILITY

Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Thank you, thank you,
Deputy Speaker.
On the first page for the Infrastructure I mprovements, I just wanted to ask a question, recogni sing that Crisson Construction Limited was awarded
the contract. Was there any time limit given to complete the works? The reason I am asking that is that I
know that the East End constituents, from my exper ience from town halls there on the bridges, they always like to know the time frames and what is going
on. Was there any time frame given to completing that particular work?

I believe that there is
no time frame that has been set on him in terms of
doing it. But he is . . . the contract was aw arded, I
think in the last week or so. So, as soon as he can mobilise, he can start the work. You will find when you
go to St. George’s —you had better find that there
should have been new signs put up this morning, sa ying that we are concerned about the integrity of the
bridge and that people should not be fishing off of it. Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Yes.

Let me first . . . obituary to . . . I
would like for this House to send condolences to the
family of Mr. Randolph Furber t, from Aubrey Estate in
Hamilton Parish.
As you all probably know, Mr. Furbert pr oduced the best honey in the world and right from
Hamilton Pa rish. And I can tell you that if you wanted
a perfect fa mily man, Mr. Furbert was such [a] person.
He was very k ind and very respectful. And so is his
family. So, he is certainly a perfect example to all in
the neighbour hood . . . or not just his family, to all —to
all persons. And I know he will be sorely missed by his
wife, Gail, and his children, Paul, John and He ather.
Thank you.
The Chair recognises the Premier, the Honourable David Burt.

Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask this
Honourable House to send a letter of condolence to
the family of the late Ms. Isla Symonds. And I would
like to be sure to associate Mrs. Patricia GordonPamplin with those particular remarks, as she attended the home- going service with me. Ms. Symonds
was my constituent, but a lot of persons will know her from the Pembrok e area, as she had a long life, a very
vibrant life, and she was loved by many. She made a particular impact on me, of course, in my early days of canvassing, and would never, ever hesitate to give me a call whenever she needed something. And it normally had to do with one of her neighbours who was
not doing what they needed to do.
There was a very touching tribute at the
home- going service by all of her grandchildren. I can
assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was not a
dry eye inside of the place, as all six of her grandchi ldren gave a very touching tribute. And it was a beaut iful send- off at the First Church of God.
I would also like to ask for a letter of condolences to be sent to the family of the late Mr. Trenton
David Elwood Butterfield.

Yes.

2552 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. E. David Burt: He passed away recently and his
services were held at the St. Paul AME Church. And I
would like to send my heartfelt sympathies to his wife
Donna and to his children, Corey, Christin and D amon, during this very dif ficult time. Thank you.

The Chair recognises the Ho nourable Ms. Atherden.
Hon. Jeanne J. Atherden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
I would also like to be associated with the
condolences to go to the family of Randolph Furbert. For as long as I knew him, I knew him as “Mr.
Furbert”, the reason being Mr. Furbert worked for my
father in Adderley Brothers Trucking, A dderley Brothers Construction. And he was one of those individuals who you knew he was one of the supervisors. He got
lots o f awards for the excellence of his work. And I do
not know —for those of you who are old enough, when
Rafer Trucking started, my recollection was that the
truck that he used to have for my father, my father
said, I’m not going to be in the business anymore.
Therefore, you should have it to get your business
started. And the type of commitment and excellence
to service that Mr. Furbert had carried through that
when I had to use some of his services when I was at the bank; you suddenly realised that Rafer Truc king
had that type of reputation. But he learned all these
services when he was a young man. And afterwards,
when he went into the beekeeping, I remember having
to call him when there were bees at the house. And I
suddenly realised that he went from one career to an-other career. But he always used the excellence. And
I want to say to him and to his family and to Gail that
Bermuda misses him. And he was just a wonderful
man. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thank you.
The Chair recognises the Honourable Member Wayne Caines.

Hon. Wayne Caines: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to ask this Honourable House to send a letter of condolence to the fam ily and friends of Mr. Ramsey “Bo” Saggar. He was laid to rest this past weekend at the New Testament
Church of God. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this was a phenomenal send- off. I have never seen this many people
at a funeral. There were approximately 1,500 people
inside the church and approximately 1,500 people outside the church. W hat was so significant, it was
every walk of life represented in Bermuda. As you
know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bo was a firefighter for 23
years, Firefighter Number 91. They talked, and people spoke, that he was a golfer. He was a motorcycle enthusiast. He was a football enthusiast. He was a “ev ery man.” And he represented so many people from different walks of life. His wife, Crystal, gave a moving
tribute. So did his son Marley, and so did his son
Ramsey.
It was indeed the best of who we are as a
country. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it warmed my heart to see so many people there in tribute to a fir efighter. There was a cort ège that went from the church
to his home in Devonshire. To see 16 or 17 vehicles led by a procession of the firefighters —everyone just
going to lay tribute to him. To see the fire service, all
in their finest, their regalia, their dress uniforms, to support their fallen colleague. It was indeed a priv ilege. On behalf of the Ministry of National Security
and to his service, too, that he has giv en yeoman’s
service to our country, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would
like to acknowledge his passing.
Also, Colour Sergeant Parnell Emery. Colour
Sergeant Parnell Emery recently passed after an il lness. He served the Bermuda Regiment with distinction, served w ith the Junior Leaders, served with
A Company, served Training Company in the Berm uda Regiment. He was responsible for a number of our
young soldiers in Bermuda learning discipline, lear ning drill. He had an avid understanding of how to
make our young men and women better through the
service of their country in the B ermuda Regiment. I
was a young subaltern , having returned from Sandhurst, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And I was assigned to him, and he was my drill sergeant. And we worked
together. And he was indeed an excellent complement
to my leadership. His family are left to mourn his pas sing.
He then, on his leaving the Bermuda Regiment, Royal Bermuda Regiment, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
was active in the Seventh- day Adventist Church Pat hfinders. This is a group that groomed young people,
kind of like the Scouts, and is very active in the community. So many of our young people have been affected by his passing. Such is the man who has given his life to service. He will be buried at the weekend, on
Sunday, at the Hamilto n Seventh- day Adventist
Church. His passing has affected his brothers and
sisters in arms at the Bermuda Regiment, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. And I ask that a letter is sent to his family.
Congratulations, Mr. Deputy Speak er—for
congratulations, I ask for a lett er to be sent to Rakia
James E. Lambe, my nephew who is 12 years old, a
student at the Bermuda . . . was struggling at the
summer. And I told him that if he brought his grades up, I would mention him in the House today. Today we
went to the Bermuda Institute, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He got a 3.4 GPA!

As the name of their bus iness implies, this is truly a people’s pharmacy. When
you walk in that store, you feel that the staff and the
owners of this organisation really take a personal i nterest in yo u, and they provide you with yeoman’s service. I want to commend the Pearman family. As you
know, the business was started by the late Norris
Pearman, and obviously Donna is there, and Donna’s
daughter, Tamara. They are running it with Aleathea
Rabain.
You know, it bodes well for sustainability that
they have been able to grow to the level that they
have grown and be a player in the pharmaceutical
business here in Bermuda. Right now, they have 50 employees. They have their business that goes from, I
think, Reid Street, basically covers the whole block.
And that is the testament on strategic planning and
strategic investment and moving forward. In addition,
they have a pharmacy at the hospital. So, again, to
the Pearman family, to the People’s Pharmacy em-ployees, congratulations. And I trust that you [will]
have many more successful years, especially during these difficult times.
I would like to associate myself with Mr.
Furbert, the beekeeper. And he was an educator. He
was such a gentleman. When I was the Minister of the
Environment, we always had a chat about the bees.
And I always learned quite a bit from him. He was
such a dignified man.

Yes. The Chair recognises the
Honourable Member Michael Scott.
Hon. Michael J. Scott: Good morning, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Sir, may I be associated with the condolences
offered to the family by the Premier to Mr. Trenton
Butterfield, and in particular his surviving widow, Do n-na, and his sons Corey and Christin and the last name
(the youngest boy whose name escapes me), to him,
as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that the Minister
of Health, the Honourable Kim Wilson, wishes to be associated with this. Trenton was a regular member at
our church, Allen Temple. And so, I am asking to be
associated with those remarks of condolence. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like for the
House to extend condolences to the families of, firstly,
Tamra Broadley of St. George’s. She was a very good
friend of mine, a very tragic circumstance that led to her passing. It was around the same time as our colleague. In fact, the other two names I am going to
mention, it was at the same time as our colleague,
Walton Brown, the Honourable Walton Brown, passed
away. And so, Tamra Broadley, as I said, was a good friend of mine. And she is sorely missed by her family.
The mother, I had spoken to the mother, and she has
lost . . . actually, I think Tam ra may have been the fifth
child that she has seen pass in her lifetime.
The other is Mr . Stevie Smith. Mr. Stevie
Smith was known to be habituated around this area of
the country. He was a good friend of mine. We go
back to when we were little boys. He w as a good soccer player. He suffered terribly from diabetes.
Thirdly, another, she may have been mentioned already, condolences to [the family of] Darnell
Wynn, Todd- Wynn, another very good friend, a highly
accomplished educator. She led the Reading at . . .
What was it called again?

[Inaudible interjections]

The Chair recognises the Ho nourable Sylvan Richards.
Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to be ass ociated with the remarks just gi ven by the Honourable
Member for Ms. Darnell Wynn. She was a constituent of mine. She was a friend of mine. She was a su pporter of mine, and she was just a really lovely person. And she will be missed. As MP Commissiong
said, she spent two decades teaching English and
Literature at the high school and middle school levels.
And she was also the Education Officer for Reading at
2554 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly the Ministry of Education. She was also President of
the Bermuda Reading Association.
The one thing about Darnell, she was a runner. She enjoyed running. Even when her health was
failing and when she was facing considerable physical
issues, she continued to run. And I always admired
her spirit in that regard. If there was a 5K or a 10K or
whatever it was, she was out there running. So, she
will definitely be missed; I will miss her. And I offer
condolences on behalf of the House to her family and
friends.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thank you.
The Chair recognises the Honourable Member, Mr. Cannonier.

Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Thank you, Deputy. Thank
you, Deputy Speaker.
I would like to associate myself with the co ndolences to the Furbert family. Every time I saw Mr.
Furbert, he was committing me to suit up and go honey harvesting.

[Laughter]

Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: And I also had the great
opportunity of working with his son in telecommunic ations. In addition to that, his daughter’s beauty shop, I
have been getting my hair cut there ever since she
had opened up. But just a beautiful family, as we have
heard. So, condolences go out to the family.
Also, a university friend of mine, Cliff Savery,
passed maybe two months ago. They are just having the memorial service today, actually. He was the
nephew of Sir John Swan, former Premier of Berm uda. And so, I want to extend condolences to [the fam ily of] a young man who was a taxi driver, who lost his life, unfortunately, at a young age. And so, my cond olences go out to the family, in knowing them very well.
Also, congratulations to the People’s Pharm acy. I think we heard it in the House before. I was general manager there for over 11 years during many of
the expansions of the company. It is truly the epitome
of how, when family comes together and sticks t ogether, what can be accomplished.

Yes.

Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Thirty -five years, notably,
in numerology means prosperity. And certainly I am
excited to look in the paper. You see three gener ations there. But really, it is four and five generations.
They have got a lot of the family members still working
there and bringing along the young ones, as well,
within that family unit and that business.

Yes.
Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: I recall some funny things
that took place there, especially with the name, when I
got in there, on whether we should be changing the
name. And truly, it was all about the people of Berm uda. And they were the first pharmacy. It was strategic on their behalf to be in that location in Hamilton, because it was the only pharmacy within the city that
had i ts own parking. And it was a very good, strategic
move that they made at that time. And so, I congrat ulate them. I continue to be very, very close friends with
the family. And I wish them well as they go forward in their endeavours. Thank you, Mr. Deputy S peaker.

The Chair recognises the Ho nourable Member, Minister Lovitta Foggo.

Hon. Lovitta F. Foggo: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to express condolences for the family of Mrs. Dolores Harrison. She
was a mother to [the lady] formerly known as Donna
Wright. She was a Miss Bermuda. And she was a constituent of mine, and an absolutely lovely, lovely
woman. And I will say that she was also a relative.
And she will be missed. She will definitely be missed. I
think some will remember her lastly when she was
working at the Carter House in St. David’s. That was her most recent job until she succumbed to Al zheimer’s. And then, being feeble, she did pass on.
I also want to be associated with the comments as they relat e to Tamra —“Tammy”, we called
her Tammy, Tammy Broadley —who as long as I have
known Tammy, she always, always wanted to be a
nurse. And her nursing career was one that was exemplary. And in fact, she took on the role of being educated within that area. And so, the nursing community came out full force for her. And she will sorely be missed in the health profession. I do not think you will
be able to find someone who had that same personal ity, always open, highly respected, extremely, e xtreme ly knowledgeable. She always kept herself well
informed of trends within that industry. And so, St. George’s mourns the loss of Tammy Broadley. And
my sincere condolences go out to her family.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Deputy
Speaker; and good morning, colleagues; and good
morning, Bermuda.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to give tribute to
the late Mr. Malcolm Nisbett, a co- worker of mine at
BELCO for 30 years. Mr. Nisbett was one of the cal ming forces in the powerhouse, which could always be very rambunctious. He taught a lot of us to save our money, invest in real estate and do the right thing.


Bermuda House of Assembly I also want to speak about Ms. Darnell —well,
most know her as Ms. Wynn. Those of us at Berkeley
know her as Ms. Todd and later Ms. Paynter. This
lady spared no red ink on her students. She ensured
that we knew how to read and we knew how to write. And possibly right up until a few months ago, she was
still lecturing me on Facebook.

[Inaudible interjection]

Yes, I listened.
I would like to echo the comments of the Mi nister of National Security in regard to Colour Sergeant
Emery. I served with him briefly in the Royal Bermuda
Regiment before I left.
And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, last week Bermuda
saw a coronation of one of its own, from Devonshire, that we will never see again, Firefighter Ramsey Saggar. We knew him as Bo- Bo. What the Minister did not
put in was that he was the son of Devonshire, Elliott
[Primary] School, Robert Crawford [School], lived in
Devonshire most of his life.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we saw at that
church that day was Bermuda. As the Minister said,
uptown, downtown, Back o’ Town, front of town, ev eryone came out to [show] respect. This was one of the
humblest people you would ever know in your life. But he always looked out for [everybody]. And what drew
people out more was, even during his last days, he
was on WhatsApp calls, Facebook, calling people, not
to commiserate about himself, but to ensure that ev erybody looked out for each other. And one of the last
things he said to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was to en-sure that the crew that he works with, the firefighters,
get the treatment that they need, because the y were
suffering.
So, I just ask the people of Bermuda to look
out for Crew 4 and all the firefighters.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Yes. They knew who I am tal king about.

[Laughter]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I have been called
a lot worse, believe me.
[Laughter]

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Mr. Deputy
Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the Premier, although he did
mention to associate me on the family and the loss of
Isla Symonds. Ms. Symonds was one of the Crichlow
girls. And it was interesting because, you know, it was
a family. She has a sister, Gladys, and a sister, Renee, both of whom worked at Shopping Centre
when I was working there as a 13- year-old as my first
little summer job.
So, when I say that I have known this family
effectively my whole l ife, I can attest to that. Also, their
brother, their late brother Michael, we went to high
school together. So, our family go a long way back. Sister to Clevie . And it was just such a touching tri bute, as the Premier indicated, as to how her gran dchildren were able to stand there and pay tribute to a
grandmother who was very, very special in each of
their lives.

Right.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: And I can verify
the comments made by the Premier that there was not
a dry eye in the place when those young grandchi ldren finished speaking.
I would also like to be associated with the
comments in respect of Trenton Butterfield, who was
known as the “ usher in charge” when the AME
churches had their annual conference. He, along with
Elwo od Lambert, they took over. And they were just
sharp, and they were churchmen. They were good
Christian men.
Darnell Wynn—there is not much more that
can be said about her, other than that she was the
sweetest spirit that anyone could ever have met. And
she was a dear, dear friend. And I certainly mourn her
passing and give my condolences to her children and
her significant other, her deep friends.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to also associate
with the death of Mr. Savery. That is Sylvia Savery,
who is sis ter to John Swan—this was her son. And it
is always very difficult when a mother has to eulogise
a child. It is very difficult for her. And I want to offer my
condolences.
But I would also like, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in
my time, to pay tribute and to ask for condolences to be sent to the family of Jennifer (Darrell) Greenidge.
Jennifer was one of the Darrell family. She is sister to
Harold. She was . . . you know, we kind of grew up
[together]. She was a city girl. She grew up over on
Court Street and Victor ia Street, on that corner when
her house was there. And we literally go way back
from high school days.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, finally, I would ask to
be associated with the condolences to the Emery fam-ily. Carlton Emery’s mother, Judith, is a cousin of
mine. And when one looks at how families can support one another, Carlton’s mom was there to support us through our own family bereavements. And certai n2556 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly ly, I would want to be there for her as she goes
through this challenging time that she is experiencing.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Deputy Spea ker.
I am standing on my feet today because, al though the others have done Tamra Broadley, she was
actually my constituent. And to have a constituent like
Tamra would definitely keep you on your toes. She
had me on . . . she never WhatsApp’d me, but she
texted me often, and it would be about trees, road,
noise at Tobacco Bay . . . anything that she came
across in the constituency that needed to be taken care of, she made sure to let me know so that I could
take care of it. And when it was [rectified], she would
be sure to let me know that it had been done.
So, yo u appreciate constituents like Tamra
because, as a Member of Parliament, she made sure,
as she used to say, Work for your money. And so, she
will surely be missed because, even just before her
passing, we had spoken on phone and via text with
regard to her situation. And although it is unfortunate,
we extend prayers to her family, especially to her
mom and her dad, who recently celebrated 75 years
of being married. And she will truly be missed in our
area.
And also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from constit uency 2, Ms. Joyce Ann Doyling. I grew up, actually, in
that area, Sofer Lane it was called at that time. And
so, the Doyling family are known to me, and their chi ldren know me from running around at a young age in
that area of St. George’s. So, they are in our thoughts
and prayers.
And I also have two young men I would like to
mention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is awesome when we hear of our young males who are doing
some positive things out there. And one of them is Mr.
Zenawi Bowen, and he hails from St. George’s. And he was the North Atlantic Conference Player of the
Week two weeks ago. He is at Thomas College, and
he is playing football.
And then the second one is Mr. Tai -Quan
Ottley. Mr. Ottley’s talent is art. And so, the new mural
that is over there where the old Par -le-Ville car park is,
he painted that one on the wall. And he gave an inter-view this week. He explained why he did these certain
areas of it. But Mr. Ottley is no stranger to art, murals and painting. And so, hopefully, we are only seeing
what is the beginning of his career as he moves forward with that.
So, on that note, I would like to say thank you,

Minister Caines will do it.
Hon. Wayne Caines: Mr. D eputy Speaker, I propose
to move the following Motion at the next day of meeting: That this Honourable House take note that the
Future State Report dated August 23
rd, 2019, by Be rmuda First.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
The Deputy Sp eaker: There are, I think, four Orders
of the Day, and the first one is in the name of the Mi nister for Finance.
Mr. Dickinson, the second reading of the
Government Loans Amendment (No. 2) Act 2019. You have the floor.

BILL

SECOND READING

GOVERNMENT LO ANS
AMENDMENT (NO. 2) ACT 2019



Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government Loans
Act 1978 provides for the government’s authority to
borrow money, the maximum amount that may be bor-rowed and related matters. The Bill now before the
House proposes to increase the maximum amount
that may be borrowed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Honourable Members
will recall that in the 2019/20 National Budget, Government announced that, in view of the projected sur-plus, we had no plan to incur any additional long- term
borrowings in this fiscal year. However, due to unexpected events, the Government has been forced to
increase the debt ceiling in order to honour obligations in respect to the Caroline Bay project, formerly known
as Morgan’s Point. Mr. Speaker, before I go into further detail in this debate, I feel it necessary to remind
this Honourable House of the background surrounding
the Caroline Bay project, to illustrate how we got to
this position.
Honourable Members will recall that, on Se ptember 13, 2019, I held a press conference updating the general public on the latest developments at the
Caroline Bay project. During this press conference, I
notified the public of the following:
(1) To date, the developers had been unsuccessful in their attempts to secure a funding to meet
their financial obligations to the tranche B and tranche
C lenders. As a result of these defaults, both the
tranche B and tranche C lenders had demanded r epayment in full of their outstanding loans.
(2) In seeking to defend the public purse, the
Government has elected to exercise its option, by
reason of the defaults, to acquire the interest of both
the tranches B and C loans.
(3) The Government was in the process of
negotiating a credit facility with local banks for up to $200 million, the proceeds of which would be used, in
the first instance, to pay the tranche B and tranche C
lenders. These extraordinary circumstances and the
liabilities triggered by these defaults have resulted in
the Government having no choice but to raise the debt ceiling in order to borrow monies to fund the payments
to the tranche B and tranche C lenders, as set out in
the guarantees.
(4) An amendment to the Government Loans
Act of 1978 to increase the debt ceiling by $250 mi llion to $ 2.75 billion was being tabled with immediate
effect.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, subsequently, on September 27, 2019, I made a Ministerial Statement not ifying the House of the successful execution of a $200
million credit facility with local financial institution s.
Honourable Members were advised that this facility
offered the Government valuable flexibility with regard to its duty to exercise the full range of options provi ded under the Caroline Bay Project Agreement, which includes, in the first instance, the purchase of the i n-terest of the B and C lenders. Remaining proceeds
will be used substantially to fund other costs associated with this matter. The total value to buy the legal
interests of the B and C lenders was approximately
$170 million, and I can confir m that the Government
has closed on the certificate purchase agreements for
the B and C lenders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must re- emphasise that
at this time Government has not borrowed $200 mi llion, but simply has a facility in place to borrow up to
that am ount. Funds will be drawn only when absolut ely necessary, and only funds that are drawn will be
charged with interest. At this time, I can confirm that
Government has drawn approximately $170 million on
that facility, and these proceeds have been used only
to fund costs associated with this matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me be clear that neither the new borrowing nor the revised debt ceiling
amounts have been determined for any purpose other
than to fulfil the Government’s obligation and exercise
of its r ights under the respective guarantees for the
Caroline Bay project. However, as I presented in my
press conference on September 13, 2019, we will
seek advice from professional advisors to determine
the extent [to which] there are other potential liabilities
the Government may need to address. Without this
advice, borrowing or establishing a debt ceiling, wit hout room for contingency, would be irresponsible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can report that the
Government has begun the process of assessing the
amounts owed to contractors and subcontractors associated with this project. That work remains ongoing
and will be conducted in a transparent and prudent
way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, at this time, net debt
stands at $2.63 billion, and the only borrowing we
have incur red during this fiscal year is in relation to
this transaction, being the Morgan’s Point, or Caroline
Bay, project. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Government r emains committed to prudent long- term financial planning and to maintaining a robust debt -management
policy. And on November the 10
th, we will use funds in
the Sinking Fund to pay off $80 million in private placement notes when they mature. This will reduce
our annual interest costs by $4.7 million.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if interest rates continue
to head lower, the Government will look to minimise
its borrowing costs by performing an asset liability
management exercise by refinancing the $200 million loan and any other relatively expensive government
debt. The Government continues to review its options
with respect to Caroline Bay and take professional advice on how to best protect the public’s investment
in this project.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the decision to increase
the debt ceiling runs counter to the plan that I outlined
in this Government’s budget in February, which stated
that we had no plans to incur any additional long- term
borrowing in this fiscal year. While this turn of events
2558 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly was unplanned, our commitment to being prudent
stewards of the public purse remains unchanged.
With those introductory remarks, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, I now read for the second time the Bill ent itled the Government Loans Amendment (No. 2) Act
2019.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Minister.
Any further speakers?
The Chair recognises the Honourable Member Pat Gordon- Pamplin.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister has indica ted in his comments that he had made the necessary
arrangements to discuss, to arrange for a facility for
this $200 million a dditional in order that the Gover nment is in a position to exceed . . . (Well, I am sorry.) It
would be exceeding the existing loan ceiling; ther efore, it is required then to have a higher ceiling so that those loans could actually be called upon if needed.
But I think the Minister also indicated that he
had actually purchased the B and C tranches of the financing. And I just want the Minister to clarify for us
whether we have actually paid out the money to the
holders of the B and C [tranches] for Governm ent to
have acquired that. And if that was the case, would that payment out have caused our debt ceiling, as it
existed, to have gone through that debt ceiling? You
know, would that payment have caused us to go
through the debt ceiling, and therefore shoul d we not
have had the approval prior to?
I am just wanting clarity for that because you
will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the situation with
respect to Morgan’s Point, or Caroline Bay, and how
that actual project reached the stage that it was at
came as a result —if I may, just a very brief history —
came as a result of a swap from Southlands, or the people who owned Southlands swapped it under a
previous Administration, swapped it for a property at
Morgan’s Point, renamed Caroline Bay. I believe that the investors in that project at Caroline Bay, notwit hstanding some of their best intentions, have fallen short. And while a guarantee was given, a guarantee was actually required because the remediation standards and the costs relating thereto were going to
cause the project to rise exponentially over and above
what it was that was initially anticipated.
So, I am just curious as to whether the actual
money has been paid out to purchase back those B
and C tranches.
We know that in that deal that was made on
that swap, the holders, now of the Caroline Bay pr oject, actually had received something like three times more in freehold and probably four times more leas ehold property in exchange, and we all recognised at the time that there was an exchange of a very dir ty site for a very pristine site that existed at Southlands.
So, we understood at the time the reasons for the di fferential in the allotment of property, as it were. But
within that allotment, the requirement to clean it up
was going to be almost out of th e realm of bringing
things, because it was initially required that we would
remediate to international standard. And, ultimately, it
was agreed by the previous Administration, before the
previous Administration, that they would remediate it
at residential standard, which effectively was a higher
degree of remediation and therefore would cause an
extra lot of money in order to be able to achieve that.
So, in order for that project to proceed, it was
necessary for the Government at the time, once all of the negativity of what the costs were going to be were
brought to the fore, it was necessary to provide a guarantee. Because it would appear that there would never have been a project that would have gone on at
that site, and we would still have been in a situ ation
where the US base, where they left very, very sludgy conditions, and they do not clean up behind themselves when they go to various jurisdictions. They leave that mess for the countries in which they have
operated to, literally, pick up the pieces.
And I think that, in fairness to the people of
Bermuda, we did not necessarily want to sit by and allow sludgy conditions to prevail, whether or not that
property was going to be used and switched over to the Caroline Bay project.
The question that we hav e is just to try to e nsure whether . . . I know that the Government at one
point in time, there was a shifting around of the board members in respect of Caroline Bay. And in putting
additional people or different people in on that board
to be able to overs ee what was happening at Caroline
Bay, I just wondered what exactly . . . what difference
was made by having different people on the board?
Because it still seems as though the financing that
was going to be required to bring the project to its u ltimate conclusion was still not made available to the
existing investors.
So, I am just wondering how the shifting of the
board has made any difference in terms of what it is that the project was able to do and whether, in fact,
there is any recourse? Because the last information
that I heard was that the investors were still trying to
get money so that they could complete another part of
their project. So, with the Government now having to
satisfy the tranche B and C lenders, I am just wondering how the shareholders of that project are going to
be held to account for the money that has been r equired, notwithstanding the guarantee.
Because what we do not want is a situation—
and if I can just have an aside. This morning, we heard that there was also the guarantee in St.
George’s which was also arranged. And the Minister indicated that he did not believe that that guarantee was going to have to be called. I believe that when
guarantees are offered, the idea is that they would not


Bermuda House of Assembly have to be called. However, there are times when pr ojects are required, in order to make sure that their
funding is adequate and appropriate, that they may
have to have a government backing. We have seen it
on several occasions. We have seen it with Bank of Butterfield, over time. So, I just w ant to know whether
the shareholders of Caroline Bay, with this negoti ation, have been effectively exonerated from their r esponsibility or whether there still will be a reasonable
requirement for them to continue to attempt their efforts to bring additiona l financing in so that, notwit hstanding the Government will end up paying for the
tranche B and C loans, where is the clawback of the
money going to come from?
Because I do not believe that, notwithstanding
the best efforts and notwithstanding the requirement, I
do not believe that the taxpayer should be left on the
hook indefinitely or, you know, forever for the $165
million.
To raise the debt ceiling, as the Minister has
just alluded to . . . it was interesting that the Minister
was relatively new coming into the last budget cycle. And when we heard the budget statement indicating
that there would be no necessity to raise the debt cei ling, it was interesting that “T he best -laid [plans] o’
mice an’ men / Gang aft a- gley.” And really, what it
says is that, while you may not have had any intention
at that point in time, there are times when you look at
what your liabilities are at any given point, and you
look at what contingencies might be required. And I
believe that this was one that would have manifested
itself at that point in time. So, I am just not certain that,
by making a declaration that there is no necessity to raise the debt ceiling or to borrow any more money,
that this was a given. I just think that a little close scr utiny would have indicated t hat maybe that statement
was a little bit ambitious under the circumstances.
And while it is regrettable that we have
reached this stage, because one hopes that when you
offer to an entity a guarantee, that they would still fulfil
their side of the bargai n. And what I have not heard,
notwithstanding that Government or the Minister has
indicated that Government will take over the B and C tranches, I want to understand exactly what respons ibility is still being laid at the feet of the investors in the projec t to try to minimise the costs to the taxpayer.
With those few comments, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, I will take my seat.

The Minister, as you said in
your Statement, you charge 25 basis points for the
guarantee that is in place for the same wages. Now, I
understand that the former Minister of Finance also
charged 25 basis points for the guarantee at Morgan’s Point.
Can you confirm whether we received the
fees, the 25 basis points fees on an annual basis, since the guarantee has been outstanding? And also,
confirm whether the total fees aggregated can be
used against the amount that you are using to retire the debt from the creditors? How much did we receive
in guarantee fees from Morgan’s Point?

Any further speakers?
Minister.
Hon. Curti s L. Dickinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
In answering the first question about, have
funds been paid to the B and C lenders, the answer to
that is yes. The Government Loans Act 1978, the substantive legislation . . . this legislation is carried out
in accordance with the Provisional Collection of Rev enue Act of 1975. And as a result of that, on the day that the legislation is tabled it becomes effective. So,
the legislation became effective on the 13
th of Se ptember, well before any payments were made to an yone. So, I think that there was some confusion, clearly, with the Member as well as the general public. I
think I had read in the blogs that they had not even
debated the Bill. I think people may not have understood that the Bill became effective the moment that it
was tabled back in September.
There was some discussion around the cleanup of the site. I am not familiar with all of the partic ulars of that exercise. But I do know that there are var ious points of view around how clean or how dirty the
site actually was and how much money was required
to clean it up. And I think I have said publicly, I think
on television, that I have no issue as a general princ iple with governments providing guarantees as a way to encourage investment. My particular is sue with this
one was in how it was done and in whether or not the appropriate protections were put in place to ensure that the Government’s interests were always protec ted.
And by way of example, I will draw a compar ison. With respect to the earlier stat ement I made
around St. Regis, we talked about a fully funded, fully financed package of capital to get that project done, the number being $160 million; $100 million of that
was in equity and $60 million of it was in debt, in two
tranches, an A and a B pi ece, 25 and 35. Gover nment’s guarantee was associated with the tranche A piece, the most senior piece of debt. Inasmuch as that
project fails completely, the question that we have to ask ourselves is, Do we think that we can get at
least —the banks can get at least $25 million to satisfy
2560 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly tranche A? And the reason why Government is co ncerned about the tranche A piece in particular is because its guarantee is associated with that piece of
debt.
I am of the view that we have probably got at
least $25 million of asset value there if something goes wrong, and that therefore our liability, our contingent liability is fairly small. Now, granted, anything
can happen. A bomber could fly by and drop a bomb
on this spot and eviscerate the site and it would be
rendered worthless. But that is a fairly unlikely situ ation.
With respect to the Morgan’s Point project,
what we had is, what I can tell, a situation where there was not a fully financed package of funding for the development. In actual fact, government’s guarantee
seemed to be used to kind of aid in getting debt f inancing when the hole to be filled was other debt and other equity which never materialised. And so, what
we had in that instance is a not fully financed project
for which government had a guarantee. And therefore,
our risk increased as the result of not having a fully
financed transaction. Inasmuch as there had been a
fully financed transaction, I think the outcome of this
would have been a whole lot different.
The Member asked a question about the
board composition. My understanding is when issues
were flagged up to this Government, a suggestion
was made and an action taken to enhance the go vernance of the project. And the addition of two people,
Mr. Andy Burrows and (I think) Ms. Nancy Duperreault, wer e added to the board. And Mr. Christensen
and Mr. Hunt stepped off. My understanding is that, as
the result of the improvement in the governance pr ocess, there was greater oversight placed on draws of
money to fund the various parts of the project.
There was a question with respect to shar eholders. The documentation that we have had a
chance to review includes in that something called a
reimbursement agreement, which sets out what happens in the event that the guarantees are called and
Government has to ac tually expend money. And the
developers of the project are responsible for reimbur sing the Government for funds that the Government
has advanced. We have elected in the case of the
tranche B and C loans to actually acquire the loans, as opposed to honouring the guarantees.
And some would ask . . . someone suggested
that that is a distinction without a difference. And I would say that it actually is a big difference. What we
have sought to do is to ensure that the Government
has the strongest position possi ble in seeking to remedy the situation with respect to the monies that we
have funded. What we did not want to do is to . . . and
in the case of the C notes, where the accrued liability
was greater than the amount that we guaranteed . . .
So, let’s just sa y . . . so the guarantee for the Cs was
$80 million. The accrued value of their loans was $98 million. So, in actual fact, through negotiations with the C lenders, the Government was able to save $18
million. Had we not been able to enter into proper negotiations, had we honoured the guarantees and left
the $18 million outstanding, that $18 million of debt would have had a claim to the assets. And so, in an effort to gain control, a stronger negotiating position,
we decided to negotiate with the lenders and acquire
their claims, as opposed to just paying out on the
guarantees.
We have not had any substantive discussions
with the shareholders. And we have had fairly limited outreach from them to us. And I will leave that there.
It is my intention that the t axpayers will not be
left on the hook with respect to this project. Inasmuch as there is an inability to raise additional equity capital
by the developers, then we will exercise our rights as
creditors on this project and take control of it. I am taking very careful and thoughtful advice on what the
appropriate next steps should be with respect to
where we find ourselves on this matter. And, as I am
with respect to the incurrence of additional debt related to this project, I am being very thoughtful and co nsiderate about the actions that I take on that front, as I
will be on the next steps around how we go about
remedying the situation that we have on our hands.
With respect to MP Simons’s question about
the guarantee fee and the payment of it, my understanding is that the fees have been paid, the quantum of them. I do not have it at my fingertips right now, but
we can get that information to you. But it was 25 basis
points. I am being advised that the number was
$99,000 per quarter. And those funds generall y go
into the Consolidated Fund. And so, left pocket –right
pocket; at the end of the day, it is kind of all gover nment’s money, and the funds are used as they are
required.
I think I covered off on most of the questions.
If I did not, please let me know and I will attempt to
address any unanswered questions.

Well . . .

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: So that when we
come back, we will be in Committee.



Bermuda House of Assembly The Deputy Speaker: Well, we can do that. Thank
you.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I just want to be sure. I
know that there were a number of questions that the
Member asked. I want to be sure I answer all of your
questions.

The Minister has it covered; I
can assure you.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I am sorry for the conf usion.
The Deputy Sp eaker: That is all right, Minister.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I know that the Member
asked a number of questions. I attempted to write
them down as she asked them. I think I have a nswered most of them. But what I was offering was if I did not cover off an ything that you asked—because
my intention is to answer all of your questions as best
I can—please let me know.
And then if not, then we can move the Bill to
Committee. Are we good?

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Yes. We are
good.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: This Bill seeks to amend
section 2A of the Government Loans Act 1978 to i ncrease the limit on the public debt.
Clause 1 cites the title of the Act and is self -
explanatory.
Clause 2 amends section 2A(1) of the Government Loans Act 1978 so as to increase the statut ory limit on the public debt by $250 million to $2.75 bi llion.
Clause 3 provides for commencement on the
day that this Bill was tabled in the House of Assembly,
in accordance with the Provisional Collection of Rev enue Act 1975.

Any further speakers?
2562 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly The Chair recognises the Honourable Member Pat Gordon Pamplin.
You have the floor.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the clauses and the content of
this Bill are straightforward and certainly we understand the reason f or which the debt ceiling needed to
be raised and we have no objection. So I am quite happy to concur with the comments made by the Mi nister.

It has been moved that the Bill be
reported to the House as printed.
Any objections to that?
No objections.
The Bill will be reported to the House.
[Motion carried: The Government Loans Amendment
(No. 2) Act 2019 was considered by a Committee of
the whole House and passed without amendment.]

House resumed at 2:08 pm
[Hon. Dennis P. Lister, Jr., Speaker, in the Chair]
REPORT OF COMMITTEE

GOVERNMENT LOANS
AMENDMENT (NO. 2) ACT 2019

Members, is there any objection to the
Government Loans Amendment (No. 2) Act 2019 b eing reported to the House as printed?
No objections.
So mov ed. It has been reported.
We will now move on to the next Order of the
Day. The next Order is [Order] No. 4, which is the
second reading of the Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Act 2019 in the name of the Minister of
Finance.
Minister?

BILL

SECO ND READING

CASINO GAMING (MISCELLANEOUS)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , the purpose of this Bill before
the House today entitled Casino Gaming (Miscellan eous) Amendment Act 2019 is to make amendments to
the Casino Gaming Act 2014.
Mr. Speaker , the Casino Gaming Regulations
2018, which were made on the 26 September 2018,
represented only a portion of the casino gaming regulatory package. I can now inform this Honourable
House that the Casino Gaming Amendment Regul ations 2019—the remainder of the regulatory pac kage— has been made operative on the 12 September
2019 and has thus completed the casino gaming
regulatory regime.
Mr. Speaker , the Casino Gaming Amendment
Regulations 2019 made pursuant to section 196 of the
Casino Gaming Act 2014 and subject to the negative resolution procedure make the provision for the follo wing 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 ac-counts;
d) resolution of gaming complaints;
e) problem and responsibility gaming;
f) exclusion orders;
g) provision of credit;
h) service of liquor;
i) betting;
j) casino marketing arrangements;
k) temporary managers; and
l) disciplinary procedures.


Bermuda House of Assembly Mr. Speaker , for the purposes of and in r espect 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. Thes e amendments
have been consolidated into the Casino Gaming Mi scellaneous Amendment Act 2019. To that end the amendment seeks to:
1. clarify various provisions of the Casino Gam-ing Act 2014 in order to better support the u nderlying policy and to enable such policy to be
carried out via the regulations;
2. make provisions for various fees, which have
now been provided for in the Regulations; and
3. make general housekeeping amendments.
Mr. Speaker , with respect to the proposed fee
amendments to the Casino Gaming (Casi no Fees)
Regulations 2017 the Bermuda Casino Gaming
Commission consulted with established jurisdictions,
well-known and respected testing laboratories, and
experts in technical areas as regard to those regul ations in relation to the appropriate fees to be levied. It
is important to note that while some of these fees pr oposed at this time are necessary in relation to the
opening of a casino, there will be further amendments
to the fees in respect of operational matters, which will be proposed at a later date.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker . It is the intent of
this Government 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, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Mi nister.
Does any other Member wish to speak?
We recognise the Honourable Member Mrs.
Gordon- Pamplin.
Honourable Member , you have the floor.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I thank the Minister for his
presentation. Apart from some fee specificities that
are included in this Bill, the rest of the Bill is fairly i nnocuous. There is not . . . it is not earth- shattering, it is
not a whole lot . . . they are really kind of like hous ekeeping changes.
But what I would ha ve liked the Minister to
say, given that he has in his closing clause and statement indicated that it is the Government’s inte ntion to continue with casino gaming because they b elieve—as we believed when it came on line —that it
would create economic growth and job opportunities,
it would have been good to have some kind of update
so that we know, number one, are there training pr ocesses in place so that we have our workforce being
prepared to be able to take on these types of jobs that
are likely to happen? It does not make sense waiting until a casino is ready to open and then say, Oops!
We don’t have the personnel and, therefore, we have
to have work permit holders. And I am not suggesting
that there will not be any, but if we are able to create and produc e the lion’s share of employees in this i ndustry, it would have been good to hear where we are
down that continuum.
The other thing we would have liked to have
heard is where are we in respect of the allocation of licences? I would imagine that when the hotel of which
we spoke this morning with the guarantee —not r eflecting on a debate—but I am sure that they would
have had a little bit of concern because I believe that
they were one of those who were interested in ensuring that they had a licence, and that was part of the
arrangement that they would have had so that they can begin to operate. So it would be useful to know where we are in terms of the specific allocation by the
Gaming Commission—I realise this is not the Mini ster’s responsibility, I realise it comes under the um-brella of the Gaming Commission—but the Gaming
Commission, presumably, would be reporting back to
the Minister and it would be useful for the Minister to
be able to explain to this Honourable House where we
stand in that process.
But most importantly, while our best intentions
are laudable, my question is that the impediment that
we have experienced thus far and the thing that has caused us to pause and halt with going full force
ahead . . . full steam ahead, has been the banking
issue in relation to casino gaming proceeds. And if the
Minister is now saying that it is the Government’s i ntention to push forward with this —and we are not tr ying to throw spanners in the works —we just want to
know where do we stand? We know that Bermuda’s reputation financially is critical. But we also know that
there are gaming environments in other places . . .
there is Atlantic City, there is Las Vega, there is . . .
now, almost every time you drive down a US highway
they are highlighting the fact that there is another c asino opening and come to this one and do this. So
they, obviously, have found a methodology by which they are able to bank their proceeds.
Now we know that the major stepping . . . the
major stumbling block is the impediment that they have in terms of anti -money laundering and anti -
terrorist financing. And that is something that Berm uda has to ensure that our reputation is maintained on a pristine basis, that we are a blue- ribbon destination
and we need to make sure that we can maintain that. But that does not make us any different from other jurisdictions. So if the other jurisdictions have managed to find a banking solution, can the Minister give
us some indication as to where we are [on that]?
It is fine to have a lot of housekeeping cha nges and I am sure that in looking at the legislation itself
and with amendments that were made in September (as the Minister indicated) that we can . . . we can
tweak this from now until the cows come home, but
2564 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly where are we with the substance? And I did not hear
that in the Minister’s presentation and I would be
grateful for some update.
Thank you, sir.

Mr. Speaker , the Honourable
Member who spoke just before me said she was not
going to throw spanners. Well, let me throw one.
The reason that casino gaming is not pr ogressing in Bermuda is because of the legislation
change that brought in an element of governmental
oversight into the Casino Gaming Commission. And
that is what killed things stone dead.

[Inaudible interjection]

Thank you, Honourable Member .
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak?
I recognise the Opposition Leader.
Honourable Member , you have the floor.

Hon. L. Craig C annonier: Yes, I just wanted to say to
the Minister I am grateful that at least we finally have gotten to this occasion today, notwithstanding some of
the concerns that have already been voiced. I am glad
to see that we are revising certain wording and the
likes, but I also want to say that in speaking with some
of the members who are interested in a licence and who have been, quite frankly, assured of this as they
continue forward with their plans, I am glad to see this
because they have been waiting.
I recognise when we talk about the areas defined and the likes —and I am talking about the property in St. George’s —that they have been very much
concerned about where are we. And they wanted to see this piece of legislation coming to the table as
they continu e on with their construction.
So with that in mind, Mr. Speaker , I do want to
thank the Honourable Member and his team for getting us to where we are right now so that we can pr oceed. The main concern right now is to hear from the
Minister as to exactly w here we are with the dollar
value . . . not the dollar value, but with financing the
money that come—proceeds, I should say —that come
from gaming, how is that going to be handled in the
banking system?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Hono urable Member .
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak?
There are none.
Minister, would you like to wrap up?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker .
Let me address the questions that were raised
in the order in which they were raised.
With respect to an update, it is no small coi ncidence that this legislation is being debated today.
Today marks the one- year anniversary of me being
sworn in as the newest Minister of Finance. So it has
been a fairly —

Congratulations.

Hon. Cu rtis L. Dickinson: Thank you very much.
It has been a year, and I can tell you that I put
some pressure on myself and on my team to move
things forward so that we had something substantial
to talk about. Having said that, I was not prepared to
move forwar d with this legislation until we reached the
point in the development of a gaming regime where we actually had something to talk about.
I am intimately familiar with the issues surrounding banking and their impact on our ability to move forward as a juris diction with gaming. It was in
2016, I believe it was, when I took the then Minister —
Minister Crockwell —and the then Chairman—Mr.
Dunch—to New York in my capacity as the Head of
Treasury at Butterfield to meet with the Bank of New York to discuss the concerns around correspondent
banking. And the Honourable Member talks to the
basicness of gaming establishments in the United
States, and I would remind colleagues of one very
important piece of information that needs to be considered when talking about and comparing Bermuda to onshore jurisdictions. The United States has two
banking systems: one is a national banking system
and the other is a state banking system. And so it may
actually be the case that certain gaming establis hments in certain places in Americ a are actually
banked by state banks as opposed to national banks.
The correspondent banks that bank Berm uda—the likes of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of New York,


Bermuda House of Assembly Wells Fargo, and others —are national banks. And in
my short time in this job I have also learned t hat there
have been profound challenges by jurisdictions to the
south of us around correspondent banking services
where the banks have effectively exited those markets completely. So I understand the concern expressed
by Members opposite with respect to th e progress
being made.
I also understand the concerns, having been a
former banker, and having had to change in fairly
short order on two occasions the Bank of Butterfield’s correspondent banking network when I was advised
by the incumbent that I had 30 da ys to move my accounts and had to get it done in a timely fashion wit hout creating any disruption to the economy of Berm uda.
So I treaded in this space very, very, very
gently because I understand the consequences of the correspondent banks upping and leaving and that
would pretty much put a screeching halt to the robust
economic activity that we enjoy here in Bermuda.
So, from a banking perspective, I have made
a point of keeping . . . and the Member talked about
the licences with respect to someone who I mentioned
earlier. I mentioned two names, one was the St. Regis
and the other was Morgan’s Point, and I want to be
sure that I am addressing the parties who have been granted a provisional licence, which would be the folks
in St. George’s. I keep the fol ks at the Hamilton Pri ncess and the folks at the St. Regis up to date on the
progress that we are making with respect to the banking issue.
I think I have also indicated a level of flexibility
around them honouring their commitments to pay fees because, t echnically, they should have paid fees. I
have exercised some leniency in that because I understand that ultimately they want some certainty
around whether the banking piece works because if
the banking piece does not work then why should they
even consider moving forward? So I make it part of
my every day practice to keep the key stakeholders to
whom I am largely responsible—and that is the voters
as well as the broader Bermuda community and the real productive inputs into our economy —informed of
the progr ess that we are making on key initiatives and
how they will impact their businesses. And I will con-tinue to do that going forward.
With respect to the banking piece we have
done something, I think, that should be considered second nature, we have actually engaged the local
banks and we have used relationships to work toget her and try to identify a creative solution. I would not feel comfortable coming here talking about this legi slation today unless I felt that those conversations had
progressed to a point where I could have some high
degree of comfort or confidence that we are close to the end with respect to finding a solution. I think people are talking. People are gaining an understanding
of what is going on and what is going to be required. There are s ome economics involved, obviously, and I
think people will want to fully understand what impact the economics is going to have on the business, being
the bank, and the business being the casinos. And so
those things are progressing nicely and I feel comfor table that within the right amount of time—hopefully
before the end of the year —we will have this issue put
to bed.
With respect to training, before, I think, folks
are prepared to commit any money to actually . . . in
the case of . . . well, there are tw o different scenarios
here. In the case of the St. George’s property, they are a greenfield site where they are building the facil ity right now and as part of the build of the hotel they
will create space for the casino. Whether they will fit it
out yet . . . they will wait, I am sure, until they have
some certainty around whether the banking piece
works.
The other property —the Hamilton Princess —
where the space that has been identified, that space
is currently being used for another purpose, but once
there is some certainty around what will happen with
respect to the banking piece, they would then decommission that space and commence an exercise to
refit the space to make it suitable for a gaming facility.
And so with the lead time of getting an answer on t he
banking front, they will then start the work on the con-struction. And my expectation is that while they are doing the work around construction they will also, at
the appropriate point in time, start doing the work
around training.
And so this will not be, in my mind, a last -
minute exercise of people saying, Okay, the banking
piece is solved, now where are your people? because
there still needs be a bunch of work done on fitting out a facility to ensure that it is ready and operable once
the doors open f or the casino.

Would you like to move us to Commi ttee now?
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Just one moment because
I think the Member, in speaking just now, raised a nother issue that I do not think I addressed, and I am
not sure if I can [do so] without some additional clarif ication.
There was a suggestion that the reason why
the regulations had not . . . or the law . . . the amendments had not progressed was becaus e of some
changes that Government had made. I am not familiar with what changes the Member is speaking about and
if there is an opportunity for the provision of some
clarity around that I would certainly appreciate it.
What I do know, from where I sit, the issue
heretofore has been around getting the banking sol u2566 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly tion addressed. It has been an issue that has been
being worked, to my knowledge, for the better part of
two and half, almost three years. It is complicated. It
involves not just the folks in indust ry at the banks, but
also folks in my organisation around NAMLC and understanding how we are going to regulate a regime
that does an activity that does carry with it some degree of risk. We happen to enjoy a very favourable
reputation with respect to tax t ransparency, our AML
regime, and I do not think there is anyone in this House or in this Island or in my Ministry who is going to cut any corners in the aim of moving gaming forward while at the same time setting the jurisdiction
back from an AML/KYC perspective.
I would like to, Mr. Speaker , if possible with
your indulgence, if there is some clarity that I need to
get with respect to answering a question that I have
not answered in my response, get that clarity so that I
can then move this to Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker , and I
am grateful to the Minister for giving me a further opportunity to clarify the point I was making.
The point I was making was that there was a
legislative change by your Government where you changed the ability of the supervising Minister to
change the members of the board and have greater control over the Commission. So it was less independent and there was a potential for ministerial interference. When that happened it was criticised and it
was linked by commentators —rightly or wrongly —and
that is why I asked you the question— to the difficulties
that were being encountered with the banks, i.e., the
potential for political interference with the Casino
[Gaming] Commission was a reason that the banks
had concern about pro viding correspondent banking
services.
Whether that link is accurate or inaccurate is
not something I can comment on, but that was certai nly the criticism at the time. And it was suggested that
that legislation needed to be reversed. And that was
the point of my question.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Minister, does that help you?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: It does . . . it does tremendously and I can . . . I can categorically refute th at
perception because at the point that the law was changed, I was running Butterfield’s private banking business, but retained responsibility for correspondent
banking relationships. The change had no effect at all
on the bank’s posture from where I sat.
And, in fact, my analysis of the change pos itions the Gaming Commission similarly to how the Bermuda Monetary Authority [operates], how the Mi nister has the ability to make appointments. I will pr ovide some level of comfort, but I accept that I am the Minister today and I have my own views on how to do
my job and that my successors may have a different one, but I have no tolerance for interfering in the independent operations of the Gaming Commission or the
BMA. And so I leave those bodies to do their jobs accordingly.
My understanding is that the hurdle here was
on the banking front and getting the banks comfort able that their correspondents would be fine with accepting money that came from the casinos —no more
and no less than that.
With that, Mr. Speaker , I move that the Bill be
committed.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: This Bill seeks to amend
the Casino Gaming Act 2014.
Clause 1 provides the citation of the Bill.
Clause 2 amends s ection 2 of the principal
Act in order to clarify, in respect of a number of definitions, the distinction between the terms “wager” and
“bet,” to expand the definition of “gaming equipment”
to include a computerised betting system, and to better clarify th e meaning of “disciplinary action.”
Clause 3 amends section 33(2)(c) of the pri ncipal Act (regarding the consideration to be provided by the Commission in respect of an applicant for a
casino licence), to remove the reference to an appl iBermuda House of Assembly cant “that is not a natural person” where such an applicant will always be a corporate body.
Clause 4 amends section 41 of the principal
Act to insert new subsection (5A) for the purpose of
enabling a fee to be prescribed in respect of a r equest, by the casino operator to th e Commission, to
amend the conditions of the casino operator’s casino
licence.
Clause 5 amends section 42(2)(b) of the pri ncipal Act to clarify that when further defining a gaming
area, the gaming area is to be further defined within the boundaries of the casino premises and when further defining an eGaming zone, the eGaming zone is
to be further defined within the boundaries of the designated site.
Clause 6 amends section 46(1)(b) of the pri ncipal Act to include, as a ground for disciplinary action against a casino operator, any contravention by the
casino operator or his agent of a direction given by the
Commission under the Act or any instrument made
under the Act. This clause also repeals and replaces section 46(3) to provide that an agent of the casino
operator includes any person who performs functions
that are part of the normal operation of the casino,
including such ancillary functions as catering and
cleaning, whether or not the person is directly employed by the casino operator.

Any further speakers?
The Chair recognises the Honourable Member Pat Gordon- Pamplin.
You have the floor.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my query for the Minister is on
page 2 of the Bill on clause 2(2)(a) and [claus e]
2(2)(e).
Subsection (2)(a) it looks as though this Bill
seeks to delete “bet” and “betting” or, under the definition of “betting” deleting “bet” and substituting “wagering.” But in subsection (2)(e)(i) it says that we are deleting “in connection with gaming and includes” and substituting “in connection with gaming and betting”
and I am wondering whether . . . if we are looking at
substituting “wagering” for “betting” whether we would
want the word “wagering” as opposed to “betting” in
subsection (2)(e)( i). It is just . . . it just did not read
well for me and it might be that I am misunderstanding
something, but if the Minister could just speak to that I
would appreciate it.
Other than that I have no other comments on
clauses 1 through 6.

Any further speakers?
Minister?
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I am just waiting for some
technical advice on this, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: No problem.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I have been
advised that the comments raised by the Honourabl e
Member . . . the response is that the revised language
should be read in the context of the substantive legi slation. And so if you will indulge me I will, for the bene-fit of Members, read how the language will appear
once the amendments have been made.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: So I am looking at the definition of the word “gaming equipment” which “means
an electronic, electrical, or mechanical contrivance or
machine or any device or thing (including chips) used, or capable of being used, for or in connection with gaming” —and the new language—“and betting and
includes ”—and new language—“any of the following.”
So we have added the word “betting” to the
word “gaming,” so it is gaming and betting.

Go a head.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I understand because actually I read this in conjunction with the pri ncipal legislation and I came to the same conclusion,
which also solidified my thought process that if we are
looking to delete “betting” and subst itute “wagering”
whether, by introducing in the amendment “betting”
rather than “wagering,” we were not working at cross purposes.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: We will take a look at that.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Okay.

It has been moved that clauses 1
through 6 be approved.
2568 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Are there any objections to that?
No objections?

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I just have a slight
unreadiness, Mr. Chairman, and that is with respect to
the fact that the Mini ster is going to look at that situation.

Mm-hmm.
With that, I mean, if it is a legislative change,
then the Minister will bring it back to change that line.
That is why they said they wil l look at it, you know,
you take it under advisement.
So, no objections to approving clauses 1
through 6?

[Motion carried: Clauses 1 through 6 passed.]
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Okay. I would like to move
clauses 7 through 12.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Clause 7 amends section
47 of the principal Act by i nserting new subsection
(A1) to clarify that the Commission take “appropriate”
disciplinary a ction against a casino operator where it
is satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action has
been proved.
Clause 8 amends section 48 of the principal
Act by inserting new paragraph (ba), which enables
the Minister to prescribe the powers of the Commi ssion to investigate matters relating to disciplinary a ction and to provide for the vari ation or suspension of a
casino licence during such investigation.
Clause 9 amends section 52A(1) of the princ ipal Act in order to clarify that every casino operator is
required to establish and maintain a compliance committee in accordance with any regulations made
under this Act and any guidelines issued by the
Commission.
Clause 10 amends section 67(2) of the princ ipal Act, in respect of an application for a special em-ployee licence, to remove the reference to a “natural
person” as that provision can onl y apply with respect
to a natural person and not to a corporate body.
Clause 11 amends section 78(1) of the princ ipal Act by inserting new paragraph (e) to add, as a
type of disciplinary action that may be imposed in rel ation to a special employee, the var iation of the cond itions of a special employee licence.
Clause 12 amends section 79(1)(c) of the
principal Act to include, as a ground for disciplinary
action against a special employee, any contravention
by the special employee of a direction given by the
Commission under the Act or under any instrument
made under the Act.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Clause 13 amends section
81 of the principal Act to c larify that the Commission
take “appropriate” disciplinary action against a specia l
employ ee where it is satisfied that a ground for disc iplinary action has been proved. This clause also r emoves the list of penalties as these have already been
defined under section 78 as the types of disciplinary action that may be taken.
Clause 14 amends section 112 of the principal
Act by inserting new subsections (3A) and (3B), which
provide that a self -exclusion order made by the Commission may apply t o all casinos in Bermuda, unless
otherwise specified in the Order, and that a self -
exclusion order m ade by a casino operator may only
relate to the premises of or business conducted by the
operator making the order.
Clause 15 amends section 113(6) and 113(7)
of the principal Act to change the reference to “Rules”
in respect of those provisions to read “r egulations.”


Bermuda House of Assembly Clause 16 amends section 114(5) of the pri ncipal Act to change the reference to “Rules” in respect
of that provision to read “regulations.”
Clause 17 amends section 117(1) of the pri ncipal Act to clarify that a person who is subject to an
exclusion order may not enter any casino premises to
which that exclusion order applies.
Clause 18 amends section 170(1)(d) of the
principal Act to delete the word “bet” and substitute
the word “wager.”

Are there any speakers to that?

Hon. Patr icia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I can say on
clause 18 I rest my case. We are deleting “bet” [and]
we are substituting “wager”, which was my comment
in respect of what we discussed earlier. So, I apprec iate the Minister having a look at it.
The only question that I have is on clause 14,
and this is on the top of page 5 under (3A). It speaks
to “A self -exclusion order made by the Commission” —
under (3A) —which “shall apply to all casinos in Bermuda unless otherwise specified in the Order.” And (3B) “A self -exclusion order made by a casino oper ator may only relate to the premises.”
Self-exclusion, by its definition, would be personally driven; otherwise it is an imposed exclusion. And I am just curious as to why we would have som ething that is saying this is a “self -exclusion” that the
Commission is imposing on somebody. That cannot
be right. So . . . I mean, I can understand an “excl usion,” but “self -exclusion” does not seem to be appr opriate, and I wonder if the Minister could answer that
for me.

Minis ter?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: In reverse order, I accept
the point that the Member makes with respect to
clause 18, and I undertake to fix it. And inasmuch as
the fix is not something that is consistent with her
comments, we will be in touch with her to discuss
them to make sure that there is less unreadiness.
Now I did manage to stretch the time out long
enough to get the technical officers to give me the answers to the other piece, and so they are still form ulating the answer, if you would give your indulgence.
Thanks.
[Pause]

We are coming again; it is not the last
session.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Okay, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to the question around the “selfexclusion order,” I am advised that the person elects
to be excluded and notifies the Commission regarding
that desire. Then the Commission is put in the position to issue an Order on that voluntary premise, the Order
is then provided to the casinos.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Clause 19 amends sections 5 and 6 of the Prohibition of Gaming Machines
Act 2001. Section 5 of that Act is amended by inser ting new subsection (11), which provides that the prohibition on selling, supplying or maintaining a gaming
machine does not apply to a person who is an approved gaming vendor under section 95 of the Casi no
Gaming Act 2014 who is acting in accordance with the
terms of that approval. Section 6 is similarly amended
by inserting new subsection (7), which provides that
the prohibition on the importation of gaming machines
does not apply to a person who is an approved gam-ing vendor under section 95 of the Casino Gaming Act
2014 who is acting in accordance with the terms of
that approval.
2570 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Clause 20 amends the Casino Gaming (Cas ino Fees) Regulations 2017 to revoke the Schedule of
fees and substitute a new Schedule incorporating the
existing fees (at paragraphs 1 to 4 and 12) as well as
those fees that apply in respect of licences, approvals
and services provided under the principal Act and the under the Casino Gaming Regulations 2018.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Go ahead.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Okay.
So the Minister had indicated earlier in terms
of . . . I am sorry, one of my [colleagues] indicated
earlier about the payment of the application fees and
the status. The Minister indicated in his response to
my honourable colleague that he has been lenient with respect to the payment. And I am just wondering
whether the fees have been re- looked at, if they are
deemed to be still appropriate, and whether, in fact,
there is any pushback at all from the proposed appl icants or from the applicants to pay up in the absence
of anything tangible to start to earn their money back.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: As I am sure the Honourable Member will appreciate, there is a toing and
froing, a pushing and pulling, that usually goes on with respect to fees. Those who have to pay them usually
like paying as little as possible, those who like to raise them like to get as much as the y can.
Inasmuch as the operators have not been
able to advance their business plans towards the opening of a facility, my own view has been that it
would be a big ask to require them to fund fees. And I
have shared my views with the Gaming Commission and, as luck would have it, they have been accomm odating in the requests by the operators for some leniency with respect to the payment of the fees.
I think there is a recognition that capital is not
free, and inasmuch as the operators are expending
capital without having an opportunity to earn a return
on it, this is a losing proposition for them. And my own
view, my own concern, is that you could, in the worst
case, see an operator say that I’m opting out. And that
is not something that we want to encourage. We want
people to remain in.
There has been an approach made by an operator to seek some amendment to the fees —they
have approached me. My response has been that is the remit of the Commission, and inasmuch as reasonable people can sit down and discuss an issue
and come to an accommodation that actually creates a win -win, then great. But the regime is one that has
an operating cost and those costs need to be met.
Heretofore those costs have been met by the Government providing guarantees to the Commission, who have then gone out and taken advances in the
form of loans. Those loans we pay back when fees
are coming into the Commission. And so there . . . I
have sought to provide the Commission with the opportunity to be as flexible as they can be around considering requests for changes to fees, and I think that
they are considering the wide berth that they have from me and are acting accordingly. But at the end of
the day they have to decide and determine what is
appropriate to run the regime overseeing gami ng in
Bermuda and I am guided by their insights.

—as printed.
Any objections to that?
There appear to be no objections.
The Bill will be reported to the House.

[Motion carried: The Casino Gaming (Mis cellaneous)
Amendment Act 2019 was considered by a Commi ttee of the whole House and passed without amendment.]

House resumed at 2:53 pm

[Hon. Dennis P. Lister, Jr., Speaker, in the Chair]

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

CASINO GAMING (MISCELLANEOUS)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019

Good afternoon, Members.
Are there any objections to the Casino Gaming (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2019 being r eported to the House as printed?
No objections. It has been reported.
That brings that matter to a close.
We will now m ove on to the next item for the
day, which is [Order] No. 5, the Incorporated Segr egated Accounts Companies Act 2019. That also is in the name of the Minister of Finance.
Minister, would you like to present your Bill?

BILL

SECOND READING

INCORPORATED SEGREGATED ACCOUNTS
COMPANIES ACT 2019

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I am pleased to present to this
Honourable House 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. Mr. Speaker , Bermuda has historically been a
pioneer in developing segregated cell account company structures and concepts. The development of
the Bermuda segregated account companies regime
in the early 1990s took the form of private acts and has evolved into the enactment of the Segregated
Accounts Companies Act 2000. The overriding aim of
this Bill was to ensure that Bermuda remained at t he
forefront of international corporate law developments
so as to maintain our competitive edge in order to take
advantage of any future growth opportunities.
This Bill seeks to further modernise our segregated accounts companies regime. The segregated
accounts companies concept, originally embraced by
Bermuda’s captive market and larger commercial i nsurers and reinsurance industry, has since been extended to 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 this new Bill
is to merge elements of two concepts that are the b asis of the SAC Act and the Compani es Act 1981 r esulting in the creation of a new regime governing
ISAC structures. Such structure is, therefore, a hybrid
of our existing segregated account company and the conventional 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.
Mr. Speaker , in order to fully appreciate the
differences between a SAC and ISAC structures it is
impor tant to understand the business purposes and
rationale why one product may be preferred over the
other.
Mr. Speaker , prior to the introduction of the
Bermuda SAC regime statutory segregation of assets
and liabilities could only be achieved by incorporati ng
multiple subsidiaries by private act or creating trusts.
Segregated account companies are appealing for two
main reasons: firstly, they enable the form of corpo-rate 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 um-brella, is inherent in such str uctures.
In order for a company registered under the
Companies Act to achieve legally recognised segr egated accounts, it must, subsequent to its initial regi stration, then register as a SAC under the SAC Act with
the Registrar of Companies and, therefore, comply
with statutory requirements as may be applicable u nder both the SAC Act and the Companies Act in addi-tion to any other relevant laws, regulations or rules, depending on the nature of its business. Notwit h2572 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly stand ing legal recognition the accounts under lying a
SAC structure do not themselves have legal personalities separate and apart from their incorporating
SAC. Upon registration that SAC is able to hold cer-tain assets in segregated accounts, firewalled from the assets and liabilities of the SAC itself , which is the
SAC’s own account and is usually referred to as the
“general account” and those of its individual 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 account these 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.
Mr. Speaker , on the other hand, using a Delaware series structure as an example as compared to our SAC, each series can hold its own assets, have its
own members, conduct its own operations, and pursue different business objectives, yet remain insulated
from claims of members, creditors or litigants pursuing
the assets of or serving claims against another series. In this respect the new ISAC structure has similar
characteristics and more closely resembles the Del aware series structure.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker , 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 pr actitioners.
Mr. Speaker , from a competitive perspective,
jurisdictions providing alternative corporate solutions
in the form of incorporated cell companies or protec ted cell companies have been successfully challenging
Bermuda with a view to gaining competitive a dvantages in a wide range of areas, including the ILS
market, which Bermuda currently dominates.
There are clearly clients and situations where
such structures are considered more advantageous
than Bermuda’s existing SAC regime. Indeed, the inability to provide 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 cur-rently have ICCs and/or PCCs legislation, includin g
our principal insurance competitors, namely, Cayman,
Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man and several US states
and these structures have gained international indus-try acceptance.
Nevertheless, there are clearly clients and
situations where the SAC is consider ed the vehicle of choice and for this reason we should continue to pr ovide the SAC as an alternative corporate structure.
Mr. Speaker , an ISAC offers even more r obust segregation of assets 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 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
within the same structure or the ISAC itself.
Mr. Speaker , although our propose d ISAC will
have the ability to operate multiple business lines,
such structures cannot, however, be used for a pur-pose which could not otherwise be achieved using a
number of companies in the conventional parent hol ding company subsidiary relationship.
Mr. Speaker , upon the registration of each
account it will immediately have a separate legal existence from its ISAC that will be recognised as such,
not only in Bermuda, 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 mem orandum of association and by -laws, or evidence of
any other formal agreements, thereby allowing com-plex binding commercial agreements to be created
adding structural sophistication to the well -known SAC
concept and an enhanced level of flexibility in conducting business in Bermuda.
Mr. Speaker , the key characteristics and advantages of an ISAC over a traditional limited liability
or SAC, comparatively speaking, include the following:
1. ISACs provide the flexibility for each segr egated account to completely and legally sep arate its assets, liabilities, member agree-ments, and other legal obligations from other
accounts within the structure.
2. ISACs have the abil ity 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 considered
an easier structure for which to obtain a credit
rating, whi ch 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 eB ermuda House of Assembly ly act upon any opportunities or threats to the
busin ess.
6.ISACs have the ability to pool professional
support services, such as insurance and rei nsurance management, investment manage-ment, legal, actuarial, and auditing services.
7.ISACs can be used beyond insurance an
d
f
und sectors with ministerial consent, as is the
case with SACs.Mr. Speaker, again, the predominant aim of
the ISAC is to utilise economies of scale. For exam-ple, the standard annual government fee for Bermuda companies (which applies similarly to an ISAC and is
set on a sliding scale calculated on the basis of the
company’s accessible, or in the case of an investment fund, authorised capital). . . [so the] annual gover nment fees for exempted companies presently range from $2,095 to $32,676 per company. One of the pr imary 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, ad-ministering any number of incorporated segregated
accounts, each individ ually ring -fenced. There are no
limits on the number of accounts than an ISAC may establish.
The initial registration fee to register a traditional limited liability company as an ISAC is $250 and thereafter the current annual fee is $295 for each se gregat ed account operated by the SAC, subject to a
maximum of $1,180 per annum. Therefore, by way of example, an ISAC with minimal share capital operat-ing 10 segregated accounts will attract an annual government fee of $3,275. At today’s rates 10 sepa-rate companies with minimal share capital would at-tract $20,950 in government fees each year. Leaving
aside the considerable savings in legal and incorpor ation fees and ongoing secretarial fees, which are us ually payable per company, the cost benefit of opera ting segregated accounts can be considerable.
Notwithstanding the lower cost of incorpor ation of such structures, ongoing annual and transactional fees applicable to companies (for instance, un-der the new Head 35A of the Government Fees Reg ulations 1976) will also apply to an ISAC and each of its underlying registered accounts. This will have the p otential to increase corporate revenues for operating
such structures in Bermuda.
Mr. Speaker, key elements of oversight of the
ISAC structure is the notification and consent of the
Registrar of Companies, and in the case of a financial
institution, the BMA is required in respect of any mat erial 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 w
inding up an ISAC, a liquidator is r equired to deal with the assets and liabilities which are
linked to each incorporated segregated account only in accordance with the ISAC Act. The liquidators must ensure that the assets linked to one segregated account are not applied to the liabilities 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 wit h the terms of
any relevant governing instrument or contract. The
ISAC Act ensures a high standard of limited resource
and insolvency protection.
Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of such concerns and uncertainties regarding the SAC, the ISAC structure has come to the fore as a structure that pr ovides both a statutory and common- law basis for the
segregation of assets and liabilities.
Mr. Speaker, the fundamental benefits of pr oposing this ISAC legislation are:
1.to maintain Bermuda’s reputation for beingdynam ic and innovative, and to cater for th
e
needs
of existing and future business par tners;
2.to provide a business framework which ena-bles Bermuda to compete on a level playingfield with its competitor jurisdictions;
3.to continue to provide a comprehensive regulatory and legal framework for Bermuda’s
stakeholders and potential customers whichenhances our reputation as an internationalfinancial service centre;
4.provide a legislation framework that is be-spoke in nature and that incorporates the
commonly acceptable best attributes from
other competitor jurisdictions, but which alsoincludes unique attributes not found ever ywhere; and
5.ensure that all local, legal, regulatory compl iance rules and regulations and international
standards apply equally to this new ISACstructure and each of its underlying incorp orated segregated account companies, inclu ding beneficial ownership requirements in r espect of transparency and compliance with
economic substance requirements.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the
Bermu da ISAC regime will be supervised by the Registrar of Companies and BMA who will ensure that Bermuda’s reputation as a leading offshore financial centre and highly regulated and respected jurisdiction
is maintained.
Mr. Speaker, this Government intends to continue to lead and succeed as a dominant force in of fshore 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 innovative products like SACs, LLCs, and now ISACs. The introduction in Bermuda of this new d ynamic, efficient and multifaceted regime will no doubt provide our industry partners with yet another compel2574 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly ling reason for choosing to domicile their bus iness in
Bermuda rather than in a competitor jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker , the ISAC Bill being debated t oday 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, the Bermuda Business Development Agency, legal professionals, the Office of the National Anti -Money Laundering Committee, the Bermuda Monetary Authority, the Ministry of Finance, the Attorney General’s Cham-bers, and the Business Development Unit of the Cab inet Office for their assistance in advancing this legi slative initiative.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Minister.
Does any other Member wish to speak?
I recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 23. Honourable Member GordonPamplin, you have the floor.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , this has probably been one of
the most exhilarating pieces of legislation that I have
had to deal with in the 20 years of my being in Parli ament. I think sometimes people look at things and
they look at the glass as being half -empty, I look at
this as being half -full. I have to say in going through
this legislation I started to get a feeling of déjà vu because of t he painstaking effort that went into the segregated cell legislation, and this seemed almost like a
mirror image with a little bit of additional protections in
terms of the incorporation.
So as I went through this I thought there is
very little that puts me to sleep five times over, but it
meant that I was interested enough to pick it up five times over to try to get the gist of what it was that this
legislation was attempting to do.
The one thing that became patently clear, Mr.
Speaker , is that Bermuda hi storically has been able to
enjoy a reputation— a pristine reputation—because of
our regulation, because of our legislation, and b ecause of our . . . the manner in which we conduct our
business.
We know, Mr. Speaker , that recently with
some of the changes that have been made in onshore
situations in the United States that there is, in some
instances, less incentive for onshore companies to redomicile to become offshore companies. And if that
becomes a thought pattern or if it is behaviour that is replicated too frequently, then we are going to find
ourselves in the situation of being behind the eight ball
in terms of how we have structured both our economy
and our environment.
So the one thing that I noticed, Mr. Speaker ,
is that Bermuda . . . we have alway s been on the cutting edge, so when we get out in front and then our competitors come behind us and they start nipping at
our heels, we jump a level higher. And I think that this
is what this legislation is showing that we have been
able to do. We have jum ped a level higher so that we
can leave our competitors still standing in the dust
wondering, Okay, what do I do next in order to be able
to catch up, keep up, and to be equally as appealing to companies and to be able to get their business in
their jurisd ictions? which we have been able to have,
almost as a matter of course.
So when I looked at this legislation, while I
was kind of getting almost cross -eyed between an ISA
and an ISAC, it was . . . you know, and there were
times, even in the legislation, I think that somebody went to sleep and put something in that should have
been something else and I will point that out when we
get there. But I think it is important that this kind of legislation is something else that keeps us on the cutting edge. And as t he Minister indicated, we want to
ensure that Bermuda maintains its competitive ad-vantage, and whatever it is that we need to do to f acilitate those structures, it is critical and it is important.
One of the things I would just be curious
about though, whi ch had not come up, is whether the
ISAC . . . the ISAs —which is the entity underneath the
ISAC —whether they would be subjected to the IFRS
17 Regulations in terms of their accounting, if they are
an insurance company. And the reason I ask that is because there are changes that are being required as
time goes on in terms of how insurers are accounting
for their insurance products. And my question then
begs, how are we then going to handle this? And will these ISAs (incorporated segregated accounts) . . .
how will they be subjected to the vagaries and the
changes that are coming down the pipeline in respect
of accounting requirements for each? Because this is
now a legal entity, and if it is a legal entity, even though it has this sort of hybrid status, it certainly still
is going to find itself having to comply with intern ational accounting standards, and IFRS 17 is going to
be the bane of their existence, the same way Solvency II was over the last 10 or more years. The IFRS is
going to create the same or sim ilar kind of challenge.
And I just want to make sure that we have
built in the checks and balances that are likely to be
required to ensure that these ISAs are effectively accounted for and that we do not have any issues, especially given their regulated . . . their incorporated
status.
The comment that came to mind . . . I do not
know how many . . . if there is any indication of any
numbers of applications that are likely to be expected,
but the Minister did give a “for instance” in terms of if
we had 10 companies what the government revenue
would be and the efficiency of economies of scale
such that your ISA —your incorporated segregated
account —can actually help to save money as being
part of this structure, as it were. But I am just curious, when you look at the legislation that is required and


Bermuda House of Assembly the amount of what I would deem to be the oversight,
it seems to me that apart from the inexpensive fees
for the incorporation of each of these entities, that
there should be a nuisance factor cost in terms of the
fees, because I cannot imagine that the regulation is going to be inexpensive.
So while it is wonderful to say that it is only
going to cost you $250, or whatever —$295—to esta blish, then on an ongoing basis you still have the r esponsibility to ensure that these entities are sufficiently . . . not just legislated, but that the oversight exists
to ensure that they are operating in accordance with
what they ought to, you know, how they ought to operate. And I just think that $295 may seem to be a
little bit le ss than reality.
And I am not suggesting that we put fees in at
such a level that it dissuades people from taking ad-vantage of this, but I just want to ensure that we are
not going to find ourselves having to find money in the
final analysis from a management and oversight perspective that it is going to end up costing the gover nment as opposed to it being a revenue- neutral situ ation, if we look at the fees at the levels at which they presently exist.
There were just one or two things in the actual
legisla tion, and I can go into it in detail when we get to
the clauses, but there was one thing that struck me as interesting in looking at it as an overview. And that is
in respect of if a company applies . . . if an ISAC applies to the Registrar of Companies for registration
and the Registrar of Companies declines, the Regi strar is not required to give a reason for refusing to register that company. And I found that to be quite inter-esting, because it seems to me that if you have an
environment and a regime and you think that you
have met all of the criteria in order to be able to make
your application and then your application is turned
down, then it would seem to me that at least natural
justice would suggest that a reason be given.
And this legislation permit s for no reason to
have to be given. It does not say that no reason could
be given, but it does not . . . it says no reason will
have to be given. And that just strikes me as being a
little bit odd, and it just seems like it is against the order of natural justice. And I just wondered if we could,
perhaps, explore that a little more in detail when we
actually get to the clause.
And the other thing that I wanted to be sure of
is that when you have directors who may serve on one incorporated segregated account, will those directors on that board be able to serve on others within
the same ISAC? Or will each ISA be required to have its own independent . . . I mean, even though the d irectors will be an independent board of directors, will
there be able to be any sort of cross -[pollination] ?
Sometimes these companies may have some kind of
similarities, but then sometimes it is not necessarily so
in terms of their operations. So I am just curious in
terms of what restrictions may exist for the ability of a director to be able to serve on, you know, three or four
boards if you have got, let us say, 10 under an ISAC, would you have directors who are able to cross -
pollinate? And I think that that is important from a di-rector’s perspective for them to know.
And also the Minister had indicated that there
was a . . . I had to just quickly look at the legislation
itself to formulate my question. It spoke about an ISAC being engaged in insurance business or operating as an investment fund or any other kind of company that mig ht be appropriate to put under an ISAC.
And I just wondered if the Minister could give us some
indication as to what he perceives to be the “any other
type of business” that might come under that heading
that would support that clause in the legislation.
I think that clearly, you know, the best attri butes of what we have to offer in compiling the knowledge base and the intelligence that we have
between the legal profession, the Registrar of Companies, and certainly the people who have sat on the
Committee, but I think before I do anything else I want
to take my hat off to the drafters of this Bill, because I
can tell you . . . I called it “exhilarating” at the begi nning. Mr. Speaker , I think that you can probably read
through my enthusiasm for this and under stand what I
mean. Because there are some things that, notwit hstanding how mundane they might appear to others and how uninspiring it might be to the average . . . to
the layperson (I cannot say “average,” but to the la yperson), these are things that are v ery important to
keep our economy going. And I think it is this that ac-tually drives my enthusiasm and my excitement about this particular piece of legislation.
So with that . . . the other questions that I
have will come up while we actually do the clauses. I
just want to make sure that I have not got anything
else here that is in . . . no, I think I have covered the
areas that I wanted to cover and I will just wait until we
get into Committee to bring forward the other ques-tions that I have in respect of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Member.
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak?
No other Member?
Minister, would you like to wrap up?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
I think there was a part icular question with
respect to IFRS 17, and I think the Honourable Member just wants everyone to know that while she has
formally retired, she is not behaving like a retired per-son.
[Laughter and inaudible interjection]

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I am advised that ISAs will
follow accounting regulations as per typical insurance
2576 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly companies and current SACs. Directors can sit on
multiple ISACs of an ISAC.
With that, Mr. Speaker , I move that the Bill be
committed.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: The primary purpose of
this Bill is to introduce a regime for the registration of
incorporated segregated accounts c ompanies and
govern the establishment of incorporated segregated
accounts by ISA C. The ISAC is intended to be a h ybrid of the existing segregated accounts company provided for by the Segregated Accounts Companies
Act 2000 and the conventional company with limited
liability.
Mr. Chairman, c lause 1 provides that this Bill
shall be cited as the Incorporated Segregated A ccounts Companies Act 2019.
Clause 2 provides for the interpretation of the
terms used the ISAC Bill. This clause also confirms
that although t he Bill adopts similar trust concepts,
any business carried on by an incorporated segregated account company is not to be taken as carrying on
trust business for the purposes of the Trusts (Regul ation of Trust Business) Act 2001.
Mr. Chairman, the remaini ng clauses set forth
in this Bill have been drawn from and are largely consistent with the requirements contained in the Companies Act 1981, which provides for the overarching
legislative framework for the registration and admi nistration of all Bermuda registered entities and the
Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2000, which specifically provides for the registration and admi nistration of companies that are desirous of using lega lly recognised, interdependent, underlying segregated
account companies to oper ate various lines of bus iness under the same corporate structure.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, clauses 3
to 7 in Part 2 of the Bill prescribe the entities that may
register as an ISAC, specifically.
Clause 3 provides that a company to which
the Compani es Act 1981 applies may be registered as
an ISAC under this Bill and may establish one or more incorporated segregated accounts (ISAs). This clause
also makes it clear that a company carrying on insurance or investment fund business may apply for regi stration as an ISAC without the prior approval of the
Minister of Finance, but all other c ompanies must first
obtain the approval of the Minister. This requirement
is consistent with the legislative intent of the SAC Act
in that from the date of registration of a company as
an ISAC the company may register one or more pr oposed ISAs in order to achieve its business objectives. Both the ISACs and each of the ISAs will, ther efore, be bound by both the ISAC Act and the Compa-nies Act 1981 as set forth in clause 56.
Clause 4 establishes the requirement for registering a company as an ISAC. For example, a company must provide the following: (a) a notice of its i ntention to be registered as an ISAC; (b) a statement of
the company’s intention to establish and operate
ISAs; (c) full particulars and background information of the company; (d) a copy of the proposed memorandum and bylaws to be adopted; (e) a declaration attesting to the solvency of the company and each ISA
and the ability to comply with the provisions of the ISA Act; and (f) confirmation that the creditors of the company and the public at larg e have been notified of the
company’s intention to register as an ISAC. This


Bermuda House of Assembly clause also specifies who can object to the proposed
registration of a company as an ISAC.
Clause 5 provides that all documents, consents, information required to registration mus t be delivered to the Registrar of Companies together with
the proscribed fee before the Registrar is able to register the company as an ISAC or any of its ISAs. This
clause also makes it clear that registration may be
granted subject to conditions or requirements or may
be revoked or varied by the Registrar in certain ci rcumstances.
Clause 6 makes provision for the members,
account owners or creditors of this ISAC who object to
the registration of an ISAC to make an application to
the Court for an order an nulling or confirming such
registration and further that the Court can issue any
other orders or directions as is appropriate in the ci rcumstance.
Clause 7, the Memorandum of an ISAC must
state that it is an ISAC and include the letters I -S-A-C
in its name, failing which it will not be recognised as
an ISAC.

Any further speakers for clauses 3
through 7?
The Chair recognises the Honourable Member Pat Gordon- Pamplin.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Yes, thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
On page 7, c lause 3, subsection (1)(c), the
question is (and I asked it in the regular debate) if the
Minister could just give us some indication as to what kind of companies that he envisages as being a company “other than” one that is engaged in insurance
and one th at is engaged in investments. It says here
“a company other than” that company. So I am just
curious as to what he envisages as being appropriate
for that structure, just as a general question. He may
not know the answer because companies come up
with all kinds of iterations as to what they want to do,
but I was just kind of curious.
And the other question that I have is on page
10, which is clause 5, subsection (4) where it says: “Where the Registrar refuses to register a company as
an ISAC pursuant to su bsection (1), he shall not be
bound to assign any reason for his refusal. ” And my
question was, is this not against the course of natural justice? It would seem to me as if somebody is ma king a legitimate inquiry as to . . . or a legitimate appl ication to form an ISAC and the Registrar says no,
then what? Is it come back again with more infor-mation? Is it do not come back again? Is it your bus iness plan does not work? Is it this is not what the i ntent is? It just does not seem fair that somebody would be just turned down and there is no reason, you know, he is not “bound to assign” a reason for the r efusal and I just wondered if the Minister could speak to that. Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: With respect to the Member’s first question, I think, in a way, you answered the question yourself in speaking of kind of the . . . what
we are trying to do here is provide the framework for innovation. And ostensibly insurance companies and investment managers will avail themselves to the
ISAC legislation to innovate.
But it would not surprise me if others see
some benefit in this legislation and decide to avail it to themselves. And so I do not want to be cheeky, but I
think the question is, how long is a piece of string? I do not know who would make themselves . . . I thi nk
the obvious characters would be insurance companies, charitable trusts, investment funds. But I am sure
that inasmuch as your colleague sitting to your right
could find a way to kind of sell this service to someone
else, as creative a lawyer as he is, I am sure that he
will try, because in the spirit of not only growing his
business at the law firm that he works at, I am sure he
is also actively promoting the interest of growing the
economy of Bermuda.
So, I think with respect to the natural justice
question, I am not a lawyer —and I am not even going
to pretend to be one, which I am sure you colleague to
your right will also appreciate. I think the question is,
should the Registrar be bound to disclose their reasons for turning down an application? I am not sure that I think that they should be. My expectation in terms of how people conduct themselves is that ge nerally there is a communication—a two -way communication —between applicant and the regulator. Having
said that . . . and I have not polled the reg ulator
around this particular provision. I am sure that they
would like to have the discretion to withhold or not be
as explanatory in their reasons for turning something
down, although I suspect that if that did happen, it
would be more an exception than the rule.

Ms. Gordon- Pamplin.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Yes, just because
it is not specified here. If the Registrar does, in fact,
refuse to register a company without giving a reason,
is there any possibility for that applicant to make an
appeal? It does not say so specifically, whereas in
other portions of the legislation you have an appeal
process through the courts and the likes. So I am just
curious . . . just to wrap it up.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I will take some advice on
that follow -up question. But in response to the earlier
question, I am advised that the construct here is co nsistent with the Companies Act where a . . . I am g oing to get to that . . . where this legislation kind of parallels what is in place and, as you did say, it does not
make it right. And so I will commit to have a look at
that. I am not committing to changing it, but I will have a look at it to kind of see if the legal team has any
guidance that they would like to offer.
2578 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly In [clause] 64, on page 44 of the legislation,
there is a provision in here for . . . with respect to the
question around appeals, I am being guided to defer
to answering that question just for a moment.

Ms. Gordon- Pamplin?

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I am sorry, the
Minister referred to [clause] 64, and I think we can
wait until we get there, but I think it is important to just
put a marker —just stick a pin in this —that [clause] 64
does not permit for an appeal in respect of if the Re gistrar refuses to register i n the first instance.
[Clause] 64 enables the Registrar to . . . enables an
appeal if the Registrar does not fulfil certain cond itions, but refusal to register is not one of those cond ition, so I was just curious about that. Okay. But we will . . . I am happy to wait until we get to [clause] 64 or I
am happy for the Minister to get an answer to me
whenever he is ready.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Yes. That is why . . . I got
ahead of myself and that is why the team told me to
defer, because I think, in polit e company, you were
right.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 3 of
the Bill includes clauses 8 through 11 and provides for the requirements for the registration of the proposed
ISA and, for the sake of consistency, is aligned closely
with the requirements set forth in respect of the regi stration of an ISAC.
More specifically, Clause s 8 and 9 provide for
conditions and restrictions by which an ISA may be
established and recognised as a legal person under
the ISAC Act. Upon registration each account would
have the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person to sue and be sued and enter into contracts and transactions with its ISAC and any other ISA within the same ISAC structure. However, clause 9(5) provides that whilst existing as an ISA under such
structure, an ISA may not itself be an ISAC, nor is it
intended by th is Bill that such an ISA will be able to
operate as an independent subsidiary of an ISAC.
This does not, however, preclude that ISA from taking further steps to become legally independent of its
ISAC structure if it so desires. Unlike the parent/subsidiary relationship, the general concept underlying this new corporate structure is that each ISA o perating within the ISAC structure would be able to take
advantage of inherent efficiencies, economies of scale, and synergies of operation and administration
not currently possible under any other Bermuda corporate structure.
Clause 10 provides for the requirements for
regis tering a segregated account and objections to
such registration. The Registrar may also impose, r evoke or vary conditions on the registration of such account or, ultimately, refuse to allow such registration.
Clause 11 requires that each ISA must have
its own governing documents and provides for the
information to be included in such documents, similar
to the requirements specified for the regis tration of
ISACs.

It is all right, my glasses are failing
me.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I understand. It
goes with old age. We understand that, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter]

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Mr. Chairman,
clause 8 . . . and this is on page 11 . . . on page 11
and this is clause 8, subsection (2)(c) where it says that the ISAC or the ISAs can actually —or must —
“appoint a board for each proposed incorporated segregated account.” And my question was is there able
to be cross -pollinisation between the directors that
serve on any or all of the ISA Cs? So, in other words, if
you have got 8 or 10 ISAs under the umbrella of the ISAC, does each of them have to have independent
directors? Or can a director be deemed to be appr opriate to serve any one of those (I will call them cells)
any one of those cel ls? I am just curious about that.
And also under page 12, [clause] 9, subsection (3) . . . sorry, subsection (4), indicates that the
“incorporated segregated account shall have the


Bermuda House of Assembly same registered office as its ISAC.” But does that pr eclude it from having a different physical office?

Minister?
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: With respect to directors,
yes, they can share common directors.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Okay.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: With respect to premises
. . . the answer is no physical office anywhere.

[Crosstalk]

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I am sorry, that was clearly
a literal reading—

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Okay.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: The answer was no. They
can have physical offices anywhere.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Elsewhere, okay,
yes, thank you.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Yes.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: That makes
sense. I am good now.

[Clauses] 12 through 17. Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 4 of
the Bill includes clauses 12 through 17 and imposes
duties on the Registrar of Companies as follows:
Clause 12 requires the Registrar of Companies to maintain a register of ISAC s and incorporated
segregated accounts registered under this Bill which must be made available for inspection by any member
of the public. Clauses 13 through to 15 empower the Regi strar of Companies to issue , amend or cancel a certif icate of registration of any ISAC or ISA. In the case of
an ISAC or any ISA that is a financial institution the
Registrar must first notify the Bermuda Monetary A uthority of its intention to cancel that company’s certif icate of registration.
Clause 16 provides for a written request to be
made to the Regis trar for the removal of an ISAC or
an ISA from the register with the prior written consent
of the members, account owners and/or creditors of the company to be removed. This c lause also sets
forth the requirements and circumstances under which
such removal could occur.
Clause 17 provides that the Registrar may, on
his own initiative or on any application by a member or
a creditor of an ISAC or ISA and having taken into account any representations made by the ISAC or
account , remove such company if he is satisfied that
either there has been a material breach of the prov isions of this ISAC Act , or directions given or regul ations made thereunder. As stated previously, in the
case of an ISAC or an ISA being a financial institution,
the Registrar must notify the BMA of his intention to
remove such company. Note: The rights and obligations of any member and creditors will remain unaffected by such removal and the powers of the ISAC or ISA will continue in respect of such accrued rights and obligations, but solely for the purposes of the di scharge thereof.

Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I just one quic k question on page 13 of the
Bill, clause 12, subsection (2), it indicates that “ The
register kept pursuant to subsection (1) shall be avai lable for inspection by members of the public.” Is there
a fee for the inspection?

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman , I am a dvised that there currently is not one, but there will be
one set under the rules.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 5 of
the Bill sets forth the provisions that govern the assets
and liabilities and transactions of an ISAC and each of
its ISAs, specifically:
Clause 18 requires that the assets and liabil ities of an ISAC be kept separate ly and identifiable
from each of its ISAs. This clause also provides that assets and liabilities of each account be kept separate
and identifiable as between each account .
Clause 19 prohibits an ISA from entering into
a transaction on behalf of an ISAC, and vice versa.
The directors have a duty to ensure that transactions
being entered into clearly state whether the transac-tion involves a specified ISA or the ISAC.
Clause 20 provides for registration of charges
on the assets of an ISA in the same manner as cur-rently provided for in respect of other registered ent ities under Part V of the Companies Act 1981.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 6 of
the Bill includes clauses 21 through 32 and makes
provision regarding the management and administr ation of the business affairs of an ISAC and its ISAs.
These provisions seek to mirror the requirements of
the Companies Act [1981] and the SAC Act [2000], for example:
[Clause 21] requires that an ISAC or ISA e ntering into any transaction be separately identified by including in its name the letters “ISAC” or “ISA” so as to inform all persons that they are dealing with an
ISAC or an ISA, as the case may be. [Clause 22] makes special provisions requi ring an ISAC to appoint an ISA representative to manage the business affairs (among other things) of the
underlying accounts must be resident in Bermuda. Where an ISAC or ISA is a financial institution, such representative must submit a report to the BMA where
any incorporated accounts fail to comply with any of
the requirements under the ISAC Act and Companies
Act [1981] with respect to: (a) making statutory filings;
(b) maintaining records of accounts and preparing and
laying financial statements; (c) maintaining meeting minutes; (d) maintaining registers of directors, officers,
members and I SA owners (however, the register of
accounts will not be open for public inspection); (e)
permitting minute books to be inspected by any member or director; (f) holding annual general meeting (an
account may not hold an annual meeting unless r equired by it s memorandum of association, bylaws,
special resolution or the court); and (g) appointing a uditors and fixing their remuneration.
Part 6 also provides for the default fine for
failure by the ISAC and requires an officer of the ISAC
to comply with requirements of that part.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: I am advised that the Registrar has discretion to consider all applications and if
there is a valid reason for not allowing the company
. . . allowing that the company does not have the right
to be registered, that discussions would be held between the company, the Registrar and the BMA (if
necessary) and this is in keeping with the SAC Act [2000]. So, there would be dialogue.



Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Okay.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to move clauses 33 through 43.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 7 of
the Bill specifies what constitutes material changes
and requirements governing amalgamations, mergers
and discontinuations of an ISAC or an ISA.
Clause 33 provides what would amount to a
material change to an ISAC or an ISA and sets forth
requirements to notify the Registrar of any material
change within 30 days after the change takes effect.
But, a n ISAC or ISA that has been established by a
company that is a financial institution, and the ISAs of
such ISAC, must also notify the BMA of any material
changes that it intends to make . The BMA will have
the opportunity to object to any such change.
Clauses 34 to [42] provide for: (a) the manner
in which a memorandum may be altered or any
amendment made to the by laws of an ISA; (b) tran sferring an ISA from one ISAC to another ISAC;
(c) registering a non-registered company as an ISAC;
(d) amalgamations, merger or discontinuation of an
ISAC and ISAs; (e) registration of an ISA as a company under the Companies Act 1981, specifying the r equirements and the effects of such registration; and
(f) providing for account owners or creditors to object
to the registration of an ISA .
Clause 43 provides for the effect of a transfer,
amalgamation, merger or discontinuance of an account under the ISA Act.

That is all right. I understand.
Continue.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Yes, this is in r espect of clause 41 and t his is on page 35, and it is the
subsection (2). I think it is just . . . it might be a typo or
oversight or whatever, but it reads that —this is the
application to the Court under subsection (1) —“may
be made by” and it gives a list of (a) to (d) of the people who can make the application.
And it says, “ provided that an application shall
not be made by any person who has voted in favour of the registration or has been given to the incorporated.”
I think the “been” needs to come out, I think either has . . . it should be, I think, “provided than an application
shall not be made by any person who has voted in
favour of the registration or has given to the incorporated segregated account a statement in writing duly
signed that he, having had notice, consents to the registration.”
I think the word “been” is redundant and it
needs to come out, I think.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 8 of
the Bill includes clauses 44 through 55 and generally
sets out provisions dealing with the making of recei vership orders that are similar to the provisions i n Part
XIII of the Companies Act [1981] and Part V of the
SAC Act [2000] for winding up of an ISAC. This part
makes it clear that the winding up of an ISAC must not prejudice the affairs of its underlying accounts in any
way. Further, Part 8 provides that an ISAC cannot be
dissolved unless arrangements have been concluded for its accounts to be otherwise transferred, continued
or wound up.

Continue.
Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 9 of
the Bill includes clauses 56 to 58 and provides for:
1. A general application of the Companies Act
1981 in relation to the affairs of an ISAC and
its ISAs. This includes the provision in Part
VIA of the Companies Act relating to benef icial ownership.
2. Application of the Economic Substance Act
2018 to ISACs and ISAs with respect to compliance with economic substance requir ements .
3. Application of section 9 of the Registrar of
Companies (Compliance Measures) Act 2017
in respect of the regulations and inspections
by the Registrar for the purposes of forcing
compliance of all Bermuda registered entities with the statutory obligations under the var ious governing acts.

Continue.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, Part 10 of
the Bill incl udes clauses 59 through to 76 and sets
forth a number of miscellaneous provisions which are
needed to ensure proper implementation of this Bill. It
also contains provisions for penalties and offences, for
instance:
Clause 59 empowers the directors of an IS AC
or ISA to make an application to the Court for directions generally on how they might act in the conduct of any of the company’s affairs.
By clause 60 an ISA owner who considers
that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive or prejudicial to the interests of some part of the membership, including himself, may
make an application to the Court by petition for an order against its account or ISAC as if that applicant
was a member of the ISAC.
Clause 61 provides that an ISAC cannot be
struck off the register unless each of its ISAs has
been appropriately dealt with, for instance, either: (a) removed from the register; (b) transferred to a nother ISAC; (c) registered as a company under the
Companies Act; (d) continued under the law of anot her jurisdiction; or (e) wound up.
Clauses 62 and 63 provide: (a) penalties for
false statements in records or failure to make a stat ement; (b) what constitutes the commission of an offence by a body corporate and/or an officer of the
company.
Claus es 64 and 65 provide for appeals by an
ISAC or an ISA against a decision of the Registrar
and with respect to the effect on any transaction or interest or failure to comply with or breach of any pr ovision of this Act.
Clauses 66 and 67 provide protection t o the
Registrar and the official receiver for anything done or omitted to be done in their official capacity in good faith.
Clause 69 proscribes fees under the Gover nment Fees Act 1965 for registration and annual r enewal of such registration.
Clauses 69 through to 73 make provision for:
(a) preservation of confidentiality; (b) the application of
the Public Access to Information Act 2010; (c) the application of the Personal Information and Protection
Act 2016; and (d) the Minister to make regulations and
rules subject to negative resolution for the purposes of
the ISAC Act.
In order to give effect to the intent of the Bill,
clauses 74 and 75 provide for consequential amendments to be made to: (a) section 132Q of the Companies Act with respect to the registrat ion of a proposed
ISA as a company under that Act; (b) the Fifth Sche dule to the Companies Act to prescribe annual fees for
ISAC s and ISAs; and (c) the Government Fees Regulations 1976 to insert a new Head 36A to specifically
prescribe new government fees applicable to ISACs
and ISAs .
Mr. Chairman, clause 76 provides that the
ISAC Act will come into operation on such day as the
Minister may appoint by notice published in the G azette .
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any further speakers?
The Chair recognises the Honourable Pat
Gordon- Pamplin.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, page 43, clause 61. It is ent itled “Striking off incorporated segregated account.”
But if you look at the content of that clause it refers to
the striking off of an ISAC, not an ISA. So either the


Bermuda House of Assembly heading needs to be consistent with the content —right
now it is not consistent —or the content needs to catch
up with the heading, but right now the two are not
congruous. I wonder if the Minister could just make
sure that this is corrected or, if I am wrong, if he can
explain to me how.

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I remember
when this lady used to play softball.

Good afternoon, Members.
Are there any objections to the reporting to
the House of the Incorporated Segregated Account
Companies Act 2019 as printed?
There are none. It has been reported. So
moved, which brings that to a close.
We now move on to the next item on the O rder Paper for discussion today, and that is the Misuse
of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019 in the name of
the Minister of Health.

Hon. E. David Burt: The Minister is on premises, Mr.
Speaker , I think that it might be a question of privilege
right quick .

Thank you.

BILL

SECOND READING

MISUSE OF DRUGS (HEMP)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019

Hon. Wayne Caines: Mr. Speaker , I am pleased to
start the debate on the Bill entitled the Misuse of
Drugs (H emp) Amendment Act 2019, which was laid
in this Honourable House on December 27, 2018.
Mr. Speaker , the purpose for 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.
Mr. Speaker , hemp is a strain of cannabis
sativa plant species that i s grown for industrial uses
and its derived products. It can be refined into a vari ety of commercial items including food, clothing, and textiles.
Mr. Speaker , although cannabis and hemp
both derive from the species of cannabis sativa, hemp
has lower conc entrations of the psychoactive component tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Both cannabis and hemp can produce cannabinol or CBD. It is a nonpsychoactive component. Hemp produces a higher
amount of CBD which essentially decreases the ps ychoactive effect.
Mr. Sp eaker , the regulation of hemp varies
between jurisdictions with some governments permi tting only hemp with especially low THC content.
Mr. Speaker , the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp)
Amendment Act in the new definition of “hemp” pr ovides for THC concentration of not more than 1 per
cent.
Mr. Speaker , over the last 5 to 10 years there
has been a global influx of hemp products available at
varying outlets. These include products ranging from
soaps to cosmetics to handbags to shoes to hemp
seed oil and protein powder, rope, canvas, carpeting
and fuel.
Mr. Speaker , this Government acknowledges
that there is a distinction in the composition of canna-bis and hemp and the need for this to be reflected in
legislation. The definition of “cannabis” will be amended to exclude “hemp.” Although the definition of cannabis has been amended, cannabis remains 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. Mr. Speaker , the new definition of “hemp” will
be inserted into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 to di fferentiate hemp from cannabis, which will remove the
legal barriers for the proper import, supply, sale, and
possession of hemp products in Bermuda.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Minister.
Does any other Member wish to speak?
I recognise the Member from constituency 23.
Honourable Member Gordon- Pamplin, you
have the floor.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speak er, on behalf of the proprietors who
have contacted me in respect of how this legislation
impacts their imports and their inventories, I want to
say thanks to the Honourable Acting Attorney General, in this instance(the Honourable Minister is just
entering the Chamber) who is holding for the Attorney
General in respect of clarifying this issue.
It was interesting that when I was having co nsultation on this, as we do on our side, there was one
particular proprietor who advised me that one of the
products or some of the products that she was carr ying actually had a hemp content and that one of the
Government Ministers had gone into the shop and
had effectively said to the proprietor, You realise that
this is illegal, you have to take this stuff off the shelf.
So I think you can imagine that when one believes
that they are acting appropriately and that their i mports are not ultra vires the legislation, based on their
belief that it is important that they are seen to be o perating in accordance with the law.
So by ensuring that this clause is included,
that this hemp now is specified and comes into the
Act, that it now regularises the position. Because the
fear was if I can’t carry this stuff then there is a financial loss to the entrepreneur who, effectively, woul d
not be able to continue to carry this if they had to a dhere to the directive of the Minister or the Ministry or
the person who was suggesting that they were doing
something ultra vires the law, that they would have to
divest themselves of their inventory stocks.
So I think that people in that particular category are particularly pleased. And I do know that there
are several products that actually contain, as the Mi nister indicated in his preface, there are several pro ducts that contain hemp and hemp suppl ies. I have no
clue how . . . I have to say that I have to plead my i gnorance when it comes to cannabis and the parts
thereof and the THC content and the like, but I have
no doubt that with the regulation and with the legisl ation being regularised that it is important now that at
least the importers will know what is appropriate and was it not and they will act accordingly. As such, the
proprietors who are bringing in such inventories will
then be able to be comforted that their money is not


Bermuda House of Assembly going to be was ted if they are being ordered to then
divest themselves of inventory that they are not ent itled to be selling.
So, on their behalf I say thank you and I a ppreciate this clarification and this amendment.
Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , this is an interesting topic. I support the Minister in her end eavours in that, in essence,
we are regularising what already exists in the comm unity.
Mr. Speaker , I can remember quite clearly
going to farmer’s markets and this lady was selling
hemp bread. And then I said, Well, I’m gonna buy
some to see what happens.

[Laughter]

And so, Mr. Speaker , then I
go to the gas station in Warwick and I see all these
drinks that have hemp in them. And so I am saying,
Good Lord! It is here, it has taken over n ow. And then
you have the soaps and the shoes and everything.
And, Mr. Speaker , I recently travelled and I
was visiting a friend’s place overseas and they were
doctors and they, in their country, have hemp growing
in their backyard because —

[Inaudible in terjection]

So I think, Mr. Speaker , we
are kind of catching up. And it took me a while to con-sider supporting this type of legislation, but it is here,
we have to regularise it.
So, in my research in preparation for this d ebate I said, Well, what are other countries doing? And
I note that, you know, there are prescribed criteria in
regard to what is deemed to be hemp and marijuana.
Now, I know the current legislation says t hat
hemp must not have more than 1 per cent THC. I note
in Canada and the UK and the US that limit is 0.3 per
cent. So, my question to the Minister is, how did they
arrive at the 1 per cent by dry weight of THC as the
criteria limit and anything above that is deemed to be
marijuana? So why did they not adhere to the international standard that is, basically, in place by Canada,
the US and the UK, which is 0.3 per cent not 1 per
cent? So, I would just like for her to provide clarific ation on that.
Mr. Speak er, now that hemp is excluded as a
controlled substance, what are we going to do about
growing hemp in Bermuda? There can be —

[Inaudible interjection and laughter ]

I am sorry, hemp.
I know that in the UK the criteria of growing
hemp, when you submit an application, you have to
say where you are going to grow the hemp, where the
field is located, and you have to mark out in a plan
where the garden will be. Does that garden comply
with zoning legislation? Can it be . . . it cannot be near
a school zone. It cannot be —

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Point of information, Mr. Speaker.

I will take your point of information.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Perhaps I can assist my Ho nourable Member . This Bill speaks specifically to ad2586 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly dressing the issue of the classification of hemp and
declassifying it from under the cannabis classification.
This Bill does nothing t o address any issues that you
speak about with respect to the growing of hemp, manufacturing it and so forth. This is simply a declas-sification of hemp and separating it from the cannabis,
Misuse of Drugs, definition.

I take the Minister’s point, but
we are in a general debate, Mr. Speaker , and in a
general debate we can talk about the hemp industry in
Bermuda.
Mr. Speaker , at the end of the day, if we are
talking about hemp in Bermuda, and it is declassified as a controlled substance or drug, then we need to be prepared as a Government to address an industry
which may arise, or we may have to address the
growth of hemp gardens in this country. And so if we
are, basically, allowing it to happen, then there should
be controls in place for farming hemp in Bermuda.
And I think those standards can mirror those pr escribed in other jurisdictions, just so that we can have
control over the hemp.
In addition, the Minister has indicated that
there could be no more than 1 per cent of THC in the
hemp. So my question, again, is if we have a young
person that has a little hemp garden, how are we go-ing to provide a licence? And are we going to control
the seeds in regard to what is used to cultivate the
gardens because you get the seeds from somewhere,
Mr. Speaker .
The other issue is if we are going to have a
hemp garden are we going to issue . . . how much will
licences cost? Has the Government considered that?
Because at the end of the day what we are doing is
saying —

POINT OF INFORMATION

Hon. K im N. Wilson: Point of information, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not correct under the rules that the general debate is meant to be . . . notwithstanding the
word “general” is included in the title, it is meant to be
surrounding the circumstances of the Bill in question
as opposed to generally. Can I talk about . . .

Thank you, Honourable Member .
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak?
We recognise the Honourable Leader of the
Opposition. Honourable Member , you have the floor.
Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
And I appreciate the previous speaker, the
Honourable Cole Simons, and where he was attempting to go. I know exactly where he was heading.
I do appreciate this piece of legislation because I do know that when we were Government and I know that with our current Government, the Health
Minister, including probably the Premier as well, has
been bombarded with questions and concerns about
people who are bringing in products with hemp in
them. And the Customs Officers, quite frankly, not
really understanding what to do and stopping the product from coming in because of confusion. The
pharmacy inspectors . . . and I must declare my interest. At one point in time my wife was the pharmacy
inspec tor for Government and—

Mm-hmm.



Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: —and I know there was a
lot of confusion over the particular product . . . its . . .
its—

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: No, I was not the Minister
of Health.
Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: No, I was.
Hon. L. Craig Cannonier: Oh, you were. You obliged.
And so I know there was a lot of confusion by
retailers and wholesalers as to exactly what it is that
they could bring in. I believe that this a huge step in the right direction that we are going with this particular
product and identifying exactly what it is that we can do with hemp that has less than 1 per cent of the THC
within it. I do believe a good question is to ask why is
it at 1 per cent when many of the international stan dards are 0.3 per cent? And I do believe and I do understand (having worked in the industry before) that
1 per cent is considered to be not effective at all within
the system itself, which is probably why, but it would
be good to hear from the Minister why we are at the
1 per cent and what they found.
It is interesting that a lot is made [with] hemp.
And a lot of products that we already use have hemp in them. And we have been buying it for many, many,
many years and just were not aware of it. E ven ca ndles that we burn have hemp in them. And so if you
did get high, it certainly was not from the hemp in the
candle.
But I do appreciate this piece of legislation. I
guess one of the other questions that I would have of
the Minister, with particular products, especially the
protein powders and the likes there is occasion where
there may be hemp that will have slightly higher le vels—just slightly higher —than 1 per cent within them. I
am not sure how we are going to regulate that or
[manage] that, maybe it is just a spot -on check that
we will go into a particular retailer or wholesaler and
check the manufacture of the product to find out whether or not the hemp within that product is more
than 1 per cent. Not all products that are imported will
actually say the THC content of the hemp.
So it will be interesting to hear from the Mini ster exactly how we are monitoring that and will it just simply be if it is on the label. But we do know that
many of these shampoos and creams and lotions do
not have the perc entage on them, so how will we regulate that particular part of it? And it may just be a
case of . . . it is difficult, again, just going out and doing spot checks on some of these products. But I am
glad to see that this will open up entrepreneur opportunities for Bermudians —wholesaler and retailer —to
be able to have these particular type products that we
know are healthy, that we know does not create any issues as far as it being intoxicating or habitual and
having the psycho- effects on the body itself.
So, again, we do appreciate this coming to the
table to help clarify, for years now, the many issues
those importers have really, really had. One person can bring in a product —a shampoo—and it comes
through and it is fine. And then you have another person bring in a similar type shampoo and it gets
blocked, which is unfair practice. So it is now good to
see that we have clarified it in this particular instance.
And I want to thank the Minister for actually bringing this to the table.

Real short. “Hemp is
among the oldest industries on the planet, going back
more than 10,000 years . . . . Presidents Washington
and Jefferson both grew hemp.” “Hemp seed is far
more nutritious than even soybeans.” “The bark of the
hemp stalk contains the bast fibres, which are among the Earth’s longest soft fibres.”
I can go on and on. It is all positive. So what I
say is, this the m aturing of us as a country is because
for too long we have been fed . . . I do not want to say
propaganda, but opinions about cannabis and ever ything around the cannabis that it is so negative and this and that and if you even get near it you are going
to be a criminal . . . on and on.
I have a neighbour. He stops by my house
regularly and says, Hey, they took my products. And I
am like, What happened? He was bringing in some
hemp lollipops, hemp gummy bears, no THC whats oever it them. They got tested, [he] got them back and was able to sell them. It sold real fast too. And so he
brings in the next shipment, a bigger shipment. The
same thing, they hold it. So he has to keep going back
through this process.

[Inaudible interjection]

2588 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Mr. Christopher Famous: Yes, they took samples,
yes. Yes, I did not think about that.
So what I say is, not even just from a bus iness point of view, this is going to help the small bus iness person who is importing legal hemp products.
But more importantly, as a country, it takes the stigma
away that this should not be used, this should not . . .
you know, it is craziness.
So I say to the Minister, thank you for bringing
this Bill. To those in the Ministry, thank you for the requisite work that you have done. But we still have a
[long] way to go in regard to a lot more products that
are derived from cannabis. So I thank you, thank you,
thank you.

Thank you, Honourable Member .
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak?
There are none.
Minister, would you . . . oh, Premier?

Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I just wanted to rise to . . . of
course, without question, this is a Government Bill that enjoys my support, but [I want to] also thank the A ttorney General for the work which is being done in the
Ministry of Legal Affairs to advance the issue sur-rounding all matters in dealing with the, as it is stated
in I think section 11 of the law, the genus of cannabis.
And I say that, Mr. Speaker , because this Bill
is coming by itself for a particular reason. And it is coming by itself for the particular reason that this was
supposed to be a part of the overall medicinal cann abis Bill that was supposed . . . that is going to be laid
in this session, as was promised in the Throne
Speech and as this session continues.
However, while that is still . . . not necessarily
still in consultation because I think the consultation is
finished and Members should expect to see it shortly,
it will most likely be tabled in the Senate in short order. . . I am sorry, the “other place,” Mr. Speaker .
The challenge is there are particular matters
dealing with hemp and the importation of hemp products right now which need to be dealt with and addressed. And that is the reason why this Bill itself is so
minor. But while we were working on making sure that
we have a regime that deals with the other things,
which other Members may be talking about, dealing
with licensing and cultivation and other types of matters, right now we are just dealing with the import ation, su pply, of these products here on Island.
So I just want to make sure that this part is
clarified because a lot of Members were talking . . . at
least, I think, one particular Honourable Member , who
I think likes to be out on the farm so he is figuring out where his hemp farm is going to be . . . figure out
where his hemp farm is —

Opportunity. Hon. E. David Burt: I want to make sure that he is
aware that we are not there yet. Section 11 of the
Misuse of Drugs Act, of course, still prohibits th e cult ivation of such, but those things will be subject to the licensing requirements, et cetera, when the medicinal cannabis Bill comes forward. And that Bill, as I said, is
expected not only in this session, but certainly will be
expected before we break for a Christmas holiday.
So there are particular issues that are inside
of this. There have been challenges with entrepr eneurs who have been subjected to, in my view, unfair
treatment by the Bermuda Police Service, which happens very often I will say. People that look, Mr.
Speaker , like you or me happen to be more scrut inized than people who might not look like you and me
in the eyes of the Bermuda Police Service. And so I
have had the young entrepreneurs who have been challenged by the definitions which exist in this particular Act. The Government is listening. The Gover nment was planning on resolving them all at once.
However, at this time the Government is going to take
this step and then we are going to move on to the next step. And as I announced in m y speech to the Pr ogressive Labour Party delegates that we are going to
move on to the next step as my caucus has endorsed
us taking the matter even further. But this is step
number one.
And to the entrepreneurs who have been
challenged with this I am sorr y that it has taken this
long, but we are going to make sure that we resolve
this issue. And we hope that this will bring clarity to
the Bermuda Police Service who are still seemingly doing their job enforcing the law as it currently stands,
[so they] will now recognise that we have now created
a legal definition and that these businesses can con-tinue in the way in which they would like to do as there
is a difference of interpretation of our law currently. So we want to make it 100 per cent clear and hopefully
this will make it 100 per cent clear.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Premier.
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak?
There are none.
Minister?

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I think, seemingly, the only
ques tion that was raised relates specifically with the
percentage in the hemp product being 1 per cent.
That is for two reasons. One is that it is consistent
with the amount of THC that is available on the market
for purchase over the counter. And two, it is also to
allow for more hemp products to be made available on
the market. The majority of hemp products do contain
a minimum of 1 per cent with respect to the THC level.
So it will allow for the availability of more products as


Bermuda House of Assembly well as the ones that we have seen that are coming
into the Island.
Mr. Speaker , with that I would like to move
that this Bill entitled the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp)
Amendment Act 2019 be now committed.

Continue.

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, this Bill seeks to
amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 to create a di stinction between cannabis and hemp and to provide
for the lawful import, possession, supply or sale of hemp products.
Clause 1 provides the title of the Bill and
clause 2, by inserting a new definition of “cannabis”
and including a definition of “hemp,” to make a clear
distinction between the two.

It has been moved that the Bill be
reported to the House as printed.
Any objections to that?
There appear to be none.
The Bill will be reported to the House as printed.

[Motion carried: The Misuse of Drugs (Hemp)
Amendment Act 2019 was considered by a Commi ttee of the whole House and passed without amendment.]

House resumed at 4:31 pm

[Hon. Dennis P. Lister, Jr., Speaker, in the Chair]

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

MISUSE OF DRUGS (HEMP)
AMENDMENT ACT 2019

Members, are there any objections to
the Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019
being reported to the House as printed?
There are none.
It has been reported and that matter has now
passed, and actually that brings us to the close of the
items that were on the Order Paper this morning.

[Pause]

The Sp eaker: Before we go to our third readings, I
am going to invite the Honourable Minister from constituency 10 to restate the motion that he has on the
Order Paper because it has timed out, and if he wants
to keep it alive, he will have to reintroduce it.
Honourable Member.

MOTION

CONSIDERATION OF INITIATIVES TO REDUCE
THE ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON BUSINESSES
AND PROTECT JOBS
[Re-introduced, Standing Order 25(3)]

2590 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave of the Honourable
House to reinstate the Motion standing in my name
which reads as follows:
WHEREAS there are increasing challenges
faced by small business and businesses in general;
AND WHEREAS there is declining economy
lacking business confidence with escalating costs and
increased regulation;
BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable
House consider initiatives that will reduce the ec onomic pressure on businesses and protect jobs.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing O rder 25(3), I am requesting the Motion remain in the
Order Paper for an additional three months or until
such date as the Order is discharged, whichever is
earlier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been noted and will be added
back onto the Order Paper. Thank you.
We will now do our third readings. We will
start with the Minister of Finance.
Minister of Finance, would you like to do the
third reading on the Government Loans Amendment
Act?

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 21

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I move that
[Standing] Order 21 be suspended to enable me to
move that the Bill entitled Government Loans
Amendment (No. 2) Act 2019 be now read the third
time by its title only.

Any objections to that matter being
passed?
There are none.
It has passed.

[Motion carried: The Government Loans Amendment
(No. 2) Act 2019 was read a third time and passed.] The Speaker: Minister, I think the next item is also in
your name.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 21

Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I move that
Standing Order 21 be suspended to enable me to
move that the Bill entitled Casino Gaming (Miscell aneous) Amendment Act 2019 be now read the third
time by its title only.

And the last item for third reading today
is the item in the name of the Minister of Health.
Minister, would you like to do your item?
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 21
Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move that S tanding Order 21
be suspended to enable me to move that the Bill ent itled Misuse of Drugs (Hemp) Amendment Act 2019 be
now read the third time by its title only.

Good evening.
Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in this
House there was a person in that chair over there. He
is no longer there. He is here in spirit —MP Brown, a
warrior.
A lot of people spoke of him as an academic,
as this great pacifist. He was a warrior . And I saw that
part of him come out in March of 2016, when we were
faced with the Pathways to Status issue. When I say a
warrior, he was not violent, was not boisterous, but he
was strategic. He would be the one not only ready to
get his hands dirty, but [ he would] help other people
get their hands dirty.
I remember one particular morning, early in
the morning, a group of us were down on East
Broadway and doing something, not quite illegal, but
doing something that was important.

Half of St. George’s.
We saw the police roll up. So we are like, Hey
Walton, you see the police are rolling up on us, right?
He is like, Comrades, we are here to do what
we gotta do.
2592 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly The police officer came out and he said , Sir, I
agree with your stance, but what you are doing is not
quite illegal, but you are kind of obstructing traffic.
And Walton stood his ground.
And his courage of standing his ground
spread to the group who were thinking, Well, the p olice are here, maybe we should go home. And we did
not go home. And we had to do numerous things for
the following month or so, culminating with thousands
of people surrounding the House of Assembly.
So, I say to Bermuda that other persons have
spoken about his legacy. I just want to add to that by
saying that wi thout someone like Walton Brown, we
would be in a different situation right now.
Moving on, Mr. Speaker, in my former capac ity as central organi ser, I had the pleasure of going out
canvassing with many MPs, Walton Brown being one
of them. Going out canvas sing with Walton was a
whole different experience. He did not quite like the
whole walking up and down, but in doing so, we had a
lot of debates on a lot of different issues. Some days
we were together and on some days we were as far
apart as Somerset and St. George’s.
What I found with Walton during canvassing is
when we went to person’s houses, many were like,
Yeah, PLP, got you brah. Many were like, Hmm, I
don’t know. And Walton would look to engage more
with that person. He was more excited to engage w ith
that person than the solid PLP supporter —not that he
did not like the PLP supporter , but he liked the debate.
And I remember one particular lady; she was
like dead set against independence. She was dead
set against same- sex marriage. Almost everything
that Walton stood for, she was against. And he took
his time and spoke with her. We were there for like an
hour. And I was like looking at my clock, like saying,
Come on Walton, we gotta go, we gotta go.
And he was like, No, comrade, it is important
to hav e this conversation.
So, I say all that to say, right, that all of us on
both sides, all of us have canvassed. All of us have
knocked on doors that our people, our supporters
have said, We got you, Dunk. We got you, Ben. And
we have knocked on doors that people do not readily
agree with us . But the beauty of interacting with our
people is that even if you do not agree with them, we
can have conversations with them.
So, if there is one lesson I have learned from
Walton, it is when you meet people that don’t readily
agree with you, don’t just walk away. Engage with
them, because you can learn from them and they can
definitely learn from you.
Moving on, Mr. Speaker, we now have to fill
that spot. So, you know what? We are doing what we
do best. We are out ther e canvassing. We are out
there making calls. We are out there engaging with
our people. And you know we have found, Mr. Speaker? People have concerns: health care concerns,
price of grocery concerns, numerous concerns, not h-ing more than anyone has ever heard before. You
know, why -we-ain’t-got-the-Cup- no-more concerns.

[Laughter]

But you know what, Mr.
Speaker? The people are not buying certain people’s
propaganda. Right? They are with us. They know that
this Government, their Government, even with the
concerns, is putting their interests at the forefront.
Recently we had an ADC [Annual Delegates
Conference] in which the Premier took his time to say,
It is time to break the status quo. It does not mean
disregard other people. It means a time for us, right?
We have political power. It is time for us to look t owards economic power. I do not think anyone in here
should disagree with that , because apart from having
economic power, we are going to be economically
dependent on people for jobs, for loans, for ever ything.
So, I say to my colleagues on this side in particular, I need each one of you.
Hello, colleagues, hello!
I need each one of you to get your shoes out,
because for the next three weeks we have to honour
our brother. We have to walk the hills and valleys of
[constituency] 17.
You are welcome to join, Ben.

[Laughter]

We have to walk the hills
and valleys of [constituency] 17, because just making
a phone call is not good enough. We have to look eye
to eye with our people and let them know that we are
here for them. We are here to help them transition
from being dependent to being independent. I do not
mean that saying in a political sense, before someone
misquotes me.
So, I say all that to say, Mr. Speaker, that all
of us, all 36 of us, anyone aspiring to be part of this
36, always remember, we have to connect with our
people. And when I say “our people,” I do not mean
just our people who wear red T -shirts. O ur people who
wear green T -shirts. Our people, our Bermudian pe ople want to be connected with. I can say in my co nstituency most people never saw the former MP. That
was part of his downfall in that constituency. People
who had never voted for PLP.

[Inaudible interjection and laughter]

Thank you, Honourable Member.
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
. . . it is Devonshire Day, eh?
Will take the Member from constituency 10.
Honourable Member, you have the floor.

LEGACY OF MP WALT ON BROWN

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Yes, it is Devonshire Day,
so far.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member
for his caucus speech in the House of Assembly, as
the Opposition Leader said. And I agree with the Ho nourable Member in a couple of parts of it. I did not i ntend to speak on this tonight, but I will start with this
focus.
I do agree with the Honourable Member that
we have to get out and about. We have to have di scussions. We have to have dialogue. Whether we
agree or disagree on issues, we need to have it.
However, Mr. Speaker, we do not need to refer to
people within our community as enemies, because
right away you build a bridge and you build a wall, and
it makes it impassable for that conversation to take
place.
I also agree with the Honourable Member in
talking about the former colleague for whom we had a
special sitting, I believe it was on October [11]th. And
he was a master of doing politics in his own special
way.
The second point the Honourable Member
made about Walton, the former and H onourable
Member , having dialogue was true. He loved to have
conversation, and I think all of us on both sides of the
House enjoyed the conversations we had with him.
But Walton was also very adept that after he had the
conversation he’d force you to do something that was
not quite legal, and then he would just slide off to the
sidelines while you stood up front and made sure it
happened.
And Mr. Speaker, I agreed with the second
part of the conversation about how Walton could have
dialogue, but I did not agree with the first part, because there is a line that you cross, and the people
look at us about how we cross the line. And eventually
if that line drifts too far one way or the other, and then
it is open for interpretation of what is actually right or
what is wrong. But in politics everyone tries to get
their voice across a certain way, and sometimes they
do skew that line.

BERMUDA HEALTH PLAN 2020

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Mr. Speaker, I want to r efer back to my main comments on the motion to ad-journ t onight, back to the Statement that the Honour able Minister of Health gave in this Chamber on the 27th
of September [2019] in regard to the Bermuda Health
Plan 2020.
After that plan and the Statement was deli vered to this Chamber, there were questions from
some Members on this side of the House. And one of
the questions that I asked to the Honourable Minister
was, and I am not using the exact phrase, but it is
pretty accurate, Can the Honourable Minister give an
example of any other small jurisdictions who were fo llowing a similar concept with a single- payer plan and
what had been the outcome of what they had done?
The Honourable Minister stood up and with
some uncertainty, I must say, did say that she believed the Bahamas was one of those places. Well,
Mr. Speaker, I rise here tonight to talk about it because there are two significant things that have ha ppened recently . . . well, three things that have ha ppened recently that are significant as far as the Health
Plan goes.
First, we see that there have been some senior staff changes within government . And I refer to . . .
I think there was a publication that was put out earlier
today that announced and highlighted the fact that the
Permanent Secretary, Jennifer Attride- Stirling, is now
the Chief Strategy Of ficer and takes responsibility for
the overall direction and implementation of a health
care reform initiative. Now, that is a significant
change, Mr. Speaker, without any announcement from
Government on the reason why that change is taking
place and how t hey believe this will help move the
direction forward.
I refer to that, because, clearly, Mr. Speaker,
one of the things that the Minister said in the stat ement on the 27th and through this whole process [was]
that there would be consultation . Well, Mr. Sp eaker,
one of the things that I am hearing clearly from me mbers of the community is that there have been meetings, but there has been a lack of consultation. People
do not feel that they have been listened to, people do
not feel that their concerns or thei r initiatives or some
advice they would like to give is being taken on board,
not only in the public meetings, but in private meetings, Mr. Speaker.
And what is interesting about it , in the public
announcement today about the changes to senior positions, in the one that I just read it says, “2The new
chief strategy officer . . . takes responsibility for the
overall direction and implementation of the healthcare
reform initiative . . .”
Consultation has gone by the board. We still
have 11 months for the fi nal implementation, and
probably 9 months for the phased implementation
which I believe the Minister said in the Statement
would take place in August of 2020. So, it seems that

2 Royal Gazette, 1 November 2019
2594 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly we have gone from consultation to implementation
when people really have not been heard yet.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that because it is
concerning to hear some of the feedback after these
meetings. The most recent meeting that took place, I
believe, last Thursday in St. George’s, a member from
another place criticised some doctors who were in
attendance for their alleged comments and their behaviour during the meeting.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I heard this . . . I was
not at the meeting, but I was quite concerned to hear
that allegation that was made. So, what I did was two
things: Fir st, I followed up with individuals who were at
the meeting, who knew of the meeting. Second, I actually looked at a video of the meeting myself.

[Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr., Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair]

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: And far from it did I see
any behaviour by doctors that I thought was inappr opriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Now I say that because in the history of these
types of issues being discussed, the biggest challenge
for us to move forward and find ground that can be
strong enough to support the initiative is when people
start criticising each other for their approach on how
they comment on things or how they act at meetings,
and we are starting to get off the track, in my opinion,
here. I make that point to move on to the Honourable
Minister’s comments about the Bahamas.
Obviously, when I asked the question, I had
done a bit of research to get some feedback myself of
what took place, and the Bahamas was not a place
that had instituted a single- payer health system. Now,
obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anyone who has followed the history will know that the Bahamas has
looked at it, but they shelved it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
And what I want to do tonight is go through some of
the history of other jurisdictions, because I do not wish
history to repeat itself in a bad situation here in Bermuda.
So, if you will allow me, first, I would like to r efer to the Bahamas for some of the information that
came out of their health plan, and this started back,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, in January of 2016. And it is very
familiar , when you read some of the history that took
place there, what happened there, to what could be
taking place here.
In the Bahamas, an alliance of doctors, and I
quote from a news story that came out by the
www.Bahamaslocal.com on January 2016. 3“An alliance of doctors associations demanded yesterday
that the government respect the views of stakeholders
and come up with a National Health Insurance (NHI)
plan that all stakeholders can buy into.”

3 The Nassau Guardian , 22 January 2016 It goes on: “ ‘It is unfortunate that we are here
today because of a lack of consistent and meaningful
engagement of all relevant stakeholders, the most
significant being the public at large. ’”
Sounds familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The individual goes on to say: “ ‘We find ourselves now with what we view as a very large information gap because of a lack of education, toxic poli tical environment, and many groups with competing
interests precluding honest, transparent, productive
dialogue on such an important subject and landmark
health reform policy. ’”
It sounds quite familiar.
It goes on [saying] that we need, obviously,
“‘rational constructive debates, . . . We will not make
progress if there is a lack of willingness to compr omise. . . .” unless that takes place.
It all sounds familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I go on to another article written about the
same time by a business editor down in the Bahamas,
and it goes on that the National Health Insurance
scheme 4“‘is simply impossible ’ without the Bahamian
medical profession’s support, ’ a well -known physici an
[warned] yesterday.” And he went into reasons why it
would be impossible. This gentleman says the doctors
are arguing that the government has ignored their
views and input on the NHI design, even though they
are frontline professionals.
Sounds familiar , because the doctors in [the
Bahamas] are in the same position as we are at the
present time.
It goes on to say that the doctors have listed a
myriad of concerns and they are not being taken on
board. They are the professionals that actually give
the serv ice, provide the health care; they are not being listened to. Then they go on to say, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, the tax burden being proposed for the B ahamian public is concerning considering the current
economic state of the country.
Sounds familiar.
With thi s in mind, they say the sustainability of
the program me is placed in jeopardy.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are two articles
from the Bahamas. They, the doctors in the Bahamas ,
ended with the tagline, Who do you trust in health
care—y our doctor or the gov ernment?
Well, what happened in the Bahamas . . . and
this was shortly before an election. The election was
about a year and a half later . People said they were
trying to make this reform ahead of the election to give
the PLP at that time a leg up. It all collapsed. They
had to withdraw the policy. They have not moved forward on it.
Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move next to
comments more recently in the British Virgin Islands
[BVI] and the BVI has a national health system. Well,
look what is happening to BVI . They initiated their

4 The Tribune , 22 January 2016


Bermuda House of Assembly health system, I believe it was probably in 2017,
somewhere around that area, 5“ . . . and Minister f or
Health and Social Development, Hon. Carvin Malone”
came to [their] House of Assembly on July 31st of this
year, and called on Mem bers of [their] House of A ssembly on both sides and stakeholders and said, we
need “to put our heads together to address the matter ”
(in regard to the national health plan) because they
had a dire situation and it is “ mainly financial.”
It goes on say, “While laying a report that
speaks to the situation” (in the health world down in
BVI), “ . . . that the financial demands are becoming
too much for the NHI ” (to bear ). He noted that the findings are “ troubling ” and essentially “ a crisis can deve lop.” He tal ked about the deficit in the program me
since its inception and that the deficit would be funded
by higher contribution rates.
Sounds familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the last example I
will raise is a larger jurisdiction: the state of Vermont.
Now, we know in the United States . . . and the Mini ster mentioned in her Statement on the 27th of September that we have seen our US neighbours to the West
struggle with health care debates for decades. She
went on, “6We can look to the best, the fairest and the
most efficient health systems in the world and seek
inspiration from them.”
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I noticed that the
plan that the Government has currently followed was
made up from the task force group in 2010. All of this
history that I talked about relates to time that has
lapsed since 2010. Well, in United States where
health care has been one of the biggest election i ssues for the past, at least, three elections, and the
only one that seemed to manage to bridge that divide
betw een both sides was President Obama, and he
managed to get a plan passed.
But in the state of Vermont, which had a lot of
positives going for it in how it could implement a si ngle-payer health system ( because like Bermuda they
had a relatively large number of people insured and a
smaller number of people uninsured, and we should
have no people that cannot get covered—I think we all
agree with that ) they also had a state which was rel atively well- off and the people had the ability to fund
program mes. But the re was a governor about four
years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Governor Peter
Shumlin of Vermont . And he had a vision and he got
elected pretty much solely on his ability for the nation’s first single health plan, the nation’s first. And for
three and a half years after he got elected, he struggled to implement the plan.
And I read from an editorial by someone who
wrote this article after he stepped down: “7With a

5 BVI Platinum News
6 Official Hansard Report , 27 September 2019, page
2452
7 The Washington Post , 29 April 2019 deadline bearing down, [on the Governor] they worked
through a frozen mid- December weekend, tryi ng to
find one computer model . . . .” Now, they are doing it
on the computer to figure out their financials, “[on] Fr iday night, another [on] Saturday night, yet another
Sunday morning.” One computer model that could
give them the hope to do something. “I f they kept going, the governor asked his exhausted team on Monday [morning], could they arrive at a tax plan that
would be politically palatable?”
(They said after all that work,) “No, . . . they
could not.”
“Two days later, on Dec. 17, 2014, Shumlin,
[a Governor] who had swept into office promising a
health- care system that left no one uninsured, announced he was giving up, . . . .” And it was the greatest political disappointment of his life.
So, from that euphoric spring election in 2011,
he crash- landed in 2014, offering sobering lessons to
anyone who looks through these types of health plans
and does not look at the history of people who have
tried it up to then.
Now, Shumlin can look back at it with 20/20
vision, but he said, in his words, “I learne d the hard
way. . . . it isn’t just about reforming the broken pa yment system. Public financing will not work unless you
get the costs under control.”
Sounds familiar.
Now, this state has some of the wealthiest i ndividuals, lowest rates of uninsured that they could
have, and they had one insurance company, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield, I believe, that dealt with most
of their insurance. They could not do it , Mr. Deputy
Speaker. And one of the Governor’s insiders lamented
after the fact (and he worked on thi s Bill for three and
a half, four years) , he said, “It’s easy to write a bill
saying we are going to cover everybody, . . . . It’s
much harder to figure out . . . what exactly your benefit coverage will be . . .” and what your co- payments
will be.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as this Government
tries to figure out what their financing model will be ,
and tries to figure out what the economic shock will be
on the system . . . now, I know from what it appears
the Government is trying to do, that they are going to
push it out to have a single- payer system outside the
ambit of government . It is very similar in many ways.
What is concerning about what we are not hearing at
this present time is the depth of consultation that is
required, and the ability to put some firm numbers on
the wall.
What is the basic plan going to cost? What
are the basic coverages you are going to get? What
will major medical cost? How will we deal with the i ndigent? How will premiums change for people who try
to buy top- up insurance? Because as I go around and
talk to people, like MP Famous is apt to talk about all
the time, this is now one of the number -one issues.
Government workers and private workers. Gover n2596 1 November 2019 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly ment workers are very concerned about the changes
that will be taking place, and now is the time to shelve
any discussion about this is what we believe the costs
will be, to this is what we expect the costs to be, and
this is what we expect to have covered.
We have to firm up the plan so people can get
a better understanding of what it i s going to be so they
know what their liability will be, so we know how we
can plan, not only to use it for our better health, but
also how we can plan to pay for it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, colleagues on this side have not supported it up to
the present time, because the questions have not
been answered, and our model . . . our review of it,
shows that it could be a recipe for disaster.
There are many things that are important in
health care, reforms that we could take that the former
Minister, the honourable colleague, Jeanne Atherden,
has talked about. This issue right here, if it moves
forward as it is without the Minister answering questions about what the financial models will be associated with, what other countries have shown success,
how we will build on our plan without proper consult ation with the doctors, with the insurers, even though
the Government seems to want to throw the insurers
under the bus and act like they are the bad people
because they are making all the profit . . . until we
have these conversations and everyone believes that
they are being listened to so that we find a model that
works, I and my colleagues remain very concerned
[that] we could implement the system and, as time
goes on, we will learn just like the Bahamas did. We
will le arn like BVI did.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, one jurisdiction in the
Caribbean where they started the single- payer system
anticipated that there would be 28,000 people on the
system. After the first year, there were 42,000 people
on the system. The financial models were shot; they
were done.
So, I am not standing here today to do an ything but to say let’s pay attention to what we are doing, because other countries have learned their lesson. Other countries and jurisdictions have backed
down because they knew that it would not provide the
coverage that was being already supplied in Bermuda.
And the Minister admitted in her Statement that a lot
of what we have in our health care system is quite
acceptable. Well, we do have some real challenges.
And the high cost of i t is one thing. In my view, that
high cost will rise unless we change the current model—the model that the Minister is running forward
with.
And so, I state this that we need to find a better ground, because right now going forward the
ground looks rocky . It looks like some people are g oing to have to wait in line for coverage. You hear st ories about the hospital already cutting back services
because they are running tight on the budget. There
was an editorial in the paper by someone at the hospital last week, I believe, who said they could cut 2.5 per cent from the budget this year, but they could
not cut 4 per cent, and we hear of certain services
being cut. These are warning signals that as much as
the Government might try to pooh- pooh the comments
that one might make about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
these are warning signals we need to pay attention to ,
because if we do not get it right, somebody has got to
pay, and that somebody is going to be the people of
Bermuda.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Chair recognises the Ho nourable Member Jamahl Simmons. You have the
floor, sir.

LEGACY OF MP WALTON BROWN

Hon. Jamahl S. Simmons: Thank you Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am reminded of the
phrase, If I cannot convince you w ith facts, I will a ttempt to scare you with stories . I think that what we
have learned over the past two years, and our Premier alluded to it, is that there are some in this country
who interpret consultation as, we ask what they think
and they tell us what to do and we do what they want .
That is not consultation. That is dictating. You know,
people talk about coming together and unity. Dogs
pulling a sled are working together. But they are being
whipped by one person. Unity has many forms, and
not all form s of coming together are by choice or for
the best outcome of all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is interesting that the
Honourable Member raised the point to say that we
should not refer to people as our enemies. He says it
puts up walls and it puts up barriers. Mr. Deputy
Speaker, what should we call people who call us Kool -
Aid drinkers ? What should we call people who call us
sheeple? What should we call people who call us
crooked and corrupt ? What should we call people who
throw around the aspersion of friends and family ?
Should we call them friends?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, what do we call people
who think it is acceptable for their companies to rake
in profits while seniors have to choose between keeping their lights on and eating? What do we call people
who think that a father or mother should have to give
up medical care because they cannot afford it b ecause they have to keep their kids in school, or to
feed their children? What should we call people like
that?
They ain’t my friends and they ain’t friends of
Bermudians.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, what do we call people
who did what the One Bermuda Alliance did on Oct ober 18th? On October 18th . . . that date has great si gnificance. But let me tell you what the OBA did on O ctober 18th. They released a statement attacking the
Progressive Labour Party entitled, “The PLP Must


Bermuda House of Assembly Change Economic Course . . . .” Do you know when
that was released, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It was r eleased as we were in the cathedral, mourning and
burying our brother, Walton Brown.
What do we call people like that?
They sure are not our friends. Thank you, Mr.
Deputy Speaker.