October 20, 2017

With a supplementary, we recognise
the Honourable Opposition Leader. Opposition Leader, you have the floor.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would
just elucidate on the focus on sugar in drinks, when in fact there is sugar content in almost everything that
we consume off the shelf. Therefore, in implementing
a taxation on drinks, we are only really scratching the surface of the challenge —and whether there is going
to be a deeper dive into the resulting challenges of
sugar consumption in the aggregate.

Thank you.
Minister.

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and thank you for that question from the Honourable
Member.
We will be looking at other matters. We recognise that sugar is contained in a lot of consumable items. However, again, at the first instance we are looking at the ones that have the highest calorie co ntent, that also have the lowest nutritional value, which
are soft drinks, sodas, and the juices and the like. So
that is the starting point. Again, as the Statement indicated, we are trying to do what we can to help devel-op a healthier Bermuda. And as such, we have to start
somewhere. And that is, the consultation process will
start with the sugary drinks such as sodas and juices.

Minister, I would like to know
what the . . . you did mention, and I acknowledge that
you are looking to take out sugary drinks in some of the public government buildings. But I would like to
know what more can be done to actually reduce the
distribution and availabil ity of sugary drinks on the
Island, and the encouragement of drink more water,
finding other, alternative means of eating foods that
are lower in sugar and processed chemicals, and r educe the usage of sugar intake via prohibition of sugary items rather than taxing people who may not be
able to afford the additional tax.

Thank you.
Minister.
Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Yes. I was trying to write down
all the questions at once.
Well, for starters, with respect to the question
concerning the water cam paign and the increase of
water, there are initiatives that are being conducted
within the Department of Health by the Wellness Pr ogramme, encouraging students in schools to consume
water as opposed to sugary drinks. And, in fact, some schools have gone as far as not even allowing chi ldren to bring in drink boxes and juice boxes and the
like so that they can encourage drinking water more.
And that is part of the Wellness Programme that is
actually ongoing.
And then, insofar as the question, I believe,
that concerned the production of sugary substances? I
am not really sure what . . .

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: The who?

Are you going to put a prohibition on
soft drinks coming in? I guess that is what you are asking.
Hon. Kim N. Wilson: I am not sure we are actually at
that point, where we are trying to prohibit soft drinks from entering the country. But we certainly are looking at, as I indicated, the implementation of a tax, a sugar
tax on soft drinks and sodas, for the reasons that I
have spoken about previously. But insofar as a prohi-bition, I am not sure we would go to that extent. That is certainly not something that we are looking to con-sider.

Thank you, Minister.
Now, the other Member . . . as I indicated,
Minister, there were three Members who had indicat-ed they had questions. The second Member is the Member from constituency 22.
The Honourable Member Gibbons, do you still
wish to ask your question?
Yes, you have the fl oor.
QUESTION 1: THE SCOURGE OF OBESITY AND
CHRONIC DISEASES IN BERMUDA

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the Minister’s Statement, she
indicates that obesity and lifestyle choices that cause it also lead to the early onset of preventable diseases. The Minister and maybe Honourable Members will be
aware that an economist, a couple of weeks ago,
Richard Thaler, won the Nobel Prize in Economics —
an interesting fellow, because he is one of the few academics whose ideas address real -world problems.
Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom Gov-ernment actually set up a unit called the Behavioural
Insights Team, which was using Dr. Thaler’s work to
develop policies helping citizens make better choices? It was actually called the Nudge Unit; people may be
familiar with that. Is that something that the Minister is aware of, and would the Minister be prepared to look at this? Because it is pretty clear that the situation is getting worse, not better, despite the efforts of prev ious governments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of my questions is that I would like to
know a little bit more around some of the pilot pr ogrammes that are being put in place. I see here an enhanced care pilot.
But just as an extension to that, if I may just
preface just ever so briefly, there was a screening that took place. This was just sort of a scenario, to set the scene. A screening took place in Bermuda, and the woman, at the end of the screening, was told that she was obese. And the woman laughed and refused to acknowledge the fact that she was obese. When the
screener asked her why she did not want to
acknowledge the fact that she was obese, she turned
to the screener and said, Well, I’m the thinnest of all of
my friends. So I just want to say that to put things in
perspective around how people actually interpret and
view themselves, from a health and a size perspective.
So, having staked the place, my question is,
there is an effort to collect some data. And through this registry of chronic diseases, I would like to know exactly, or if you can give me some more detail on,
how these data are going to be collected and what
either incentives or engagements are going to be put in place to actually get the public and private sector, doctors, whoever, to actually enrol in and actively par-ticipate in c ollecting data on people who are living with
diabetes. Because as I understand it, there are no
data on people who are living with diabetes.

Thank you.
Supplementary? No supplementaries. Minister, those are all the questions that were indicated for
you.
We will now move on to the next Statement
that Members have indicated that they have questions for. And that would be the Minister for Reform, Mini ster Foggo. There are two Members who have indicated that they have questions for you, the first being the
Member from constituency 22. Honourable Member
Gibbons, you have the floor.

QUESTION 1: GOVERNMENT REFORM
PROGRESS REPORT

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on page 3, the Honourable
Member in her Statement talks about disclosure of hospi tality and indicates that “an official form will be
created and distributed electronically to each Minister
and Ministry to ensure that this mandate is operationalised” and talks about things like high- end dinners.
My question is, to whom will this disclo sure
form be disclosed?

Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable Minister. On page 3, you indicate that a prov ision for unsolicited proposals has been incorporated
into the government procurement practices. And it
indicates that this would ensure the fairness and
transparency in the handling of unsolicited proposals. And I just wondered if you could perhaps clarify how an unsolicited proposal would be handled through this process?

Recognising that there
was reference to the Aecon/CCC proposal, I just want
to clarify —and also the fact that there was reference
to the supremacy of Cabinet in the Bermuda system of government, I just want to clarify that ––is the Mini ster saying that if a proposal came in, that Cabinet would not examine it, but it would go back into the procurement process?
[
Crosstalk]

Recognising that in this
Statement there was reference to the proposal that was submitted to the Government, such as the
Aecon/CCC proposal to redevelop the airport, and
there was the suggestion of the supremacy of Cabinet in the Bermuda system of Governm ent, is the Minister
suggesting that, if a proposal came in—i.e., an Aecon proposal —under the new proposal that is being suggested, that it would go into the pipeline, if you will, and be looked at, as opposed to dealt with by a Cab inet committee?
The Spe aker: That is a bit long. But go ahead, Mini ster. Have you got the point?
Hon. Lovitta F. Foggo: Yes.
Once the Project Management and Procur ement Code is tabled before this House, I think then the Shadow Minister would be able to put her question forth. Because it will be clear to all Members how that
Code will operate.

Thank you, Minister.
No supplementaries?
No other Member had indicated that they had
questions for you, Minister.
The other Statement that Members had indicated that they had questions for would be that of the
Minister of National Security.
Minister Caines, you have a question from the
Member from constituency 10.
Honourable Member, would you like to ask
your question? Honourable Member Dunkley, you have the floor.
QUESTI ON 1: POLICING ST. GEORGE’S

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question to the Honourable Minister is . . .
I thank him for the Statement, an update on policing in St. George’s. Could the Minister please give an up-date on the CCTV camera situation in St. George’s? There were some new cameras in the process of beBermuda House of Assembly ing installed. So, the question is, are the cameras operable, and are they tied in to the main Island- wide
system? Obviously, these cameras can help policing
to have a great impac t. And the concerns in St.
George’s will, hopefully, be alleviated in some way by
that.

Thank you, Minister.
No supplementaries?
No other Member indicated he had questions
for you, Minister.
The last Statement that Members indicated
they had a question would be that of the Minister for
Works in reference to his Statement this morning, and
the Honourable Member from constituency 20.
Member, would you like to ask your question?
We recognise the Honourable Member Jac kson. You have the floor.

QUESTION 1: GARBAGE COLLECTION
AND TYNES BAY

Thank you.
Good morning, Mini ster. My question is
around any kind of programme—if you could please
give us more detail on any programme to assist some
of the garbage collection along the historically small carriage lanes and streets in Bermuda, especially
people who may be physically disabled or are seniors
and having a difficult time getting garbage to the end
of their main roads for collection, and if there is any
thought to [making an] investigation into how garbage
may be collected along these smaller roads.

Thank you, Min ister.
Supplementaries? No further questions? That brings us to the end of the Question P eriod this morning. Thank you, Members and Ministers,
for your contributions.
Now I will move on to the next item.

CONGRATULATORY AND/OR
OBITUARY SPEECHES

The S peaker: I recognise the Honourable Minister.
Honourable Minister from constituency 14,
you have the floor.

Hon. Wayne Caines: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend at the Hami lton Seventh- Day Adventist Church, the church
acknowledged on International Day 11 members of
the Jamaican community who had been outstanding
in the last 40 years, making a commitment to our
community. I would just like to read those names, Mr.
Speaker. Mr. Winston Laylor; he serves Bermuda as
Jamaica’s honorary cons ul. He has been holding this
post for a number of years. He is also a schoolteac her. Mr. Courville Hilton, a police officer in Bermuda for
over 24 years, also serving in a local band in Berm uda. We have Mr. Headley Stephenson, Mr. Speaker.
He is a local co nstruction magnate who had done a
number of things in our community. Then we have Ms.
Olga Scott. She had led in Bermuda in Teen Services
and in the helping agencies.

[Desk thumping]

Hon. Wayne Caines: We have Mr. Keith Cunnin gham, OBE, who has served B ermuda as the Gover nment Pathologist for a number of years. We have Ms. Merlin Burt. She is the mother of our Premier.

[Desk thumping]

Hon. Wayne Caines: She has led Bermuda as a
business owner, as a leading member of our spiritual
community in Bermuda, and as my godmother, Mr. Speaker. You have Ms. Ellen Douglas. Ms. Ellen
Douglas has been an advocate for the educationally
challenged for a number of years . We have Mr. and
Mrs. Ranville Thomas, the owners and proprietors of
the Jamaican Grill. And they were acknowledged for
their service. We have Ms. Shernette Caines.

[Desk thumping]
Hon. Wayne Caines: She is another member of the
Jamaican community who got acknowledged.

Has she got any affiliation in this
House?

Hon. Wayne Caines: Yes, sir. She has a son named
Dwayne Caines.
378 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly [Laughter]

Hon. Wayne Caines: And many others. Yes, indeed.
Ms. Evelyn Brown. She is a nurse and has
been in th e nursing arena in Bermuda for over 30
years. Justice Norma Wade- Miller. She has also, as
you know, Mr. Speaker, served this country with di stinction. And Mr. Bruce—Mr. Tennyson George Bruce,
a local entrepreneur who has had a garage on the
Parson’s Road t hat has serviced many of our vehicles
for over 40 years.
Mr. Speaker, though our country is made up
of a number of people, and oftentimes on this side we
are accused of being xenophobes . . . but this is just a
highlight of some people in our community who make
the tapestry beautiful in Bermuda. And we just wanted
to acknowledge members of the Jamaican community
who have served over 40 years, with distinction, in
Bermuda, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and good morning.
I rise today and ask that we recognise the
passing of Mrs. [Willa] Yvonne Tucker. I ask that Members of the House be associated. I realise that
certainly the Honourable Minister of National Security;
you, Mr. Speaker; your son, the MP Lister; and also, MP Jackson very much want to be associated with
this.

So, the whole House will be associated. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Tucker, her daughter was
in my class at the Bermuda Institute, [where] we e njoyed many days. And I got the opportunity of getting
to know Mrs. Tucker as a result. She was a wonderful lady, and I appreciated the time that I had to spend
with her. And so, I ask that we recognise her today.
Also, in the same vein, Mr. Nathaniel Reid
Outerbridge from Spar Lane in Sandys. Mr. Speaker, I
can say without any reservation that many will r emember Mr. Outerbridge f or his rather gregarious
character. And I recall the times that he spent at Ely’s
Harbour public dock area, where my uncle and he and
many, many others kept their boats. We cleaned fish, and we talked at times. But I have to say this, that I
remembered the times and the riotous conversations
that he had with my uncle, Edward “Icewater” Smith;
his brother , Robert “Small -Eyed” Smith; Mr. Wendell
“Scopsie” Hassell; Mr. “Boxhead” Romaine; and Mr.
Coolridge Co olie; or Coolie Fubler, among many,
many others. Mr. Speaker, I recall humorously when Mr.
Outerbridge was introduced to the waters of the open
Ely’s Harbour at the inlet by my uncle, when discussions between the two or the three became quite agitated. So, I can tell you that he was a person who was well lo ved and well liked. So, therefore, I wish to state
that those fond memories at times . . . and I also b elieve I can speak and want to mention the Somerset community, both the corporate professional and the
rest, the New Woody’s Drive Inn Two, and also the
Charing Cross Tavern and also the prison officers. And I have been asked that the MP Neville Tyrrell,
and also the Honourable Tourism Minister be included, the Honourable Jamahl Simmons to be included in
our condolences. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speake r: Thank you.
I recognise the Honourable Minister.
Minister Burch, you have the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would
like to be associated with the congratulations to the
Jamaican community. Many people will know that it is
my secon d-favourite place on the planet.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, for a letter of congratulations to be sent to all of the participants in the Bermuda International Gombey Festival Showcase
that was held on Saturday, the 7
th of October. Mr.
Speaker, oftentimes, people ask, Who is a Bermudian? And I can say, without fear of contradiction, that a
true Bermudian is defined by anybody in this country whose spirit is moved at the sound of the Gombeys. And on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, there were about
six troupes th at participated. And so, for those who
might have thought that it is going to be repetitive and boring, that was not the case at all.

It was the most amazing display of our culture, with each Gombey troupe
having its own unique characteristics and sound and
dance and uniforms. And so, Mr. Speaker, it was just
an absolutely amazing evening. And so, I congratulate
the department that put it on, but particularly the par-ticipants.
Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that congratul ations from the House be sent to two dynamic young ladies, both born on the same day, mother and daughter. And I speak of none other than Sister Helena
“Molly” Burgess, who on the 10
th of October went 80
years old, and her daug hter, Terry Ann Smith, who
went 60 years old. There was an absolutely fantastic
and glorious celebration, surprise celebration, at the
Fairmont Southampton of the 14th of October, atten ded by, I would guess, well over 600 people, Mr. Speaker. I mean, it was an absolutely delightful night,
and certainly a tribute to, particularly in the case of Sister Molly, a giant in this community, someone who


Bermuda House of Assembly has, I think, been through every president the BIU
[Bermuda Industrial Union] has had, just about, certainly in modern times, anyway. She has served the
BIU and the people of Bermuda, particularly the hotel industry, with tremendous distinction. She is a r emarkable lady who still goes to work every day and
puts in a good day’s work, at 80 years of age. And I
think they are probably going to need dynamite to get
her out of that office. You cannot even mention the
word “ retirement ” to her. So I would like that the
House would send congratulations to both her and her
daughter, Terry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speake r: Thank you, Minister.
I recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 22. Honourable Member Gibbons, you
have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure over the last
couple of days of attending various parts of the Co nvergence 2017 conference, put on by the local ILS
(insurance- linked securities) Conference Group. And I
would ask that congratulations be sent to Greg
Wojciechowski, who is the Chairman, and as people
will know, is the CEO of the Bermuda Stock E xchange; and Kathleen Faries, who is the head of the
local Tokio Millennium Re operation. Very timely b ecause, with the various hurricanes that have gone through in the last month or so and the impact on CAT
bonds and the flooding in Texas, and the rest of it,
there were a lot of very interesting presentations. I
was particularly struck, actually, by the speech that Mike McGavick, the CEO of XL Catlin, gave, talking
about some of the issues involved with insurance
growth, very germane to Bermuda, obviously. But he
looked at it on a worldwide basis, and particularly i ssues of cost, technology coming along and, probably
most importantly, the issue of trust in terms of how
people see insurance and reinsurance.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would
also like to ask that congratulations be sent to Lisa Howie, who Honourable Members will know as the Executive Director of the Bermuda National Gallery.
She has been in the position since 2009 and is stepping down. I think the Executive Director of the Gallery is not an easy job, but I think, under her leadership
and certainly that of Gary Phillips, it has grown in stature over the last few years.

[Inaudible interjection]

And certainly, I think the
whole House probably w ould ask that she be reco gnised for her contribution.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, there is another ind ividual who is stepping down. And I guess there will be
more to say about this individual. But I gather that Dr.
Ed Harris of the Maritime Museum is due to retire fai r-ly soon, or at least he has announced his retirement. I
think it is only appropriate that the House recognise
his contributions, as well, over quite a few years. He
can be a controversial individual; I think we have all
seen that. But he has made, certainly, significant con-tributions to Bermuda’s cultural and other heritage,
and I would ask that the House recognise that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member.
I recognise the Honourable Deputy Premier.
Deputy Premier, you hav e the floor.

Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to be associated with the remarks
pertaining to Dr. Edward Harris and his long- standing
work in archaeological science, and certainly as an
advocate for developing the history of Ber muda, its
maritime history and its history as part of the Atlantic,
the greater Atlantic. He is also known for some quite
revolutionary developments in his area of science,
and it is amazing that a gentleman of that stature, who has actually contributed internationally to his field,
found contentment being home in Bermuda, where he
has obviously made a great contribution to Bermuda.
And I certainly think that perhaps the whole House, if
they have not already, would like to be associated with that.

Mm-hmm.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: I would also like to ensure
that congratulatory recognition is given to the West
Indian Association for their successful telethon last
Thursday. And I do not think we need to restate a lot
of what significance that a suc cess like that has. It is
going to help an incredible number of persons and communities in the West Indies. It is a great gesture
from all of our countries, because so many people donated. Thousands of people donated. They went
beyond their target of $100, 000. Persons in this
House participated, a number of Members. Myself, I
saw Lt. Col. Burch there; certainly, the Opposition
Leader was there, and other members of the comm unity.

Many of us phoned in.

Hon. Walter H. Roban: Phoned in.
The Spe aker: Yes.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Made donations . . . from all
walks of life.
So, everybody and the whole House, I am
sure, wants to be associated with that because this
was a success for Bermuda, not just for a few per-sons.
380 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.
Thank you very much.

Thank you.
I will now recognise the Deputy Speaker.
Deputy Speaker, you have the floor.
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like for this House to
send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Ronald Smith, who
is a long -serving employee of the Government in the
Social Insurance Department. Mr. Smith was one of
those that, when he went there, he went out of his
way to help you and service you. So I am really, really thank ful for the service that he has given to the Go vernment and the people of Bermuda.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be associated
with the remarks concerning Reid Outerbridge. Reid
Outerbridge was a member of the Bermuda Industrial
Union. Also, he was from Incubator, down in Devon-shire. Some people do not know what “Incubator” is.

He came west there, you know. He
came west.
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: He came west to help
them out up that way.
[
Laughter]
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: And, you know, that is
what we did down in the east.
Also, I would like to be associated with the
remarks on the Jamaican community. Mr. Speaker, with the Jamaican members of the Caribbean Congress of Labour who approached me to run for the
Vice President of t he Caribbean Congress of Labour,
they lobbied for me and they voted for me. And there I became the Vice President of the Caribbean Co ngress of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to be associated with
the remarks concerning Molly Burgess. Molly Burgess made the ultimate sacrifice. She sacrificed everything
to serve the people of this country. A very quiet ind ividual, does not look for much. But she serves her people with commitment. As we said in her celebr ations the other night, the hallmarks of Molly Burges s
are integrity and trustworthiness. Molly served four presidents, from Robert Johnson up to the present president, and she served all of them very well. Al though she is 80, I just hope she goes on a little longer because her service I do not think you can replace.
When I talk about “ replace ,” as people say, You can
replace anybody. But you cannot replace Molly Burgess, particularly the calibre of person she is.
So, Mr. Speaker, again I also want to wish her
daughter a happy birthday. She does not look 60, but
she is —Terry, her daughter. Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and good morning to all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points. The first one
is a bit of a sad note. I have asked the House to send a letter of condolences to the family of the late Prisci lla Delores (nee Belboda) Williams, from Bulkhead
Drive in my constituency. I met Delores a very, very
long time ago— a very lovable- type person. She surely
will be missed by her children, Christopher, Deidre, and Colin, because she was a very lovable mother. In fact, she was planning her 73
rd birthday party when
she took sick very suddenly last week, and did not get
a chance, obviously, to enjoy it. But I ask for a letter of
condolences to be sent.
On a brighter note, Mr. Speaker, I ask that a
letter of congratulations be sent to the Dream Girls Club, and Ms. Margaret Giloth, who actually runs the
club and has been running it for well over about 12
years now. And recently, [the club] gave scholarships, under the name of the Phenomenal People’s scholar-ship, to two very deserving young ladies by the names of Maegan Costa and Britney Bannister. This is a club, Mr. Speaker, that helps young ladies, grooms
young ladies (I think that is the word I would use) —
grooms them into adulthood and to become good cit izens of this country. And I think it will be well deserved. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member.
I recognise the Opposition Leader. Madam
Opposition Leader, you have the floor.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate partic ularly with the comments made by the Honourable Mi nister Caines with respect to the honouring of members from the Jamaican community, and by extension, link-ing the West Indian Association with how people who are not Bermudian, who have not come from this
place, can make significant impact both in terms of
how they have interspersed within our community and contributed thereto, as well as their benevolence in ensuring that people from their places of origin, when suffering hardship, have the opportunity to receive some kind of relief, as was seen. I think that Damian
Brewster, as the President of the West Indian Assoc iation, in pulling together the telethon, which was tr emendously successful, also deserves credit for how
his association has stepped up to the plate. So, I would like to associate with those.


Bermuda House of Assembly In terms of the Honourable Minister Burgess’s
comments on the Gombey Festival, you know, I can
remember as a child, Mr. Speaker, being actually
afraid of the Gombeys. And as time goes on, you
cannot help but get into the groove. The Gombe y Festival was absolutely phenomenal, and I would like to
extend our congratulations from this side of the House
to the members of the Cultural Department for helping
to facilitate that particular event.
I would also like to ask that this Honourable
House send congratulations to the MOVE organisers
of the Day for Unity in the Community. They had a
very successful event, at which one of their guest
speakers was Gina Spence- Farmer, who spoke of the
challenges of children who have been left behind by
gun viol ence and the like, and basically brought a very
real message of how the community has a respons ibility to help and to assist when we have fallen so ldiers within our midst.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be associated with the condolence remarks that were ex-tended by the Honourable Member Simmons with r espect to Mrs. Willa Tucker. Mrs. Tucker —and I will
speak from a different perspective, apart from the fact
that it has already been acknowledged that she was
an absolutely wonderful person—is an individual who,
you can guarantee, Mr. Speaker, on a Friday morning . . . I believe that all of us in this Honourable House in
the execution of our duties require extra prayers. And on a Friday morning, I can say that this woman, Mrs.
Tucker, was an absolute prayer warrior. And with her
Praise and Prayer Team, she made sure that she sent
up prayers every week for the successful conduct of our House in our oversight of the public and the bus iness of the people. So, that selflessness that she exuded is certainl y something that I will forever treasure,
and she will be tremendously and very deeply missed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.
I recognise the Honourable Minister. Minister
De Silva, from constituency 29, you have the floor.

Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like this House to send
congratulations to our Under -17 [Woman’s National]
Football Team.

[Desk thumping]

Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker, I am
sure you are well aware that they stand on the cusp of
history here, as we talk today, because if Jamaica draws or beats Trinidad tonight, Bermuda will be pla ying in the finals. So we certainly wish to extend our . . .
I am sure everybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, extends the best of luck to our Under -17 girls who, as
we know, have already accomplished so much this
year. And I think this would be—cherry on the top would be an understatement if they were to go ahead and make the finals and then win the competition, in
itself, Mr. Speaker. So let us keep them in our prayers
and thoughts, because tonight is the big match be-tween Jamaica and Trinidad. And with a bit of luck, our girls will be playing in the final.
Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out where
the Honourable Minister just left off in congratulating
our young ladies in the Under -17 team. Just to see the
pictures that have been in the newspapers and other
areas where you could see them, just to see the joy in
their faces, it is obvious that they are a very tight and
strong team. And they can be a lesson to all of us as
they go forward, how they work together and get the
results. The results they have gotten at this point in
time are certainly tremendous. And I have every confidence, as I am sure all colleagues in this House do,
that those results will continue. What a fantast ic team!
I have seen some of those young ladies grow
up. I have played some sports against some of those young ladies. And I have every confidence that we will
have success as we go forward. But we need a little
help. So let us pray for that, as the Minis ter said.

Young Leilanni [Nesbeth]
was there, and she is obviously a very good footballer,
but [a very good] cricketer, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity just to take a few seconds to support honour able colleagues and the Honourable Member Simmons
in the condolences to Willa Tucker. It has been expressed that she was a family lady with a strong group
of friends, that she was a prayer warrior, and that she
contacted many of us on a regular basis. And today
was the first day that we have not been guided by her
prayers. So it is a tough day for many in her prayer
group, Mr. Speaker. But also, she was a teacher for, I
believe, 40 years in the East End of the Island at St.
David’s Primary. I am sure that there are some people
in this House today who were guided and mentored
by Willa, as she was down there for a long period of
time.
382 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly I was honoured to be able to attend the
homegoing service a couple of days ago. And it was
very clear to me that not only was she committed to her profession and her family, but she was committed to people, because she was a mentor for people, and many people called on a regular basis to just confide in her and to get some advice. So it was a sad day, to
have to go to the homegoing service, but it was a
proud day to see a woman who had touched so many
in our community.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity this morning to send condolences on behalf of myself, and I am sure all honourable colleagues in this
House would like to be associated, as well, to the father of our former colleague, Jefferson Sousa, whose
father, George Edward Sousa, passed away over the summer period, Mr. Speaker. I had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Sousa as a younger man. And the first time I came in contact with him, I was impressed by
the way he was put together, by the way he carried himself, and by his passion for the community and our people. Mr. Sousa was a unique Bermudian in the fact that he played sports for Bermuda in four different pr ofessions. He played football, which he is well known
for. He was a very keen golfer. He also was very good at ping- pong and fast -pitch softball. He represented
Bermuda at all levels. I believe he captained the Ber-muda Football Team in the middle to late 1950s for a couple of years. He was the firs t Bermudian who actually raised the FA Cup in 1956.
[
Timer beeps]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
good morning.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off my r emarks by asking to be associated with the Under -17
Women’s [National] Football Team. It is a tremendous accomplishment, and it is always good when we see our youngsters perform so admirably. Because, so often, when we hear about youngsters, we hear about them in a negative light. So, hats -off to our Under -17
ladies, and we hope that they keep going, go as far as
they possibly can, because they have the quality in
that team to do so.

To get to the top! Mr. Michael A. Weeks: To get to the top, most def initely.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have some
words of congratulatory sentiments for the Gilbert & Sullivan [Society of Bermuda] on their successful pr oduction of The Wizard of Oz, right now playing in
Bermuda. They have had about six successful shows.
And I have heard nothing but good things about them.
One person in particular I want to highlight is Mr. A ngelis Hunt, who is actually the Scarecrow. And he showed remarkable acting ability. So, look out for ot her great things from him.
Mr. Speaker, as I move on, I also want to associate myself with the remarks by the Honourable Deputy [Speaker] for the exploits of the West Indian Association, the monies raised for our brothers and sisters and our cousins and aunties down around in the Caribbean. Because I, like most of us, have some close roots from down there.

So the good work that our
community has done by coming together and raising those funds was heart -warming, as we all remember
that those are our family members down in the Carib-bean.
Mr. Speaker, on a little sombre note, I also
want to associate myself with the remarks for Mr. Reid Outerbridge. Mr. Reid Outerbridge, as so humbly known in our family because he was my wife’s uncle—called him “Uncle Snoots .” He was truly a character, and he always made it known he was from I ncubator. My father -in-law, who was his brother, always
talked about the exploits, [such as] they used to drink
the pond water. And he told us a whole lot of stories.
But Uncle Snoots was really the life of the party in the
family. And I could not take my seat without associating myself with the remarks, the heartfelt remarks, for Mr. Reid Outerbridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any other Member?
I recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 36. The Honourable Member Scott, you
have the floor.
Hon. Michael J. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just following on from the Government Whip’s condolenc es, too, Mr. Outerbridge—I
would like to be associated with those condolences.


Bermuda House of Assembly What a lovely gentleman. I had the opportunity to
canvass with him. And I knew I was in the presence of
a very decent gentleman. Some of the neighbours
who, at Christmastime, wi ll miss the clanging of pots.
He seemed to be a great cook. But they could hear
the pots going on with his toings and froings as he
was pulling together something of good taste down in his home. So, he will be missed in the Somerset/Dockyard community.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to also ask that this
Honourable House send condolences now to the fam ily of Mrs. Lucille Harvey Zuill, a mother of our Allen
Temple AME Church, a great mother of Somerset.

As well as the Speaker.

Hon. Michael J. Scott: As well as the Speaker. [She
was] a faithful member of Allen Temple AME Church,
where the Honourable Member, Mr. Swan, from St. George’s, must have come across this kind and dear
and faithful lady. And so the Harvey and Zuill families,
all of the children, I ask t his House send condolences
there to the family of Mrs. Lucille Zuill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and
listening audience.
I would like to take this time to send congrat ulations to the St. George’s Steppers. They were the
winners, and you heard it in the Minister’s brief today.
And I am pretty sure that we all know that it doesn’t
take––it is not easy to make 50 million steps. I just
want to also note one lady in particular, whose name is Marlene Jones . She lives down in my area, and if
anyone knows anything about St. George’s, she is the
lady everybod y describes as that lady that walks. Because all you do is see her walking all around. I ass ociate MP Swan with that. So I just want to say that she
would do our community walk on Saturdays, and then
head off to do another 10 miles on top of whatever we
had done. So, I just want to make sure to note that
she was extremely committed to that.

At the UNESCO World Teachers
Day, we honoured Sheila Johnson, and we also honoured Mary Lodge. Now, Sheila Johnson was the
Princip al at East End from 1974 to 1994. That means
that she would have been principal during the time
that I was there. It was an honour to see her. She is
80-plus years now. She still has all her faculties. And
she was actually honoured by the mayor, who is als o
an ex -student, and myself, who is an ex -student, too.
That was actually really good.
I want to also acknowledge the Special Oly mpics. They started the relay in St. George’s on Saturday. We were down for that. I want to make sure that I
acknowledge the w ork of Alicia Zuill, because she is
on us to make sure that she keeps the awareness going—I want to associate MP Weeks with that —with
regard to the Special Olympics and just special people. So I just want to say that we acknowledge her for
her work.
The A ME Church, for their First Episcopal
District YPD 46
th Annual District Meeting that was held
in Bermuda last weekend. And there were approx imately a couple of hundred people who came down,
and it was held at the Fairmont Southampton Pri ncess. And it was mostly for young people, Mr. Speaker, but others attende d, as well. And it was just a time
to reflect and to look at our spiritual roots. And also, to
Inter-Island Communications for their Praise Team
concert.
And then, I have to do this one before I finish
up, Mr. Speaker, and that is to the Berkeley Institut e,
because I know that there are several Berkeley -ites
who sit in these Chambers.

And that is for the 120 years of
greatness! And there are some Founders Day cel ebrations that are happening today. And I just note,
because this is my time, that no matter what House you are on, we only had two, Green and Gold. We
have always known that Gold House was the best.

[Crosstalk]

384 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly The Speaker: Well, well . . . well, now. I am obviously
Green House.
[
Inaudible interjections]

I now recognise the Premier. Premier,
you have the floor.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would just rise very quickly to
associate myself with remarks that have been given
by Members, of congratulations, of course, for the
Under -17 Women’s [Nati onal] Football Team.
Also, to associate myself with congratulations
for, of course, the wonderful Mrs. Molly Burgess, for her 80
th year, and as she continues to be a trailblazer
in the area and a model of someone who has given a
lifetime of service and cause that she so much depends on.
And additionally, I would like to give congrat ulations, and I am uncertain if they have yet been done. But, congratulations, certainly, to BF&M and the
breast cancer events which have been taking place.
There was the very large Breast Cancer Awareness Walk, which took place on Wednesday.

So, your pink tie, right?
Hon. E. David Burt: Of course, I am interested b ecause my wife was, I think, the patron or the honorary patron, of this event. But it was an excellent event. My
whole family was out for the walk; I know the Minister of Health was there, as well.
But I just wanted to add my association and/or
congratulations to those items, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you.
I recognise the Honourable Minister. Minister
Simmons, you have the floor. Hon. Jamahl S. Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and good morning, all.
I would like to send out congratulations to Mr.
[Sidney ] Mello at the Rosewood Tucker’s Point. Colleagues and the listening audience may remember that, about a week or so ago, he put himself at risk to rescue one of our visitors who was experiencing diff iculty in the water. And I think he is to be commended. Everythi ng I have heard about this young man, in
terms of his dedication to his work, in terms of his cus-tomer service level as a beach supervisor there, have been impeccable. And he continues to show that Bermudians are the best when it comes to tourism.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my cond olences to the family of Mr. Stephen Proctor, who passed rather tragically earlier this week. Many know him from the community for his work as an electrical contractor, and it is very unfortunate to hear of his passing.
While I am on my feet, I would like to also
pass condolences to the family of Ms. Barbara- Ann
Outerbridge Tucker, another person who, in her r ecent years, was very involved in the tourism industry. People knew her from the gift shop at Crystal Caves.
And I understand–– I did not have a chance to sample,
despite the fact that I am at my 40- inch waistline ––
that she was quite an impeccable chef as well.
[
Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Jamahl S. Simmons: Other Members would
like to be associated with that, as well.
I would like to add myself to the congratul ations to Sister Molly Burgess on her attainment of her
80th birthday. I wish her many more years of health,
prosperity, and continuing to fight for the people of
Bermuda.
I would like to also add myself to the congratulations for Lisa Howie, Ms. Lisa Howie, on her
retirement as the Executive Director of the Bermuda
National Gallery; and to Mr. Ed Harris of the Maritime
Museum for his retirement, as well, and his tremendous contribution to Bermuda.
And wh ile I am on my feet, I would like to join
my colleague from the east in congratulating Berkeley. I do not remember what house it was on, but I think it was the one that was the smart one.

Green House! All the way! That is right.


Bermuda House of Assembly I recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 9. Honourable Member Moniz, you have
the floor.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Firstly, I would like to be associated with the
birthday wishes to Molly Burgess. I had the pleasure,
you might call it, when I was Minister of Public Works,
of being across the table from her. She is a wonderful
individual, but a very resolute and tough n egotiator.
And she has done a wonderful service to our comm unity.
I would also like to be associated with the r etirement wishes to Dr. Harris, who is a very good friend of mine. What one of the Members was referring to earlier, he invented what is known as the “Harris Matrix,” which is used throughout the world in archaeological digs. He has done long service for Bermuda. And I am sure he will continue doing that service after his retirement. He is not the sort of individual who could stop. He is full of energy.
I would also like to, at the same time, congratulate the Maritime Museum on the publication of a
new book, Bermuda Maps, for which the text was wri tten by Jonathan Land Evans. That was a great ac ademic work. It took years to bring together, particu larly
to bring together all the maps. It had the assistance of
the Brian Duperreault map collection. And there was a
reception last evening, which was attended by the
Minister of Community Affairs. And, hopefully, people
will be looking for that magnificent book as a Chris tmas present for their friends.
Lastly, I have the sad position to bring condolences to the family of Molly Godet. Molly Godet
passed away in London last evening. She was one of
Bermuda’ premier artists. She won the Charman Prize
a few years ago. She was part of the Plein Air group.
Her daughter, Eve, contacted me this morning, so I
would like to give condolences to Eve and Charlie, her
children. She was also a great (originally) ballet st udent of Louise Jackson.
She subsequently attended the Central
School of Art and Design in London and became a graphic designer. She rose to be a director of a large
advertising firm, Publicis Groupe , a French advertising
firm in London, and travelled the world. She was ma king TV commercials for all sorts of people, like Volvo
cars, back in the day, and retired back to Bermuda
some 12 years ago, when she joined the Plein Air
group. She was a regular participant in all the art
shows and was a very powerful, creative, and wonder-ful personality. I would just like to give our appreci ation and our condolences to the family of Molly Godet.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be associated
with the remarks that were sent to the MOVE group
for their community day, because I thought that it was
one of those events where they did not just give you
food, because food was provided, but they gave you
food for thought. Because they made sure that there
were a number of people who were there . . . in addition to Gina Spence- Farmer, there was Erica Smith,
from the Bermuda Economic Development Corpor ation, talking to people abou t what they could do, if you
will, to improve themselves, how Government was making available to them funds to help them get up and effectively, if you will, empower themselves. B ecause, as people will appreciate, the MOVE group is
designed to help people empower themselves and
move forward, which I think is very commendable.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be associated with the congratulations to Molly Burgess. I knew
Molly from back in the hospital, which was a long time
ago. And even though I did not have to be across the
table, I was obviously interactive with her over time.
And she is one of those persons of whom I could truly say that I would class as a woman of stature. She ac-tually was not just interested in her members from a
union perspective, but she was interested in them entirely. Therefore, I appreciate the fact that she has
done all of these things, and I congratulate her on her 80 years’ birthday. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to offer or ask that condolences be sent to the family of the young Ms. Le- Jai Simmons. Le-Jai Simmons was the daughter of Leslita
Simmons and Mr. Jay Ming, who suddenly lost her life
last week. And so, I just want to send condolences to
her family and friends.
And also I am sending condolences to the
family and friends of Dereiko Evans -Denbrook. Dere iko was a gentle spirit, humble spirit, and was loved by
his family and friends. Despite his physical challenges, he is an example of a fighter in all of his spirit,
body, and mind. So I want to send condolences to his
family and his friends.
Also, wanting to send congratulations to,
again the Bermuda Boccia team, who returned to the Island October 1
st from Kansas [City], and they repr esented Bermuda—Ms. Yushae DeSilva- Andrade, St e386 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly ve Wilson, Omar Hayward, and Jamal Bean. I am just
grateful that our people with disabilities are able to
represent Bermuda and represent Bermuda well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, and good morning to you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be associated
with the remarks going out to Molly Burgess and Terry
Burgess, who I know are both celebrating milestone
birthdays, and indeed on the same day —two outstanding persons whom I get to share time with every
time Cup Match is in St. George’s, because we have
our spots next to each other. Unfortunately, they have
had the time to celebrate of recent years, and I hope
that changes very soon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like
to be associated with the congratulations going out to
the entire Under -17 ladies football team for their outstanding performance. To defeat Jamaica as they did
is outstanding in its own right. And just on what they
have done to date, they need to be thoroughly co ngratulated. Leilanni Nesbeth, I can tell you, I coached
her in golf. And any sport that she takes up, she is just
naturally gifted. She went to England on a cricket
scholarship and was snapped up in football by a first
division, premier division football team.
On condolences, I would like to be associated
with th e condolences going out to the family of St ephen Proctor, [from] Over Plus Lane, from way back
when, as the Honourable Member from Sandys spoke
earlier, he was indeed a very accomplished electr ician. That was his trade when he was a young man,
and loved hi s football for the Eagles as well.
And also, the family of Lucille Harvey Zuill. My
family on both sides, my grandfather’s mother, was a Zuill. So Erskine would have been my grandfather’s
nephew. And indeed, the Harvey family, while being
Ikey Hall’s great -grandson, I can say no more—just to
say that, to John and all the family from around there in that Somerset Bridge community, I send my dee pest condolences.

Good morning, Mr.
Speaker, and good morning, Bermuda.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank
you to the West Indian Association. I want to assoc iate with other Members. I want to give particular
thanks to Ms. Chandra Prasad, whose brainchild it
was for the telethon. Also thanking the management
and staff of ZBM and Digicel, who made it possible.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate with remarks
for Le- Jai Simmons, as she was actually my cousin.
Her grandmother, Juanita Webb, was first cousin to
my father.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff of
Works and Engineering Solid Waste Department, who daily pick up what we throw. Often, we forget the
workers of Bermuda, and if the workers of Bermuda
do not work, we see what happens. So I want to give thanks to those persons in the white trucks every day.
Mr. Speaker, every week, we hear about
God’s country up west.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Bermuda House of Assembly I just want to take some time here to send
congratulations to young— well, he is younger than I
am—Fitzgerald Richardson. He is a constituent of
mine. He is a former Westgate inmate who is just
about to complete a course to become an assistant nurse, or a nurse’s aide. And his journey has been an
interesting one; it was featured in the Royal Gazette
the other day. You know, he was a heroin addict at a
young age. I spoke some weeks ago about the scores
of young, mainly black, men who died because,
through their heroin addiction, they contracted HIV/AIDS through the sharing of needles back in the
1970s and 1980s and 1990s. Remarkably, he would
have been one of those young cohorts of that group.
Again, from the age of 14 and 15, probably not intr avenously inject ing heroin at that time, but certainly
using it. And so, his journey is a remarkable one, and I just want the House to acknowledge the journey that
he has been on. And I think that he can serve as an
example for others who also are facing these cha llenges.
Moreover, a few weeks ago, we talked about
a young man, Bermudian man, another African Bermudian who has been certified now as a nurse, a
male nurse. I just want to say Mr. Richardson, as a
nurse’s assistant . . . I would ask more Bermudians to
take a look —particularly our men in this society —
within that sector, the health care sector. One of the greatest increases in job opportunities over the next
10 and 20 years is going to occur in that sector. And
so, we are going to need more Bermudians to get i nvolved at every level of the health care sector. And
again, congratulations to Mr. Richardson, who is on
the cusp of completing his degree. Thank you, sir.

I believe we have one Bill to be intr oduced today.
And I recognise the Junior Minister of F inance. Honourable Member Furbert, you have the
floor.

FIRST READING

COMPANIES AND LIMITE D LIABILITY
COMPANY (BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP)
AMENDMENT ACT 2017
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am introducing the following Bill for its first
reading so that it may be placed on the Order Paper for the next day of meeting: Companies and Limited
Liability Company (Beneficial Ownership) Amendment
Act 2017. Thank you.

Orders of the Day. It is my understan ding we are going to do all four matters before us t oday. But the Premier has asked that we change the
order. I think the Whips have agreed. So, [Order]
No. 2 will now be [Order] No. 1, and we will begin with
the Appea l Tribunals (Miscellaneous) Bill 2017.
Junior Minister, I believe you are leading that
for the Minister. I recognise the Junior Minister of F inance, the Honourable Member Furbert. Honourable
Member, you have the floor.

BILL

SECOND READING

APPEAL TRIBUN ALS
(MISCELLANEOUS) ACT 2017

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have before the House today
the Appeal Tribunals (Miscellaneous) Act 2017, which
we will be debating.

[Inaudible interjections]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Mr. Speaker, the Bill now
before the House is the Appeal Tribunals (Miscellaneous) Act 2017. The objective of this Bill is to amend the Government Authorities (Fees) Act 1971 (“the
388 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly Act”), together with certain financial service legislation,
in order to give the Minister of Finance the authority to
determine the appropriate fee for appeal tribunal members for financial service tribunals.
Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of the Act provides for
fees to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to each member of a government authority in respect of each
day such persons attend a meeting of that authority. A
“government authority” is defined to mean any of the bodies specified in the First Schedule. The Schedule to the Act, Part A of the Schedule, set down the fees for the chairman or equivalent of $100 a day, and the
fees for the members of $50 a day.
Section 4 of the Act gives the Minister of F inance (“the Minister”) the power to amend by an or-der, whether by addition, deletion, or otherwise, the list of government authorities set out in the Second Schedule to the Act.
Mr. Speaker, given the recent shift in enforcement action by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, together with the complexity of matters currently b efore the Minister of Finance, it is proposed to amend the Schedule to remove all financial services related to tribunals from the Act. This would allow the Minister
to determine the amount of fees to be paid, as the
current fees of the chairman and members are not enough to compensate for the level of complexity of the appeals and time required to adjudicate on the tribunal.
Also, due to the current fee levels, the Ministry
is having difficulties appointing suitable persons to serve on the various appeal tribunals. In tandem with amending the Act, certain pieces of financial services legislation will need to be amended in order to give the Minister or other relevant Ministers the authority to determine the appropriate fee for the tribunal me mbers. The appeal tribunals and Acts that will need amendments include the following:
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc
e
w
ith section 31 of the Banks and Deposit
Companies Act 1999;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc e
w
ith section 23 of the Credit Unions Act 2010;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc e
w
ith section 37 of the Corporate Service Pr ovider Business Act 2012;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc e
w
ith section 34 of the Investment Business
Act 2003;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc e
w
ith section 30 of the Trusts (Regulation of
Trust Business) Act 2001;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc e
w
ith section 25 and Schedule 1 of the Pr oceeds of Crime (Anti -Money Laundering a nd
An
ti-Terrorist Financing Supervision and E nforcement) Act 2008;•the Insurance Appeal Tribunal constituted in
accordance with section 44B of the Insurance
Act 1978;
•the Tax Appeal Tribunal constituted by section24 of the Taxes Management Act 1976;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc
e
w
ith section 56 of the Investment Funds Act
2006;
•the appeal tribunal constituted in accordanc e
w
ith section 40 of the Money Service Bus iness Act 2016.
Mr. Speaker, the chairmen and deputy chai rmen of all appeal tribunals must be lawyers with at least seven years of experience— all lawyers with at
least seven years of experience. So, the sort of work
involved in chairing a financial services appeal tribunal
can be time consuming and involve complex areas of law. The chairman must initially prepare for and attend the tribunal hearing. A case can involve substant ial
points of law and require extensive research. The chairman will have to do the bulk of the work and draft
the ruling, which, given issues arising, must be fairly
detailed.
Also of significance, the ruling is also published and must stand up to public scrutiny, as it may
be challenged in the courts.
Mr. Speaker, the Ministry’s experience is that
persons are willing to serve on these appeal tribunals as a form of public service and do not expect to be paid at market rates. Therefore, fees will be set at a
prudent level and will be based on time spent and the complexity of the case. The Ministry will also seek the advice of the Attorney General’s Chambers when setting these fees.
Mr. Speaker, the Ministry, in conjunction with
other stakeholders, is currently conducting an internal
review of the entire appeals process in an effort to make the process more efficient. Honourable Members will be updated on the outcome of this review in
due course.
With these introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker,
I now read for the second time the Bill entitled the A ppeal Tribunals (Miscellaneous) Act 2017, and thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we are obv iously aware that the consideration has been di scussed with respect to appeal tribunals. And I know
that perhaps one of my other colleagues might speak
to this.
But I think, Mr. Speaker, we recognise that it
is important that an appeal tribunal gets the type of


Bermuda House of Assembly calibre of individuals to sit on them, and, as the Junior
Minister said, the chairman, especially, and the deputy
chairman are very significant in terms of not o nly the
experience that they bring, but the fact that they have a lot of responsibility with respect to getting the com-mittees together and making sure that they meet on a
timely basis so that the results of these appeals can
be heard quickly, because lots of people are always
waiting around for the results.
Mr. Speaker, my only concern is that I am
mindful of the fact that there are other appeal tribunals
which take place in other ministries. And if I put my
former health hat on, I know how difficult it is to get
persons to sit on appeal tribunals, not so much because of the fact of what they are paid, but the fact that you have to set a significant amount of time aside
to make yourself available to sit there and get it done.
On top of that, you are further constrained— and I
know this will still happen going forward with these
appeal tribunals —in that you have, lots of times, what
I call conflicts of interest, where people are not able to
sit on them because they are somehow associated
with something that is coming before them.
Mr. Speaker, I think we recognise that it is i mportant that the Ministry do this, and that I am pleased to see that there is going to be consultation with other
stakeholders in terms of what might be an appropriate fee. But I am also hopeful that something will be set in
terms of a fee where people will understand that it is
set so that it is not some sort of sliding scale that is
subject to what I call the discussions between the Mi nister and the individuals, because you cannot do that ,
for budgeting purposes. And I think it is important that
people understand that there is some consistency with
respect to how these fees are set.
So, Mr. Speaker, I understand the fact of the
ones who are here —I would like to hope that the Mi nister, as t he Minister of Finance, will also look at other
appeal tribunals so that we can get these very i mportant roles set up and individuals will have the pro per . . . not only remuneration, but also the proper description of individuals, or the types of individuals, who
should hold these positions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thought somebody else on our side might wish to speak, as well.
I am just curious. Obviously, my honourable
colleague, Jeanne Atherden, made a num ber of
points. And I think, as the Junior Minister observed, it
is unfortunate in many respects that we are now moving towards more of an emphasis on remuneration as opposed to the public service. But I guess, perhaps,
that is the sign of the times.
I was curious as to whether there are any data
going back, let us say, to 2016, looking at the number
of tribunals that have actually met with this particular group, the amount of time that may have been i nvolved in these, just to get a sense of whether there i s
a model here to estimate how much additional funding is going to be required to make sure these tribunals
have members and the appeals actually take place.
I do not know whether the Honourable Member can give some sort of an indication. He noted, I think as most of us are aware, that the current rate for
a chairman of a committee is $100 a day, and for a
member, $50. Are we looking at doubling that, five
times that, ten times that? Are we going from $100 to
$1,000 per day? Surely, there must have been some thought as to what an appropriate going rate would be
here. My honourable colleague, Jeanne Atherden,
noted that she hoped it was not simply a negotiation.
But I would be interested to know whether that is what
the Government has in mind, as well. So, p erhaps
some kind of an indication as to what we are looking
at here.
I think Members have also indicated that F inance is not the only area that is complicated. There
are certainly areas in Education. I can remember, having been Minister, that the amount of time spent on appeal tribunals in Education can often be quite
lengthy. And, as I said, it is unfortunate that the sense
of public service now has to be supplemented by what
I will call additional remuneration. But maybe that is the way that we are goin g.
So, a little bit more, I guess, fleshing- out of
what we are looking at here, what perhaps was paid
out last year, and perhaps what we are looking at
based on the number of tribunals that were done in
2016. What does that mean, going forward, on an a nnual basis compared to the budget that was there before?
Mr. Speaker, I think those were pretty much
the points that I had in going through and looking at
the legislation. But, at this point, I will take my seat.
Thank you.

Thank you.
Does any other Member wish to speak?
I recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 9. Honourable Member Moniz, you have
the floor.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to go into further detail on the point that
the Honourable Member who s poke immediately before me raised, there is an issue with all sorts of
committees across government. We suffered it while
we were Government. There were so many commi ttees that you needed people for, so many committees
that you needed to fill. Some of them sit on a regular
390 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly basis. Some of them sit infrequently. And some of
them never sit at all.
So, it is one of these things. I know in the UK,
they have panels. For different types of committees,
you have panels. But somehow, we need to consol idate across the government. This was just taking out some financial appeals. It is a sort of stop- gap thing,
and obviously it is going to increase expenditure. We do not know how much. It would be nice to have that Honourable Member say, well, what the fees are likely to be and what effect that will have on the budget.
But across government there are all sorts of
committees. There is the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
in Home Affairs. There are just a plethora of committees across government. There needs to be some sort of rationalisation on a larger scale. So this is sort of a
stop- gap approach where there needs to be a broader
approach by Government. We were certainly looking at it when we were Government. And one of the ideas
in some respect was to have the administrative judge
who dealt with administrative appeals . . . so you are
going to the same person who has a level of exper-tise. Quite often you are filling these committees with people, and sometimes you are not able to get the
level of expertise that is really required.
And as other Members have mentioned, people are busy with private practices and more and more
are unwilling to give up their time for these very time-consuming and sometimes onerous duties. So som ething needs to be done across the board to rethink t he
problems that we have in these areas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members, we are resuming the debate
that was taking place in regard to the Appeal Tribu-nals (Miscellaneous) Act 2017, and the Junior Minister
was about to return to his feet to respond.
But, Junior Minister, before you do, let me just
acknowledge the fact that the change order, because
after we announced that this was going to be done first there seemed to be a bit of confusion with Members . . . so let me just clear it up that what is listed as
[Order] No. 3 will be [Order] No. 2, what is listed as [Order] No. 1 will be [Order] No. 3, and the last [Order] No. 4 will remain as [Order] No. 4 (for those who were not sure of the change in order for today).
Junior Minister.
BILL
SECOND READING
APPEAL TRIBUNALS
(MISCELLANEOUS) ACT 2017
[
Debate continuing thereon]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I
hope everyone has enjoyed their lunch.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard the
Honourable Shadow Minister for Finance speak and, first of all, we appreciate the comments coming from
that side. They are well aware of the situation because I believe this particular discussion started when
they sat in another room. So some of them are well aware of the discussion and the circumstances w e
have.
The question comes down to whether we
should know how much we are going to be putting
forward because of what we budgeted for. And that is
a reasonable question. But I do not think the Honourable Members from that side, when they took actions
in other locations around the world said, give me a
fixed amount. That does not work on the lawyers. At
least I do not recall that you can just fix a number. But at the end of the day the Ministry puts in an amount
that they think is reasonable based on histor ical pre cedence and stuff like that. So, you know, to a certain degree it is going to be very immaterial compared to what we have paid thus far up in other places that
they are well aware of.
But let me just say that there has been roughly about three of these types of cases that tribunals
have been sitting over the last couple of years. The first one was in 2016 and it was a Banks and Deposit Companies Act [1999]. And that particular one was
settled outside the tribunal so there was no need to go
further. Then in 2016 there was an insurance appeal
tribunal, and the decision was handed down, as a matter of fact, in 2016. The amount of time spent was about 140 hours because it was a very complex mat-ter. And you know, take a rate that these lawyers
charged, it could up to about $90,000. But we are not
saying that they will get $90,000. I think the actual discussion will take place, as we say in the Bill, with the Attorney General at that time to see what we think is reasonable and, of course, the lawyers can accept
or reject it.


Bermuda House of Assembly But I think the fee that we did pay that lawyer
at the time, because he did a lot of work —140 hours’
worth of work —was probably under $1,000, and that
cannot be reasonable for this day and time. And I understand that you are doing a public service, but those days are probably gone. Even when Parliament first
started you were probably getting $3 for the week or
$3 for the month, because in those days it was the
merchants who were running this Parliament and they
were getting all the busin ess anyway. So they did not
have to get involved in paying themselves because
they were paying themselves by passing Bills that affected their pocketbooks. But those times have
changed.
Those times have changed so you cannot expect, as my good friend Mr. Jim Woolridge used to
say, that you cannot . . . if you . . . what you want . . .
something about monkeys you get peanuts or som ething . . .
[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Yes, but that is my point. We
understand that. So that is the i ssue.
And the last one, I think, was to do with . . .
we have a current one going on and that is a business
appeal, which is in process, and there is a pending one that is a trust appeal.
So we do not expect a huge amount of appeals up there. They could become more frequent and
at that time the Minister will have to take a look to see
what we can do. But it is the time we live in. You know
there are probably more lawsuits going around now adays than ever before and more judgments, particularly with the tightening up on regulations and stuff and
these things happen.
The other point was to do with . . . the Ho nourable Member asked about . . . I am trying to r emember. There was one other point that you had
mentioned. Oh! Regarding other appeals . . . other
tribunals. And as far as we understand no other mini stries have said they were having a problem getting these individuals to serve. And if they start getting that then, of course, the Minister will have to start taking a
look at it again. That is how we deal with it. I mean,
right now we have X -amount . . . if you look at the Act
called the Government Authorities (Fees) Act [1971]
there are a whole bunch of boards and . . . Police A dvisory Board, the Railway Trail Advisory Committee
and Trucks Advisory Commit tee—there is a whole list
people —and you are all aware of this.
Right now the chairman gets $100 and the
members get $50. Every single one of the members
eventually said, I’m not stepping out from my firm to
get $100. We do not have to be back up here. I r emember the time when I was first involved with a
board. You got $50 as a chairman, $25 as a member,
and spent a good seven to eight hours, when I was on
the Hospitals Board a long time. And so you walked away with two cents an hour in those days. But tha t
was the way the system was set up.
And so, as time goes on governments will
have to look to see whether it is reasonable and fair, and whether we should make some adjustments go-ing forward. I mean this, from $100 to $50, I am not
sure when the change took place . . . the last revision
was in . . . it looks like 2017, probably under the former Government, from $50 to $100. So they must have recognised that changes are moving on.
So, we have this before us and, as I said, I
thank the Opposition for their contribution, and we will
move towards Committee, Mr. Speaker .

Honourable Member s, we are now in
Committee of the whole House for further consider ation of the Bill entitled Appeal Tribunals (Miscellan eous) Act 2017 . I call on the Minister in charge to pr oceed.
Minister, you have the floor.
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Thank you , Mr. Chairman,
for that.
So this B ill provides for amendments to stated
provisions in order to give the Minister of Finance the
authority to determine the remuneration payable to or
provide allowance for some appeal tribunal members
with respect to tribunals listed under the Government
Authorities (Fees) Act 1971 and constituted under the
Banks and Deposit Companies Act 1999, the Corpo-rate Service Provider [Business] Act 2012, the Credit
Unions Act 2010, the Insurance Act 1978, the Inves tment Business Act 2003, the Investment Funds Act
2006 , the Money Service Business Act 2016, the Pr oceeds of Crime (Anti -Money Laundering and Anti -
Terrorist Financing Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2008, the Taxes Management Act 1976, and the
Trusts (Regulations of Trust Business) Act 2001.
So first of all , let me . . . I forgot to move the
clauses, Mr. Chairman. Should I move all the clauses?
I move clauses 1 through 13 [sic].

Twelve.
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Twelve, sorry —1 through 12.
I need to change my glasses here.
392 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Clause 1 provides the citation for the Bill.
Clause 2 amends the First Schedule to the
Government Authorities (Fees) Act 1971 so as to
cause extended remuneration of ($100 for the chai rman; $50 for members) not to apply to the listed tribunals.
Clause 3 amends section 31 of the Banks and
Deposit Companies Act 1999 so as to give the Mini ster of Finance the authority to determine the remuneration and allowances payable to appeal tribunal
members.
Clause 4 amends section 37 of the Corporate
Service Provider Business Act 2012 so as to give the
Minister of Finance the authority to determine the r emuneration and allowances payable to appeal tribunal members.
Clause 5 amends section 23 of the Credit U nions Act 2010 so as to give the Minister of Finance, or
the Minister who has b een appointed to administer the
Act, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, the
authority to determine the remuneration and allo wance payable to appeal tribunal members.
Clause 6 amends section 44B of the Insurance Act 1978 so as to give the Minister of Finance,
or the Minister who has been appointed to administer
the Act, after consultation with the Minister of Finance,
the authority to determine the remuneration and the allowance payable to appeal tribunal members.
Clause 7 amends section 34 of the Inves tment Business Act 2003 so as to give the Minister of
Finance, or the Minister who has been appointed to
administer the Act, after consultation with the Minister
of Finance, the authority to determine the remuner ation and the allowance payable t o appeal tribunal
members.
Clause 8 amends section 56 Investment
Funds Act 2006 so as to give the Minister of Finance, or the Minister who has been appointed to administer
the Act, after consultation with the Minister of Finance,
the authority to determine the remuneration and a llowance payable to appeal tribunal members.
Clause 9 amends section 40 of the Money
Service Business Act 2016 so as to give the Minister of Finance the authority to determine the remuner ation and allowance payable to appeal tribun al me mbers.
Clause 10 amends paragraph [(1)] 2 of
Schedule 1 to the Proceeds of Crime (Anti -Money
Laundering and Anti -Terrorist Financing Supervision
and Enforcement) Act 2008 so as to give the Minister
of Finance the authority to determine the remuner ation and allowance payable to appeal tribunal me mbers.
Clause 11 amends section 24 of the Taxes
Management Act 1976 so as to give the Minister of
Finance, in consultation with the Minister responsible for Justice, the authority to determine the remuner ation and allowance payable to appeal tribunal me mbers. Clause 12 amends section 30 of the Trusts
(Regulations of Trust Business) Act 2001 so as to give the Minister of Finance the authority to determine the
remuneration and allowance payable to appeal tribunal members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It has been moved that the Bill be
reported to the House as printed.
Is there any objection to that motion?
The Bill will be reported to the House as printed.
[Motion carried: The Appeal Tribunals (Miscellaneous)
Act 2017 was considered by a Committee of the
whole House and passed without amendments.]

House resumed at 2:14 pm

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

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

APPEAL TRIBUNALS
(MISCELLANEOUS) ACT 2017

Members, are there any objections to
the Bill being reported to the House as printed?
No objections.
Thank you, Junior Minister.
We will now move on to the next item and that
is the second reading of the Electricity Amendment
Act 2017 in the name of th e Minister of Transport and
Regulatory Affairs.
Deputy Premier, you have the floor.

BILL

SECOND READING

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT 2017



Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
I move that the Bill entitled the Electricity
Amendment Act 2017 be now read a second time.

Proceed.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Mr. Speaker , and all Members of this House, I am pleased to introduce the Bill
entitled the Electricity Amendment Act 2017.
The Electricity Amendment Act 2016 came
into operation on the 28th October 2016. The Act m igrated the responsibility for the regulation of the electricity sector from the Energy Commission to the Re gulatory Authority [RA]. Among other modernisations to
the regulation of the electricity sector, the Act intr oduced a licensing regime for the generation and the
transmission, distribution, and retail of electricity.
The establishment of the licensing regime for
the electricity sector participants will enable partic ipants in the industry to enter into vital contracts, such
as power purchase agreements [PPAs]. This will lead to the future diversification of Bermuda’s energy mix
and it will allow a wider variety of sector participants to enter into PPAs (as they are called) with BELCO to
supply energy to the electricity grid.
Mr. Speaker , the purpose of this Bill is threefold:
1. to amend the Electricity Act 2016 to simplify
the administrative process for creating licences under the Act;
2. to ensure that all sectoral participants have
sufficient time in which to become compl iant;
and
3. to ensure the sectoral participants in this tran-sitional period will be subject to the monitoring
and regulation of the RA, the Regulatory A uthority.
First, Mr. Speaker , both the Electricity Act
[2016] and the Regulatory [Authority] Act 2011 prov ide
for the form and content of licences. This is an unnecessary duplication as the current procedure outlined in
the Electricity Act [2016] will require the licence form
and general content to be set out in an administrative determination outlined under t he Regulatory Authority
Act [2011]. And then that general content would also have to be added to the Electricity Act [2016] in Schedule 1. This construct adds to the administrative
burden of the licensing process, particularly in terms
of any amendments to the form and general content of
this licence in the future. The Bill will eliminate this
duplication by deleting Schedule 1 and all references
to it and has the procedure for setting the terms and content of the licence rest with the RA by way of the
Regu latory Authority Act [2011] only. The Electricity
Act will continue to provide for the different types of
licences generally.
Second, Mr. Speaker , the Government also
recognises the need to grant more time to the RA to issue licences and ensure that sector al participants are compliant. Therefore, the Bill amends section
66(6) of the Act so that the Minister may, by order,
allow up to 18 months after commencement of the
2016 Act for compliance to be achieved. Originally the
period in the Act for compliance w as 12 months.
Third, Mr. Speaker , and finally, the Bill clar ifies and ensures that sectoral participants, for the
avoidance of doubt, are subject to the monitoring and
regulation by the RA during this conditional period.
This confirms that the RA is able t o exercise oversight
and control over matters such as rate increases and
replacement of specific generating assets.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you , Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I would like to make I guess a
couple of observations, having had some experience with this . . . having had responsibility for this in a prior
life. I guess a couple of thoughts. I think the Honour able Member who speaks for Energy referred to three
separate issues, and I will take those in order.
Let me say at the outset that we support these
amendments on thi s side of the House. But it makes
sense, I think, to simplify the licensing procedure.
When the 2016 Bill was put through, which was in
June, I think roughly, of 2016, there was some question as to whether there should or should not be a Schedule 1. The id ea behind Schedule 1 was to essentially put the licences, which the Regulatory A uthority would determine, into that Schedule. As there was no Schedule 1 actually in the E -Act it then b ecame complicated, because you had to create a
Schedule 1 in order to be able to put stuff in there. So
it was one of those things where I think . . . when we
originally did it the order was perhaps not thought
through as well as it should have been. So I think
eliminating the Schedule 1 and simply going to an
administrative determination makes a lot of sense.
The second point, which the Minister has sp oken to, is the idea of allowing more time for the RA to
essentially complete the licensing process. The Mini ster is not quite right. The original Act actually had six
months, w hich was the time allowed from the commencement, which was 20
th October 2016, for the RA
to essentially get the licences done. When the six -
month period elapsed, which, counting backwards, I
guess, was roughly six months ago now, it was pretty
clear that t he RA was going to need more time to be
able to do it. I can remember that when I left office
there had been quite a discussion with BELCO.
There are two licences that I think were pr imarily the first ones to be dealt with. One was the
394 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly transmission, distribution and retail [TD&R] licence, of
which only one would essentially be provided, and
that was going to be to BELCO because we did not feel that there was a need for a second transmission, distribution, and retail organisation out there because it would h ave meant, essentially, redundancy. And the
other one was the Bulk Generation Licence, because I
think, as Honourable Members will know, BELCO pr ovides probably something on the order of 96 [per cent]
to 98 per cent of the electricity provided. I think, perhaps, there was quite a bit more discussion and, may I say, negotiation between the Regulatory Authority and BELCO, as I recall, than had been anticipated.
So, six months ago it was decided to give the RA a nother six months to make 12 months altogether. So as
the Act notes, this has to come into effect by the 27
th
of October of this year in order to be able to complete the 12- month period . . . or maybe it is the 28
th, I am
not sure, but the Act says 27. So, obviously, we are
under some time constraints here.
I guess the interesting question for the Minister is: Does the Minister at this point have some indication from the Regulatory Authority as to how much more time is required? Are they pretty close at this
point? My sense was they were reasonably close about six months ago. But this is obviously taking quite a bit longer than I think most of us would have expected in order to be able to get these licences de-termined and then to be able to proceed from there. Essentially the utility needs to have these licences in
place to be able to deal with providing agreements —
power purchase agreements, PPAs —with other di stributed generators as well. So there is sort of a time
sequence here which needs to be followed through.
So, I guess I am very interested to know
whether the Minister has a sense of when this is likely
to be completed because in many respects it is hol ding up quite a few other licences as well. I think the
one that, obviously, is of interest to many of us is the licence that will be provided by the RA to the solar -
scale utility at the Finger, which I think is certainly a
step forward in terms of how we generate our electric ity. So a general question there as to what the Minister
sees as the timeframe for this.
The third issue, again, just making a couple of
observations, because the transition was quite a bit longer I think than many of us had expected, this i ssue as to whether those persons continue to operate as electricity generators and providers (meaning pri ncipally BELCO). There was a question as to whether, if they did not have a licence that had been issued by the RA, they would actually be monitored or regulated by the RA.
The third point that the Minister is making,
which is that “for the avoidance of doubt” they will be, is an important one. Because I think that issue came up, certainly as a question from the utility, as to whether they were going to be regulated in the same way as they would if they wer e licensed. So, it was a little bit of a Catch -22 situation. I think in order to
make sure that the utility understands that point, I think the third issue here is an important one as well.
I guess there are a couple of other things that
I am interested in. And that is whether the Minister could give a little bit of an update as to where we are on some of the other issues that the Energy Depar tment was considering. I think most of us are interes ted in the issue of cheaper electricity, more enviro nmentally safely generated electricity, and so there are issues that are standing out there, such as the fuels policy, which was very much in progress at the time there was a change of Government. So I would be
interested to know where we stand on that particular
issue because it has a direct bearing on some of
these issues as we go forward.
The other issue, of course, which would be of
interest was the discussion around the BLDC and
Marginal Wharf. There was an RFI [ Request For I nformation] out there with respect to the possibility of
using Marginal Wharf for additional distributed gener ation. I would be curious to know if the Minister can provide us some sense of where that process is at the present time as well.
Those are the points that I wanted to make. I
am going to take my seat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Honourable Member .
Does any other Honourable Member wish to
speak to this matter?
No other Member.
Minister.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker , and thank you for the support from the O pposition and the comments thus far in this debate.
There were a few questions that came out of
this discussion so far, and one is how soon we can activate the licensing being issued. Well, as the Honourable Member says is his knowledge from a prev ious life, this process had already started and this was
one of the stumbling blocks to actually making that
work and activating an actual licence for BELCO as a generator, transmitter, distributor, and retailer in ener-gy. As soon as this Bill goes through the appropriate
legislative process, that process can be virtually done because they are essentially waiting to go through the
process of issuing the licence.
It will be in very short order once we get
through this legislative process that w ill allow for the
additional time for it to be done. But this is done as a
contingency to make sure that we can do this smoot hly. It was important to be done. And as soon as this is
done legislatively, that process can continue on with
great efficiency.
The other matter is . . . I know the Honourable
Member said there was some incorrectness in the
statement about the time limit, but as the Act reads . . . the Act reads 12 months. Perhaps, I do not recall if

B ermuda House of Assembly the former administration made a change to the Ac t,
but the Act, in that section 66(6), reads 12 months. So
that is what the Act currently says and we are making our amendment to advance from 12 months . . . perhaps it was in an earlier rendition six [months], but I do not recall that. But I see what the Act says right
now and it is 12 months.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker , I ask that the
Bill be committed.

Members, we are now in Committee. I
will give the floor to the Minister.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If
you could just indulge me for a moment there was something that got up in the other part of the debate. I
would just like to say that some of the questions that
were raised are actually the responsibility of other Ministers which is why I did not answer them. They
really are in the realm of other Ministers, which is why I did not answer them. But I will go now to the clau ses.

The Minister has requested the ability
to move all four clauses.
Are there any objections? There being no o bjections you may proceed, Mini ster.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 1 provides, as I said already, for the
citation for the Bill.
Clause 2 amends section 20(1) of the Electri city Act 2016 to remove references to Schedule 1 in this provision.
Clause 3 makes a similar amendment to section 24 of the Electricity Act 2016 to remove references to Schedule 1. Clause 4 amends section 66 of the Electricity
Act 2016. Subsection (1) of clause 4 inserts a new
subsection (4A) which, for the avoidance of doubt, provides that all persons continuing to operate purs uant to subsections (1), (2), and (4) of section 66 are subject to monitoring and regulation by the Regulatory Authority. Subsection (2) of the Bill enables the Mini ster to extend the transitional period from 12 months to
18 months. The Electricity Act 2016 (Transitional Pe-riod Extension) Order 2017 extended the transitional period from six months to 12 months, with the 12-month period due to expire on 27 October 2017. The further amendment provides for an extension of t he
transitional period for another six -month period. Su bsection (3) provides for the amendment to be of retr ospective effect from 27 October 2017 so as to ensure continuity.
Thank you , Mr. Chairman, and I invite any
comment on those four clauses.

Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.
Mr. Chairman, it is clause 4, and just by way
of perhaps clarification, when the Minister got up in the House to talk about the six -month or 12- month
period I just wanted . . . just so that we are all clear, under section 66 if you were an existing provider, for
example, BELCO, when the Act came into operation
in October 2016, you had six months to be able to continue. That period expired back in May or June or whatever. And at that point the Minister of the day (meaning me) gave them a further six months b ecause, as we said in the House, the licensing proc edure had not actually been completed.
So what we are really doing is we are allo wing, under [sub]section (6) of section 66, to extend it from 12 months. So we had six months, another six -
month extension, now we are going up to 18 months.
So that is where the different six -month segments
come into operation here. So I just want ed to make
sure that everybody was clear on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Shadow Minister.
Is there anyone else that would care to address these four [clauses]?
There being no other Members that wish to
address this I give the floor back to the Minister. Mi nister Roban, you may continue.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this point I do not have any other comments other than to request that we approve all four
clauses as read.

Members, the Minister has request ed
to approve all four clauses as read.
396 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly Are there any objections? There being no o bjections, the clauses are hereby approved.
[
Gavel]
[
Motion carried: Clauses 1 through 4 passed.]
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Let me just for the record ask
that the Preamble be approved.

Members, is there any objection to the
Bill being reported to the House as printed?
No objections.
Thank you, Minister.
We now move on to the next item, and it is the
Tax Reform Commission Act 2017 in the name of the Minister of Finance.
Premier, are you going to lead this? We recognise the Honourable Premier. Premier, you have
the floor.
BILL
SECOND READING
TAX REFORM COMMISSION ACT 2017
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I move that the Bill entitled the
Tax Reform Commission Act 2017 be now read the
second time.

So moved.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Tax
Reform Commission Act 2017 for the consideration of
the Honourable Member s of this House of Assembly.
Honourable Members will recall that in the Progres-sive Labour Party’s 2017 general election platform we pledged to:
“[Create] a Tax Reform Commission drawing
participants from both political parties, int ernational
business, local businesses, trade unions, hoteliers, academia, and the Bermuda Bar. Its mission will be to conduct a review of our system of revenue collection and taxation and to make recommendations to par-liament on revenue and tax reform that make our tax
system fairer and enhance Bermuda’s international competitiveness to increase the number of jobs based in Bermuda.”
Further, the Progressive Labour Party platform entitled Building a Better and Fairer Bermuda
said that this Commission would be formed in the first
100 days. Mr. Speaker, this is a Government that
keeps its promises to the electorate and today it is my honour to read this Bill for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand how
we got here and with your permission I will quote from
a speech that I gave in March as the Shadow Minister of Finance—

Go ahead, Premier.
Hon. E. David Burt: — where I laid out the Progressive Labour Party’s reasoning behind proposing a Tax Reform Commission. Though many in this House may have been familiar with the arguments made at that time, I think it is important to repeat them so that more persons in Bermuda can appreciate the background to this issue and understand the fact that our existing
system promotes income inequa lity.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I said (and I quote):
1“Mr. Speaker, one of the most important
things required for us to build a sound foun dation for
growth and to reduce the cost of doing business in
Bermuda is the issue of tax reform. Our current system needs reform not only to reduce the cost of doing
business and to encourage job growth in Bermuda,
but also because our current system of taxation exac-erbates inequality, which in turn reduces economic
growth . . . .”
“In Bermuda, if you are privileged enough to
have inherited wealth- generating passive income, you
keep it without taxation. However, if you happen to be born into a family who may not have centuries of wealth or a trust portfolio” —
[
Inaudible interjection]
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank yo u very much.
1 Official Hansard Report , 3 March 2017, pp 744- 745


Bermuda House of Assembly The Speaker: I see you have got a little music in your
presentation, but continue.

Hon. E. David Burt: I do. They must like what I am
saying.

Mm-hmm.
Hon. E. David Burt: I will start again on that par agraph, Mr. Speaker .
“In Bermuda, if you are privileged enough to
have inherited wealth- generat ing passive income, you
keep it without taxation. However, if you happen to be
born into a family who may not have centuries of
wealth or a trust portfolio of mortgage- free real estate
to inherit, you pay taxes on your labour income because the only income you have is from your labour .
“For example, if a person makes $100,000 a
year from their day job and another person makes
$100,000 a year in tr ust dividends, our system taxes
only the earnings from work and not the earnings from
other sources. There are vast swathes of domestic
wealth and income that have never been subjected to
tax, which by its very construct fosters continued ec onomic inequality. Mr. Speaker, this is why our taxation
system promotes and fuels economic inequal ity. This
is our challenge, and this is what we as a country
must get to grips with .
“While we may look to make our taxes more
just . . . the fact remains that we are taxing jobs at a
higher level, w hich may lessen our competitive advantage as a jurisdiction and lead us into more trouble.
“Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, we could tax ourselves out of being an attractive jurisdiction.”
Payroll tax places “increased burden on the
job creators and the invest ors who have chosen to
bring their capital to Bermuda and to create jobs in
Bermuda. At the same time, those Ber mudians who
enjoy the spoils of inter national business’s continued
presence in Bermuda and collect commercial rents
from their properties in the City of Hamilton never see
an increased burden of taxation. Tax reform and
broadening the tax base cannot be effective if we are
unwilling to look at taxing the pas sive income of the
privileged persons in our society. ”
Mr. Speaker , it is not enough “to tinker around
the edges of a tax system when there are wide
swathes of income in our domes tic economy that are
not taxed. Why is it that we only tax earnings from
labour, but we ignore earnings fro m [all] other
sources, often receive d without any labour at all?”
Mr. Speaker , at that time I went on to say, “It
is our view that we can work with all stakeholders to design a system that enhances Bermuda’s global
competitiveness and ensures that those who can afford to pay more do pay mor e. Such a major undertaking cannot and should not be a one- party endeavour,
as substantive tax reform must have the widest poss i-ble input and all ideas must be subjected to rigorous
scrutiny to avoid unintended consequences. ”
At that time, Mr. Speaker , I said —and this is
the end of my quotes —
“When the PLP is returned to Government,
one of our first ac tions will be to create a Tax Ref orm
Commission. This commission will draw participants
from both political parties, inter national business, local
business, trade unions, hoteliers, academia, and th e
Bermuda Bar. Its mission will be to conduct a whol esale review of our system of revenue collection and
taxation, to make recommendations to Parliament on
revenue and tax reform, and measures to increas e tax
compl iance. Following the commission’s report, the
PLP Government will engage in consultation and, following the completion of the consultation, publish a
White Paper on tax reform to be debated in Parli ament.
“It will be our aim to complete the process of
review and consultation in the first 18 months of the
new Parliament so that reforms can be implemented quickly.” (End quote, Mr. Speaker.)
Mr. Speaker , this Bill is the first step to build
that better and fairer Bermuda that this Government
promised voters at that last general election. We must
reverse growing income inequality and we must r educe the cost of doing business. We must fully exam-ine our system to ensure that it is the right platform to power economic growth into the future.
Mr. Speaker , this Bi ll provides for the establishment of a statutory body on a short -term basis under the name “Tax Reform Commission.” Its mission is to examine Bermuda’s tax system for the purposes of
determining any measures that may be taken to best
enable a system of tax ation and revenue collection
that is equitable, effective, efficient, competitive, and
transparent; and to prepare and submit its report and
recommendations to the Minister.
Mr. Speaker , the Government will establish
the Tax Reform Commission because we s trongly
believe that tax reform cannot and should not be a
one-party endeavour and it must enjoy the widest
possible input. The overarching principles to guide the
Tax Reform Committee’s efforts in preparing recommendations are as follows, Mr. Speaker. The responsibilities will be in regard to these recommendations:
• to ensure that the tax system is fairer and
more equitable;
• to ensure that the tax system enhances Bermuda’s global competitiveness;
• to ensure that the tax base is broadened in
order to reduce t he reliance on payroll taxes;
• to ensure simplicity and transparency in the
tax system in order to reduce the cost of ad-ministration and to promote tax compliance;
and finally
• to ensure greater compliance in tax collection.

398 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly Mr. Speaker, the Commission will also be
mindful of the five desired traits of any tax system.
•The first trait is a stable revenue yield so that
Government can meet its social and fiscal ob-ligations.
•The second trait is the provision of a reasona-ble overall tax burden on all economic agents.Persons and business would prefer to not
have to pay taxes in order to be able to di spose of all of their income—
[Electronic interference]
Hon. E. David Burt: I will start on number two again,

Do not let it distract us. Stay on course,
Premier. Stay on course. You have had your chuckle, now continue on.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
•The second trait is the provision of a reasona-ble overall tax burden on all economic agents.
Persons and business would prefer to not
have to pay taxes in order to be able to di spose of all of their income as they see fit, yet
they wish to benefit from Government pr ogrammes, so they view taxes as a necessary
evil. However, there is an upper range thatpersons in business in each community or
country are willing to comply with. Trying toachieve a revenue yield or tax burden abovethis range will not generally be successful.
•The third trait is for the tax system to be co mpliance- promoting, simple, transparent, an
d
f
air. The underlying objective here is to e ncourage compliance.
•The fourth trait is for the tax system to be
growth promoting, efficient, neutral, and nondistorted. A growth friendly tax system is eff icient, neutral, in that it does not alter relative
factor prices and costs. Therefore, it does not
provoke different decisions or a different all ocation of resources in the economy from whatwould have been in the absence of taxes.
•And the fifth trait, Mr. Speaker, is for the tax
system to be equitable. Under the proviso that(and I quote) “taxpayers who can afford it are asked to pay more than those who cannot afford to do so.”
[
Desk thumping]
Hon. E. David Burt: Mr. Speaker , I am confident that
the seven commissioners will keep these five traits in mind as they review our system.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides for the follo wing: the establishment of a Tax Reform Commission;
the composition of the Commission; the functions,
operations and procedures of the Commission; the
financial and audit provisions, including reporting r equirements of the Commission; protection from liability
and preservation of confidentiality of the Commission; and other items.
Mr. Speaker , it should be noted that it will be
necessary to provide funding in order to compensate
the support staff necessary for the conduct of the Tax
Reform Commission. These funds will consist of a ppropriated funds and private sector donations. The Tax Reform Comm ission will have to account for all
funds received and prepare financial statements,
which will be audited by the Auditor General or an auditor appointed by the Auditor General. Just like any other public authority, the Tax Reform Commission and any officials engaged by the Tax Reform Com-mission are subject to confidentiality provisions.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, as this Government
begins its first term in office the proposed establis hment of the Tax Reform Commission to examine and provide recommendations to reform our tax system represents just one step in our efforts to establish and build that better and fairer Bermuda that was prom-ised in our election platform.
And with those introductory remarks, Mr.
Speaker , I now read for the second time the Bill ent itled the Tax Reform Commission Act 2017.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
HOUSE VISITOR

Does any other Member wish to speak
to this matter?
I recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 19. Honourable Member Atherden, you
have the floor.


Bermuda House of Assembly Mrs. Jeanne J. Atherden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , obviously recognising that the
Government had indicated that it was going to intr oduce a Tax Reform Commission we are not surprised
that they are getting on with it. And I think that there
are just some observations that we need to make so
that Bermuda understands what this means and
where it goes.
I think we have to recognise . . . because
some concern was made with respect to the fact that
the former Government (of which I was a Member)
had had the benefit of consultation with a commission,
and a CARTAC Report had been produced. And perhaps not everybody had been aware of it as if that
was something that was supposed to be . . . somehow
underhanded. But I think I want to make it clear that
many governments have used individuals that have
expertise to provide some input into a number of
items.
And using the CARTAC group to come
around and help us . . . because if people understand
that CARTAC is the Caribbean Regional Technical
Assistance Centre then it puts it in perspective that
these are people that understand things that have
happened in the Caribbean, they can come and they
can provide some level of expertise in order to help
various governments. And I just w ant . . . and I am
saying this because I think if you do not put it in context you do not understand that CARTAC actually
helped the Government —the former Government —to
look at tax reform.
Lots of countries have come up with tax r eform. How successful the y are depends on the
amount of consultation, the amount of understanding
of the environment that they live in, and also the o ptions that are given to them.
And if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker , I just
wanted to remind everyone, because the Finance Minister did table this and if people have not read it,
then maybe they will not understand the fact that —

—CARTAC actually r eminded us that Bermuda’s economy is service- based
and very open to . . . very vulnerable to external
shocks. So they reminded us that we operate in an environment where lots of things can happen out
there that impact on us. They also reminded us in
their Executive Summary that tax reform brings in . . .
when you have tax reform you have a c ertain target
that you are trying to look at. People do not put tax reform in place unless they are looking to generate
revenue, because by its very nature tax reform is looking at revenue generation as opposed to expenditure
reduction.
So the tax reform the previous Government
looked at was trying to bring about an additional $100 million to $150 million. And the reason we have to understand about the tax reform and what you are
looking at is because Bermuda at this point in time
has four sources of tax. We have a payroll tax, an i mport duty, a land tax, and a tax on international com-panies. So if we understand that these four taxes ac-count for 72 per cent of our revenue you can apprec iate that anything that you do with these taxes has the
ability to impac t on 72 per cent of the revenue.
But I think it is important to also understand
that if we are aware that CARTAC came down and
had this consultation . . . whenever you look at bring-ing a group in they have to understand the lay of the
land that they are dealing with. They also have to u nderstand what parameters they have, because nobody gives them an open playing field. And I am certain that the Finance Minister is not giving them an
open playing field. The Finance Minister technically is also giving them some direction when he talked about
trying to make sure that there is fairness and trying to
look at what is happening with respect to the tax base
and trying to make some changes.
So all I am saying is that it is understandable
that if we are going to ha ve some tax reform, that we
try and make sure that we make some changes. From
my perspective . . . and when I looked at the Bill, I was
. . . you know, I am realising that the Bill was talking
about broadening, it was talking about tax reform. But it was t alking about making sure that a system of tax ation and revenue collection is equitable, effective, eff icient, competitive and transparent.
And what I have a concern about is that I
have seen lots of recommendations, and even the CARTAC recommendations . . . I have seen lots of
reports where lots of emphasis has been placed on
either the effectiveness, the competitiveness, the
transparent -ness , or the equitableness. But what I
worry about . . . and I have not seen enough where there is sufficient emphasis on the efficiency of the tax
system. And the reason I say that is because it makes no sense to go out and change your tax base, to
change how much you collect, and whatever else, if in
the end you do not collect it. Because revenue that is
not in your pocket is no good.
And so I want to be sure, and I am sure the
people of Bermuda want to be sure, that as we go
forward, whatever we do with respect to this Tax R eform Commission, that we make sure that we put
some emphasis on the collection.
The reason I say that is because in this
CARTAC Report there was some indication that the
OTC (which is the Office of the Tax Commissioner) indicated that there is a need to improve service delivery and to implement enforcement programmes.
And the reason I say that is because I am sure if you
go back (and I do not put my hands on it right now) I
think I have seen something on the order of several
hundred mil lion that is out there that has not been collected.
400 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly So what I am saying is that it does not make
sense to turn around and generate more, and it does
not make [sense] turning around and talking about making it equitable if you do not collect it and it does
not hit your bottom line. And we do not need things to be, if you will, theoretically saying that we are going to have balanced budgets, because balanced budgets
are no good if the money does not come into your
bank account.
And I say that because the second side of
what I have to draw to everyone’s attention is the fact that the former Minister of Finance, Minister Richards, and in our Budget Statement at the time we delivered
the budget, had indicated that we were looking for a
balanced budget in 2018/19. And that was on the b asis that there were certain tax reform changes that we were going to put into effect. And the reason I say that it is important for me to draw this to everybody’s atte ntion is that we are effectively on that path. We are on
2017/18 with some reform changes that there were
some second pieces that would have to go through in
2018/19 and people out there—our lenders and other people —are expecting us to hit some of these mil estones.
I am also mindful of the fact that the Finance
Minister has indicated that this Tax Reform Commi ssion that he is going to structure has 18 months in which to come and deliver a report. So, effectively, it is going to be at the end of 2018/19.
Now, as it relates to Bermuda and the Berm udian people, what people need to understand is what
happens and what is going to happen in the interim. And I have not heard anything that has indicated whether any of the tax changes that were implement-ed by the former Government —my Government —
whether these things are going to c ontinue. Because
there were some things that were put in place that were designed to make it more gradual, more pr ogressive, so that the people at the lower end got some tax relief. Some of the people at the higher end or, when I say “higher end,” some of the people making
more money, that they were going to start paying
more tax. And there was the general service taxes, et cetera, that were due to come in. So the question has to be asked as to where we are with respect to some of these changes. Because if we do not have these things continue it is going to make a difference in
terms of 2018/19. Now, I understand that the Finance
Minister, obviously, when you give somebody a task you have to give them some reasonable timeline in which to deal with it. But I also understand that time does not stand still. Therefore, it is important for the people of Bermuda to understand what we are going
to be doing in the interim with respect to tax reform.
And I am also recognising that as we go forward there are some suggestions in here about an . . .
and I am mindful of the fact that the previous Government had indicated about creating a Tax Reform Commission and drawing participants from both polit i-cal parties, international and local businesses, trade
unions and the Bermuda Bar —so I am obviously looking forward to hearing that person or persons that
might be chosen from the political party that exists. Because if you are having some from both political parties that means one of us . . . I am not necessarily saying it is the people in the room, but it is important.
But it is also more important and equally important
that we get people that bring the expertise because the bottom line was that when we had CARTAC we knew that people came here bringing the expertise.
And I am not saying that you are turning
around and you have to just go outside of the country,
because I am not a believer in the only expertise is
expertise from outside. Okay? I want to make that clear before someone goes down that path erroneous-ly. I am saying that we have got people here with the
expertise. We have got the 18 months. If we are going to turn around and try and make this a meaningful
result then it is going to be important that we continue
with what the Government had said with respect to getting the consultation and drawing it from the indi-viduals.
Now, as I said before, if you are turning
around and looking at the Tax Reform Commission Act [2017], in principle one understands what one might want to do. And I understand that the current Governm ent has, if you will, some different param eters. And sometimes I . . . in discussing this with pe ople I use the analogy of going from Barnes Corner to
Somerset . . . sorry, going from Johnny Barnes’
Roundabout to Somerset. The fact that you can go
there, y ou have got three different routes to go there.
You will still get to Somerset, but depending on how fast you want to get there or other parameters, you could make a different choice.
Bermuda’s dilemma is that we are on the road
right now. We are actually on the road. We have some
tax reform changes that are in place, so any changes that you make you have to understand the potential impact of getting to Somerset. You know, whether we
get there in time in terms of getting the balanced
budget that we thought that we would have in
2018/19, or whether you are going to give that up for some other changes, which is the impact of those persons that . . . in terms of changing the equality or
some of the other issues. But I just want people to
understand that there are factors already in play with
respect to the tax reforms that we, the former Gov-ernment, put in place.
Now, the current Government has . . . they
are able to make any changes they want because they are the Government. But you have to understand
that some of this has knock -on effects as it relates to,
as I said before, a balanced budget, the collection of
these revenues, and then making sure that it is en-forceable. Because the other side of all of this is com-ing up and making sure that you just do not cr eate


Bermuda House of Assembly things, but you have to turn around and make sure
that it is enforceable.
Now, one of the other things that we had
looked at before related to the complexity of a tax r eform system, or the simplicity, if you will. And this has
been one of the dilemma s in Bermuda. The more
complex a system you have, you have the need for
lots of people to administer it and lots of collection
issues, et cetera. So, I mean, I think that this is som ething that the Finance Minister is obviously going to have to weigh- up the same way the former Finance
Minister had to weigh- up because it was stated in the
CARTAC Report that the former Finance Minister had
said that he did not want to have a real complex sy stem. So that is the choice of the Government. But you
have to underst and that when you turn around and
allow one thing to be a limiter in terms of your total
flexibility, it has some knock -on effects.
So, Mr. Speaker , I just wanted to say that with
respect to this Tax Reform Bill I know that the princ iple of fairness is something that we all support. I know
that trying to make sure that those at the lower end of
the scale have some breathing room, have some, if
you will, relief . . . because I remember in the Budget
Statement there was talk about the tax changes were
going to benefit the lower income earners. I think ev erybody wants that. And I think also this principle of
those who earn more being able to contribute more
and those who earn less being able to have some r elief is something that we understood. That is why we
said in our Budget Statement that Minister Richards said before that this is what we call progressive r eform, which is making sure that the reform will require
more from those who earn more and less from those
who earn less. So the principle of making sur e that
you do something about the inequality is understood.
The only thing that I think we have to recognise is that tax reform is not going to be able to turn around and do, what I call, income redistribution because earnings . . . how you earn your mone y on what
you do is how you earn money. It is not being given to
you just because you are a good fellow. You earn it.
Therefore, if we are going to turn around and have tax reform that says that those that earn more pay more,
that is one thing. But that is not going to be the answer to, what I call, the inequitable income in terms of
those who have a lot and those who do not have as
much.
So I think everybody should understand that
this is not going to be the result. The result is going to
be some way in w hich the revenue that the Gover nment collects is collected . . . there is greater revenue
and more of that revenue comes from the people who
earn more. So the tax reform is a revenue- focused
item, it is not an income equity item. And I just do not
want people to be confused, because sometimes people think that they are one and the same.
Mr. Speaker , I think that I have a couple of
concerns when we get into the Bill itself, but I under-stand why we are doing this and, as I said, I will be
looking forward to the Finance Minister and the Premier . . . I say Finance Minister, but Premier . . . and the
reason I separate it out because the Finance Minister
is the person who is proposing all of these things, even though he is the Premier. And he is the one that
is making sure that these things happen so that the
opportunity for us to turn around and do something is
important.
But I have to come back to what I said in the
very beginning, recognising that we are already on the road to tax reform, recognising that the reform that
was in place would give us a balanced budget in
2018/19. And when I say a “balanced budget” I think it
is important for us to understand that this would have
meant for the first time we would have been able to
take care of all of our current expenditure and, actua lly, we would not have to borrow any money. Ther efore, we would be in a position that effectively the debt
would then be capped and would start to come down.
And it is important that people understand that this
was the final . . . if w e kept on this path, finally we
would be able to turn and say that the budget would
be creating money [and] that the debt would no longer
be going up because we have always understood that
this was something that was important to Bermuda.
And, if nothing else, I think the people out
there who lent us the money and gave us the good rates understood that we had a past that was going to
get us to that point of view and that is why we got very
good rates on our debt. And we must make sure that
we understand that because the last thing we want to do is anything that would be negative as it relates to
the rate that we are charged for our debt. And I am
sure nobody in Bermuda wants to end up having to
pay more and pay more in taxes if we can turn around
and try and do something that gets us to the right r esult. Mr. Speaker , I thank you very much.

Thank you, Honourable Member .
Does any other Member wish to speak?
I recognise the Junior Minister from constit uency 6. Junior Minister Furbert, you have t he floor.

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker , let me congratulate the Premier
and Minister of Finance for taking this initiative on behalf of the people of Bermuda. It was a promise that
was made in the platform, and today, w ithin three
months, is now before this Honourable House.
It is significant in this regard: For years . . .
and no one around this House can say that the tax
system has been equitable. Not one of us can stand
up and say that. There are the people that have made
millions of dollars —millions of dollars of residual i ncome. What I mean is that they make money when they sleep. Where people who have to work —they
have to get up and work it and make their income—
402 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly are taxed 100 per cent on what they [earn]. There are
people in this room as they sit down around here are
making income while they sit. I am not saying that
there is anything wrong with it. I hope that all of us can do that one of these days, and we can teach people to do that. But is it fair?
I am trying to reflect back —not reflect back,
but think about —what it was like in the 1800s and the
1700s, and how they taxed. I do not know. Maybe
they taxed horses. I do not know. My grandfather had
some beautiful horses galloping up and down Hami lton Parish and the c ity. I do not know how they taxed
then. But the main tax around the time when we grew
up was all import duty, which was passed onto consumers, and it was unfair.
And then we changed to the payroll tax in
1995 and it [was] still unfair because those people who were making the money still were not paying . . .
so I ask anyone to put their hands up and tell me that
the system is fair. Even after the system that the Honourable Member said that the tax system was r eformed by her Government the last year or the year
before. You cannot say that.
And let me make it very clear, we are not tal king about income tax; we are not talking about that.
But can we make the system fairer? There are people
who have made millions of dollars in buildings around here—millions of dollars from these international bus inesses —and pay nothing, besides their fair share of
maybe washing the windows. And even after that they
pass it on and call it a service charge.
This London lease, which is quite familiar
around here, everything from land tax to corporation
tax to cleaning the floor to cleaning the bathroom is
passed on as London tax. And they walk away with
millions of dollars and talk about that being fair. And
the person that is making $50,000 is talking about you
have got to tax th em on their money. And that is fair?
Where you can actually, at the end of the day, fly off and go to Monte Carlo when people here cannot even
go to St. George’s.

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: I can only go down to Hami lton Parish nowadays.
So this is why it is significant that the Progressive Labour Party brings this Bill. And what the emphasis was put on by the Minister of Finance . . . and
the Honourable Member talked about collectibles.
Even after the Honourable Member s put those payroll
taxes and duty up last year, I never heard them talk about let us not put this duty up and change the pa yroll tax because it may not be collectible. I do not r emember hearing that part. We are going to alwa ys
have problems on those issues.
Now, we have got to tighten up and we accept
that. It is just a part of . . . maybe we should start . . .
anyway, let me get through. So it says “to ensure that the tax system is
fairer and more equitable.” Again, I ask any Member of this House to stand up and say they do not agree
with that.
“To ensure that the tax system enhances
Bermuda’s global competitiveness” —can you imagine
if we can find a system that encourages more bus inesses to come here? They complain about th e
9.25 per cent that the Government put up last year —
you know it. And then, as I sit in another place right
now, complain to me about your 11.25 per cent that
you talked about doing next year. Unfortunately, we
may be bound by certain things for now until we look
at the tax reform system. And the competitiveness . . .
because they were paying payroll tax for themselves, the employers’ payroll tax, the employees’ payroll tax.
And now individuals are passing part of the tax onto their employees. So is there anything wrong with that,
Mr. Speaker ?
In addition, “To ensure that the tax base is
broadened in order to reduce the reliance on payroll
taxes.” The payroll tax receipts, out of the $1.1 billion right now, is $439 million —almost half of the tax sy stem is pa yroll tax. That means most of it is labour.
The next one is duty, again, a tax on labour
because we have got to eat and then they have got to
pay for the retailers. They put it on their cost of doing
business. And so we ask the question . . . this should
have been done a long time ago. Maybe we would
have been more competitive in the market for international business and maybe individuals would be able
to live in a more fair society. As you know, the middle class has been pretty well struck . . . some depleted
over the last umpteen years.
So we cannot say that . . . I am talking about
ensuring the competitiveness. It has to be part of our
mandate. And that Honourable Member said that we
cannot make it too burdensome. I think what you are saying . . . and I k now what you are saying. You are
saying that —and I agree with it to be honest with
you—if you put in this tax system then you have these
tax people running around, financial people running around making sure you are paying your taxes. It has
got to be wher e we keep the cost of actually collecting
the tax down.
But I see here that the Honourable Premier
and Minister of Finance says, “To ensure simplicity
and transparency in the tax system in order to reduce
the cost of administration and to promote tax compl iance.” That is part of the mandate of the Tax Reform Commission, and “to ensure greater compliance in tax collection.” Is that not what the Honourable Member
was asking? And maybe that is the Honourable Member who may be on the Commission, I do not know.
She said the Minister . . . maybe the Minister of F inance will suggest her name, she has the right . . . the
Honourable Member has the right, sitting there at the
table, to say amongst the, I think it was seven indivi duals, We’ve got to make sure that is done.


Bermuda House of Assembly So when the report comes back here the
Honourable Member has to say that collection is
there, reliance, the cost of administration is down —
that is perfect —everything that the Honourable Member had talked about.
So we have a tax system that has been i nequitable for a very long time. We have tinkered with it.
We will say okay, Let’s put some tax on . . . and that is
why the payroll tax took place in 1995. As a matter of
fact, I was part of that Cabinet in those days when we
brought that land tax Bill an d I am not going—

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: I am not going to go back
there.

[Inaudible interjections ]

Stay focused.

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: I am staying focused. As a
matter of fact the Honourable Member who is moving
his—
[Inaudible interjections and crosstalk ]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: —moving his glasses was
probably the Minister at the time.
I am just saying that at the end of the day that
this is the right thing to do. And I am hoping that the
Opposi tion will get on board. There are going to be
some challenges. We have to report back . . . I think
the committee has to report back within six months. But we have got to obtain revenue for . . . everything.
So we are sitting down in the Ministry of F inance, Well, what are we going to do this year? Well,
okay, we are going to increase the duty on luxury goods, where the Minister, last year I think it was, was
going to increase on . . . watches 30 per cent. Then
they rolled it back and said, No, no, it is 6 per cent.
There is nothing. But what is that? We do not keep on
playing with things. And, like I said, international bus iness is complaining about right now up to a certain
amount. Retail went from 2 per cent up to 10- point -
something per cent —a 400 per cent increase! And is
that fair?
We have got to look at the whole process of
how we are going to raise revenue. And, yes, some of
us may have to pay a little more because at the end of
the day we have got to do it. But you cannot tell me
that all these build ings around town have been getting
away for over a hundred . . . how many years have
been have they been in existence, 300 years? I do not
know how long the City of Hamilton has been here,
but since then . . . 200 years. Let us say it is 200 years. And I am the landlord who owns a building on
Front Street and I have not paid any money (I could
stand to be corrected) on my million dollars that I have been collecting from international business all this
time. So when the economy was booming from
2000 —

An Hon . Member: [It is] 1999.

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: —1998 to 2006 and all the
international business, because you overcharge here,
your rate goes down $50 an hour plus service charges
and that $50 was never taxable?
As a matter of fact, we should backdate it. We
would probably pay off the $2.5 billion that we owe. And that Honourable Member says that the former
Minister of Finance was balancing the budget in
2018/19? That is absolutely not true. The budget balancing was taking place in 2019/20.

[Inaudible int erjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: I am looking in the Budget
Book myself, which part are you reading?

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Mr. Speaker , I am not going
to get into that. But all I am saying to you is that the
book I am reading . . . it did not take the balance until
two thousand. Now, if you want to take the Sinking Fund out, that is a different story. But we have got to
account for the S inking Fund set up by David Saul in
the 1990s.
So I am sure that the people out there, the
electorate, the individuals are pleased that some group is going to sit down and come back with a comprehensive report and say back to Parliament, Here is
what we have found. Here are the problems; here are
the pros and cons about why we can’t do certain things. And based on that, this House will have the
right to decide. And I believe I read that it says that we will have a full debate on the report once it is laid
down before Parliament. I think that is extremely pos itive going forward.
So, I mean right now our payroll tax, our tax
reform . . . 72 per cent is collected from payroll tax,
import duty, land tax and international companies. Well, there are a whole sle w of things that I believe
can be looked at. As I said, there is residual income
out there that can be looked at. I mean, everything is
on the table except for the exemption of the tax that
we gave to the international business, I think it was
2030- somethi ng right now —2036—off the table. But
everything else is on the table. But I believe that the
commission or the committee that will be set down will
look at things to make sure that we have a balance.
Not one person, one entity, or one group should be
taxed 100 per cent. That is absolutely wrong. But we
have got to make it fair going forward.
So, Mr. Speaker , what will this do? Encourage
investment and growth within our country. We hope to
404 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly be able to attract more business to Bermuda. Let us
say we found a way to remove payroll tax from international business totally —let us say we found a way, I
am not saying we will, but totally. That is 25 per cent
or whatever they pay . . . I am saying for 9.5 per cent,
or let us say 10 per cent (which is rounded up) on
payroll, which they can now probably hire more people to do business in Bermuda. One of the reasons why they probably ship people out of Bermuda to I ndia or Canada or wherever they have done, is b ecause the cost of doing business [here] is very expe nsive, particularly whether it was housing, whether it was rental, whether it was payroll taxes, a whole list of
things. But if we were able to find a way to lower the
tax burdens on international business coming here, that will, I believe, encourage them to come here and hire more individuals.
So, Mr. Speaker, again, with those few words
I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and
Premier for the vision. And I am sure the country
overall will benefit from this particular exercise going
forward. Thank you .
Th
e Speaker: Thank you, Junior Minister.
I recognise the Opposition Leader. Madam
Opposition Leader, you have the floor.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few
comments with respect to the Bill. Clearly, nobody is going to argue that equitable taxation is the desirable state for any economy. It is, perhaps, the burden that falls down on one side of the taxpaying public that is looked at as being unfair. Those who have more money may consider that they are being hard done by
because they have more revenue flowing through their coffers.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the idea of
having to raise additional money, certainly from our previous administration (and I would think from administrati ons prior to us), was predicated upon the deficits
and the additional expenditures that have occurred. In
order to try to make end meets we had to find money coming into the coffers. So while Members opposite may have criticised some of the approaches towards revenue generation that were undertaken over the
course of the past five years, it has to be recognised
that that was done against the backdrop of having significant expenditure, which we were obligated to meet in terms of an increased civil service, i ncreased
cost of doing business, just extra money; money that was not left in the kitty based on some of the way that
money had been expended over the years prior. So I
think that it is very easy —
[
Inaudible interjections]

Members, Member — Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: It is very easy to
criticise the methodology for the creation of additional revenues that was undertaken under very stringent circumstances with very difficult collectability for fund-ing, and some things had to be put in pl ace.
So when the CARTAC Report was commi ssioned, one of the recommendations that was looked
at was the GST that the Government, the former Government, had determined that might be one way of bringing additional revenue into the coffers. I know that I attended very recently the meeting for ABIR at which the Premier indicated that the GST would not be implemented at this time. So, while that may have
contributed a fair amount of money, the Government
has made the determination that they will put that on hold for the minute and perhaps wait and see what
this Tax Reform Commission is likely to come up with and what ideas they might be able to advance in order to ameliorate the challenges going down one side or
the other of the economy.
But there have been several taxation studies,
several reports on how to look at our tax structure. We
had a report, I think it was the Spalding Report somewhere around the mid- 1990s, 1996, 1997. Some of
the output that was given at that point in time was not necessarily advanced by the administration that came in around that time. So now we have the CARTAC Report which the former Finance Minister Richards was going to look at how we could implement some of their recommendations. And then, obviously, we are
no longer the Government. And now there will be a
new Tax Reform Commission, which will be constitut-ed as a result of today’s Bill.
So, all of the ideas that are advanced from the
various studies that come forward are of no cons equence if we do not take the time to implement or at
least to recognise the value of what some of those contributions may have been to help to contribute money to the economy.
So, when we look at the Minister’s brief today
when he spoke to the purposes for which he wanted
to have this committee “ to ensure that the tax system
is fairer and more equitable,” nobody could argue with
that. But one of the things that we have heard, Mr.
Speaker , consistently and persistently, is the amount
of money that flows through the international bus iness, how much money they have on their balance
sheets, how much they are able to generate in rev enues in their specific spheres, and whether that was
ripe for picking in terms of a further contribution and not just on the payroll.
But I think it is important, in order to ensure
that there is no confusion in the minds of the listening
public, that the money that is generated by the international business is not . . . the profits on those bus inesses are not available as a result of the Exempted Undertakings Act. And I am just reiterating . . . it is not a criticism; I am just reiterating because that is one of the criticisms, or one of the observations that has


Bermuda House of Assembly been long since said within the community and, in
fact, spoken on the floor of this House under previous
administrations.
I remember former Member Wayne Perinchief
standing and saying, Those exempt companies make
a whole lot of money. We can tax them more so we can get additional revenue. I remember that very
clearly. And the Honourable Member from Somerset
remembers the conversation, because it brought a lot
of hullabaloo at the time because it was a reminder at
that point that there were obligations under the E xempted Companies Treaty.
And I was pleased to hear the Premier give
comfort to the members of ABIR a couple of day s ago
indicating that there was no intention to revisit or to renege on that particular agreement at this point in
time. So I just want for that to be juxtaposed against
some expectations that people may have that there is
a lot of revenue over here that c ould be looked at.
So now we are looking at taxation on some
passive income. Now, we do not know what ideas this
Tax [Reform] Commission will come up with. And I
think that once they put their collective heads together
with the cross -section of people upon whom they will
rely to have input to determine what ideas are good,
bad, or indifferent, and then to determine what the
Government will propose to accept and to introduce as a result of the recommendations, I think that when
you start looking at . . . we have heard specifically
about taxes on commercial buildings.
Now, commercial buildings did not appear out
of nowhere. So people who built commercial buildings
may have had mortgages. They may have asked for funding in order to be able to satisfy the cost of the
construction of those buildings. So when we say that
there are buildings that are getting rents, let us make
sure that before we start to covet what monies people
have, that we also take into account the possibility
that there may be encumbrances on the assets that
they possess that also have to be taken into consider-ation.
The fact that one might have a large property
and this property generates revenue, generates i ncome, does not necessarily say that that income is net income. And I just think tha t there is a difference, from
an accounting perspective, to point that out. Because
you could get a million dollars in rent a year and you
could be paying $995,000 a year in debt service
charges on that money that you are raising. So, let us
not just assum e . . . and I know that the tax commi ssioners and the experts that they will bring on board will have an appreciation for this. But I think it is more important, at this point, to point out from a public li stening perspective that we should not have unfair expectations as to what this new exercise is likely to r eveal when all is said and done.
Now, I did mention that the GST . . . the
Premier had indicated that they were not going to i mplement it at this time. But that is another area that could be looked at. You know, when you see some of
the compensations that come from a labour perspective and some of the corporations who have the ability
to pay far higher remuneration to their employees, and
it might appear to be almost unfair, but with the pr ogressive t axation that has gone into place those people who were earning less than, I think, $135,000 was
the break -even point, under that they would have
been able to realise some tax savings on their income
and over that people would be subjected to paying
more tax than they were prior to that particular regime
going into place. But that is a part of let me pay my
fair share .
But when we start looking at commercial
buildings and passive income on income from your
investments where . . . you know, I can remember as
a student studying taxation in the UK when they had their tax system it was not just punitive, it was extortionate (was the way I used to say it). Because apart
from the regular income tax, once you took off the allowances that were provided and permitted, they
would then classify what was left of your income into
various bands and the genesis of that income. So if
your income was from rents, it was taxed at a certain
rate. If it was from investments, it would go up a certain . . . the first band would be at a certain per cent.
So they had a progressivity towards the implement ation of what it did.
But there was what was called an “investment
income surcharge” which, at the time (I know it has
changed significantly subsequently), at the very top
level of the income range for investment income, the
effective tax rate for the very top level was actually, in
some instances, 98 per cent. So if that is not counterproductive and counterintuitive as to why you are g oing to have investment income where that top level
was going to be taxed at 98 per cent . . . ?
So the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that
time (and I am going back to the late 1970s) had a
recognition and an appreciation that this was not
working and, therefore, they had significant reform in
the tax st ructure there at that point in time. And not
only did they change the investment income sur-charges that were put on people’s revenues coming in
they also lowered the regular tax for payroll. But it was also done against the backdrop of making sure that
efficiencies were gained such that the expenditure, on
which the taxation coming in was put to satisfy, in and
of itself was looked at carefully.
So it is not like you want to raise a whole lot of
extra revenue so that you have got more money to continue to w aste money out the other side. The idea
has got to be that there has got to be effective ba lance, that this money that is coming in can do eff iciently operative things within your economy, such
that you make sure that your expenses are kept in
check. And t hen the money that you have got —the
additional funding that you have coming in —is going
to be in a position to help you to pay the debt and the
406 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly debt service that you have incurred as a result of ot her things, either social things or building programmes
and the like, in order to make sure that the mortgages,
if I can put it that way, of those instances have actua lly been satisfied.
So, I think it is important to recognise that it is
difficult. And if we talk about fairness, it is not fair to
raise additional revenue, however the balance comes
out at the end of the day, if we do not keep a handle
on how that money is going to be spent out the back end of the equation.
We heard . . . in that vein, as the Premier addressed the group . . . and let me just say for clarity
that I attended that function in my capacity as being the accountant for a company that is a member of the Association of Insurers and Reinsurers in Bermuda. So certainly I was not there by any means to critique or to have any inside infiltration of what the Premier was likely to say. No. These are things that impact the
job that keeps my lights on, so I think it is important to
say [that].
But one thing that was brought up was that
there are people who have not been able to have raises for a period of seven years. Therefore, their
income has been effectively eroded, because once
inflation has set in it has created a challenge. And that we understand and that we appreciate. But when you have to hold the purse strings very tightly to try to make sure that we do not go worse in the hole and fall
completely over the precipice, where the country was
financially, then we have to make sure that we balance all contributions. So the income, additional rev enue, bringing in . . . having an additional pill ar, broa dening the tax base is obviously critical. But maintai ning a specific control on expenditure is also very i mportant.
So, from a perspective of taxation, what we
also have to be mindful of is that in our ability to mai ntain a stable pillar of our ec onomy we do not want to
dissuade or, let us say, we do not want to continue to rob the goose that laid the golden egg, as it were. So
it is a balancing act. It is a balancing act, and it is one
that we as a community, certainly we as Opposition Members along with the Government, have to reco gnise what is going to make us remain buoyant as a community, what is going to protect our credit ratings in the international arena so that money that we have
coming in is seen to be expended appropriately and
intellige ntly so that we are not putting at risk our credit
ratings, which ends up meaning that we have to pay more on borrowing. When your ratings go down the cost of borrowing goes up. So we have to make sure that we do not dissuade companies from giving their
fair contribution to the economic benefits of the country by them thinking that their taxation . . . or that they
are being taxed inequitably.
So I think it is a balancing act, and it is clearly
one that we have to traverse that minefield and we
have to do it appropriately. So while it might be easy to say that this person has a building, that this person
makes a lot of money, that this person has this, that,
and the other, let us not, from the outside looking in, make an assumption that . . . how many people are
land rich and cash poor? How many people have buildings? How many people have mortgages? And when we start on commercial buildings, is the next
natural progression going to be private home owners?
Are we going to start looking at Granny who
has worked her entire life and has had her income
taxed as she has saved up the extra and made the sacrifices to put together and perhaps build an addi-tional apartment onto her home? Is that going to be
the next thing down the line for taxation? Because
Granny is now relying purely on the revenue coming in from that rental accommodation to be able to su stain her financially and economically.
So these are the things that we need to be
mindful of as and when we look at tax reform. We certainly have to trust the tax commissioners or the
Premier—whether he is going to do it or whether the
tax commissioners will do it. But choose those people wisely who will form a part of the consultative group so that there is a good cross -section of ideas that are
efficient, that are effective, and that are able to be im-plemented reasonably soon, which is what the Go vernment has committed to, and to make sure that it appears to be equitable all the way around.
I think with those few comments, Mr. Speaker ,
I will take my seat. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
I would remind the Opposition Leader that the
recommendation is to form a commission that will deal with the whole question of tax reform.
Secondly, on the issue of income, passive income, as outlined by the Junior Minister of Finance . . . I am sure she is aware that we have at least one Member who heads up, or is part of a company or ownership group that controls 100 properties around Bermuda. One hundred.
[
Inaudible interjection]

I mean, let us stop being
naïve. Tax systems from time [immemorial] have been about the redistribution of income and wealth. So the question is then, where do you draw the line? And
how is that informed not only by political calculations
but also by even issues of morality, to be honest about it?
In Bermuda we have had a very privileged
minority who have lived quite comfortably off a tax system that was designed to enrich them at the exBermuda House of Assembly pense of the many. In a CURB Report on the issue —
frankly, which will have some bearing on the next di scussion, which is about the issue of i mmigration— that
they published about a year and a half ago, I found
the following:
“In 1940 The Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940 . . .”—from the UK —(the Act) “pro mised British territories extra funding for social and ec onomic development. Howe ver to be eligible the col onies had to agree to a series of labour and social r eforms.” (This was1940.) “Despite tremendous pres-sure Bermuda refused to implement any of the social
and labour reforms. There was no trade union act. No
compensation for workpl ace injury. No minimum wages.” (And I will get to that in a second, we are talking
1940 now.) “No child labour laws. No pensions. No
labour dispute conciliation. No reduction in the fifty -
four hour work week . . .” (Which slowly is creeping
back for some, I might add. Listen to this part.) “‘For a
hundred years’, concluded the American vice consul,”
(Who was here at the time— we are talking about the
onset of World War II, the construction of the bases is
taking place.) “‘For a hundred years’, concluded the
American vice counsel, ‘a small group’” (And I interpose here a small group consisting of Bermuda’s
white wealthy oligarchy, being redundant there, ol igarchy and wealthy are the same thing.) “‘has made
Bermuda its own paradise by controlling legislation
and by seeing that taxation policy kept all but themselves in strict economic subjugation. While they
themselves accumulated fortunes subject to no taxes
whatsoever . . .’”
For a hundred years the American vice consul, I repeat, talked about this small group who had
control over Bermuda’s system of taxation. The sy stem was so perfect in its perniciousness that one
American businessman stationed here at the time
termed it “a modified form of slavery ,” which, indeed it
was. That is the tradition of this system, the roots of
this system which we still have today, as the Junior
Minister said, tweaked from time to time. But even that
may be a euphemism, and I will apply that description
to what we saw last year with this Government touting and using terms such as “ being progressive” and how
we are going to inject progressivism in our tax system.

[Inaudible interjection]

That is my point.
Now, Mr. Speaker , I took a look at the
CARTAC document, and there is a lot to be commended here. But where we can fault them is that they decided not to do what we are doing by the formation of a Tax [Reform] Commission. They did not
release this Report; and if they had won the election
we still would not have it, I suspect.

[Inaudible interjection]

It says that the “ Authorities
prefer a tax reform that will increase the revenue pr ovided by the existing taxes though they are open to
proposals that would expand the tax base and i mprove equity. They do not want to increase the size of
the tax administration but rather improve its efficiency and simplify compliance. Therefore, they rule out the
introduction” (listen to this part now) “ of a full -fledge
income tax or a value- added tax. ”
And I just at this point want to probably co nvey that I am sure that there was more than enough
self-interest in that decision. In contradistinction to
that, this Commission is going to be given a free rein
to examine the whole range of our tax system with respect to maki ng recommendations. There are parameters but, certainly —and I say this proudly —
nothing is off the table, and neither should it be with this independent bipartisan commission . . . with this
independent, bipartisan commission.
The other rationale you are he aring about is,
Oh, we don’t want to make the system more complex. You know, we don’t need that. We have a complex,
Byzantinian, broken tax system now. We have like four or five different offices that collect the taxes all around Hamilton and maybe one or two somewhere
else. But to show you how broken the system is, as of
2014/15, by way of the CARTAC Report, the total arrears is at a point of $197,000,000.84. The total arrears owed to the Bermuda Government via the var ious tax schemes that the Government m anages as of
2014 were $197 million- plus. Payroll tax, I am sure we
heard this figure here, $146 million as of 2014/15 was
owed to the Bermuda Government; land tax, $39 mi llion; stamp duties, $2 million; hotel occupancy tax, just
under $4 million; corporat e service tax, $1.5 million;
others, $1.4 million, when you break it down in that way.
Mr. Speaker , I believe Bermuda is at an inflection point on so many different areas. And I believe
that there are not going to be any easy solutions, nor
easy options. W e are at a point now where we have to
make the hard choices. And we often heard about shared sacrifice, I hate to go down memory lane, but it was a phrase we heard often from the side that contained . . . on the other side there. But when you really
talk a bout shared sacrifice and spell it out, or at least
lay out the parameters of what that may look like as this report, in terms of the parameters laid out in the
Tax [Reform] Commission proposal, suddenly you
hear again the excuses, the reticence. Well, as long
as you don’t come after me or my holdings, or require
408 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly me to pay more . . . I am translating, but that is esse ntially what we are hearing.
So, Mr. Speaker , I just want to say that this is
only part of the puzzle. I have now embarked, and
have been for the last year and a half, on the issue of
the living wage for Bermuda. The backdrop to that and
this is growing, without indulging in hyperbole, rampant income inequality in Bermuda. Income inequality
is corrosive. It has had the impact of beginning to hollow-out our middle class. It has had the impact of i ncreasing the numbers of people who can be rightly
considered or characterised as the working poor. We
have seen our social cohesion, as a consequence,
begin to unravel. And the other pernicious impact of
income inequality is to reinforce and increase the
growth of racial disparities in Bermuda. Okay? That is
the reality. The figures, the stats, bear it out. I am sorry if you do not like to hear that, but that is the reality.
Either we are going to have an evidence- based conversation or we are not; so let me know now.
Now, having said all that, we have a country
that does not even have a minimum wage in 2017. Part of the damage of income inequality has even
been masked somewhat in Bermuda because some
of its chief victims no longer live here anymore because they left because they could no longer afford to
live in Bermuda. They are over in the UK and in some other parts. And you know for some of our people,
when you find out that some of our people . . . and
you know our culture. They are actually willingly going
to live in the UK. Now you know it is bad. Come on! At
least with my generation . . . I cannot speak for the
younger ones.

[Laughter]

That is when you know it is
really bad. I am not talking about our young people
with two or three degrees that go to work over there
for a couple of years. I am not talking about that. I am
talking about Bermudians, largely without a college
degree, coming from low -income families in Berm uda—black Bermudians in the main, but not exclusiv ely—who have left here because they feel, Mr. Speaker, that they can no longer afford to live in Bermuda.
These are the impacts of growing income inequality.
The other thing that income inequality does is
. . . look at the education system. Do you think the
answer to what is happening in education lies only
within the halls of academia? Income inequality also
impacts educational outcomes amongst those of low
socioeconomic st atus. Again, do we want an ev idence- based conversation or not? Gang violence,
gang formation . . . huh? Guess what? It contributes to
that too.
So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker , we still have a
lot going for us. Again, it is an inflection point in my estimati on of where we are at. I believe that we can
turn this around if we address these challenges head -on. The Premier admirably, eloquently and elegantly
laid out these challenges. I am happy to be a part of a
party that has managed over the last couple of
years—and do not think that this did not play a critical
part in us winning this election —began to get its ideological house in order. Okay? That was one of the keys to victory. And it started at least two, three, four
years ago after we lost the last election. And you are
hearing that come out now. You heard it in our platform; you are hearing it now in the policies and suite
of proposals that are coming out from our capable ministerial team —these fine Members, young men
and women here. The party is moving back to its roots
ideologically, but in the modern context, or should I
say post -modern context, just to show off a little bit?
So I believe we have a lot going for us, and I
am optimistic about the future if we can get this right. Okay? If we can get this r ight, we then can move forward confidently into the next decade or more. That is
our challenge with it . Let us bring our people home, let
us have progressive reforms, let us ensure that those
who have more pay a little more, contribute a little more to the society. What is wrong with that?
I heard the Opposition Leader talk about in
the UK back in the 1970s (some would say over there
the bad old days), you had this 90 per cent tax on i nvestment income, or something like that she said. But
she is quite happ y to have the other extreme where
there is no tax on income, no tax on personal or corporate income. That cannot be right. That is just as
unbalanced as what she described as the reality in the
UK during the 1970s. That is what contributes to the massive g rowth of income inequality in our country.
Nobody is served by this. Thank you for that, Member from constituency 2.
So let us link arms here and go forward. The
status quo is no longer serving us. And I suspect that
even members of the international busin ess commun ity realise that and they are concerned as well. I have
only gotten very favourable feedback from them, even
on the living wage initiative. I am not calling any
names, but there has been a core group who has
been very supportive of that. Why? Bec ause they rea lise that if we do not address these issues (and I will use that term again) the social cohesion that has been such a part (because we were a middle- income soci ety to a degree that we are not anymore) is going to
make an environment that will not bode well for them
and their investments and their companies. It is the
right thing to do.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker , you heard that the Premier went over to Europe to ensure that he could ad-dress any outstanding threats to Bermuda’s strategic
position with respect to the international business sector. People always talk about how international bus iness has done so well for Bermuda. I spoke here the
other day and made the point that we need not be uncritical cheerleaders of international business. We
have to look at their massive contributions to the soc iBermuda House of Assembly ety, but also the impacts that they have. To some degree, their unfettered growth has contributed to this
question of income inequality over the last 20 or 30
years. That is the reality. But we need to find a way to
have everybody on board, and I believe that we can
do so at this first step with this Tax [Reform] Commi ssion and the report of its recommendations.

I guess they are cheerin g
for me as well . . . singing for me as well as the Premier.
So we can get it right. And I am confident that
we can if people have the moral and political commi tment to make it right, where Bermuda can truly work
for all of us and not just a few.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make a few observations about
this particular piece of legislation. I am looking back
on the Throne Speech and I noted that in the Throne
Speech there seemed to be a number of committees
and commiss ions and tribunals and all kinds of think
groups that were going to be formed in this new Government. And I reflect on, even today, the fact that this
is now our second group of people that the Gover nment now wants to organise and the second of these
groups of people that will be paid; and that there is a
considerable amount of money that is going to be
spent in order to have these commissions.
Now when we look at this particular commi ssion, the Tax Reform Commission, a group of people
getting paid to come up with some sort of tax reform,
when at the same time there is no denying the fact
that there already is a professionally produced doc ument that outlines Bermuda’s tax system and makes recommendations and suggestions and observations about what we can an d cannot do here in Bermuda . .
. one of the big pieces seems to be the idea of could
we have income or VAT [value -added tax ] in Berm uda.
Well, it has been made very clear in this document . . . and I do not believe that if we were to go
into the civil service and we were to ask the tax commissioner and any of the other associated depar tments whether we would have an efficient system in
place to be able to handle something like a VAT . . .
they would probably say no. And I am only questioning what the point would be of paying a whole bunch
of people to sit around and attach reform commi s-sions —and that is one expenditure —to talk about putting in place a system of which we would probably
need an entirely new system that would cost yet more money, and we are doing all of this under the env ironment of we do not have that much money here in Bermuda to be spending on a lot of associated and
additional projects and expenses.
So I just am curious what the Tax Reform
Commission is actually going to do. I am also i nterested in finding out how long it is going to take them to come up with something that if the tax reform from
CARTAC could not figure out, what we are going to figure out that would be different. And then put this all
in place in a timely fashion that w e would then be able
to actually earn some revenue from this before we all
go south financially.
All I am saying is that to me it just feels as
though we could well be kicking the can down the street. There are already some fine recommendations
that have been put forth by a professional group of
people. I do not understand why we cannot just digest some of the information here, put some of these suggestions into place, and then when we have the money and the resources, we can then start to build on
some of these larger projects that may be very new to
Bermuda.
With that said, I just feel as though Gover nment is doing [one of] two things. Either they are
pushing the can down the road, in which case none of
this is really going to take place for a long perio d of
time and we are stalling; or we are going to put this
commission in place, we are going to pay people a
whole bunch of money to come up with the exact
same thing that we already have heard and then talk about how we need to spend even more money on a
system to collect the taxes, on which we would be
then spending even more money.
So I just do not understand where the sense
of all of this is, especially given the fact that we a lready have a framework in place.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Yes, good afternoon, Mr.
Speaker , and thank y ou very much for the recognition.
I certainly rise to support the wisdom of looking at tax reform in Bermuda. We were elected by a record amount of voters in Bermuda, equalled only
during the time when persons under the age of 21
were not even allowed to vote— with 59 per cent. And
I believe in all honesty everyone in this Chamber
would agree that fairness and equity played a very
distinct role in why people felt it necessary. And, yes,
410 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly we cannot make any apologies, Mr. Speaker , for fu lfilling that agenda.
I have heard the code words. And it is easy
for persons to portray the language that raises the
bogeyman. But let me just remind us that in the period between 1999 and 2007, Bermuda enjoyed the most robust economic period in its history. And it was not
the immediate past Government or anyone who
served under a former Government that created that
climate. It was, indeed, the Progressive Labour Party.
Let us also remember that the period that
brought that robust economy to a close was the r ecession. And the culprit of the recession was not the
Government, who had to come up with some very immediate and difficult decisions to meet that. Right? Those decisions that caused that economy to collapse globally, and by extension Bermuda because of our economic connections internationally in a large way punching above our weight, were made by business
decisions in the boardrooms. Not the workers of Bermuda, like the workers of the hotel industry of Berm uda who took a pay cut as early as 2009, and I believe it was the triennial conference of the Union, an u nprecedented move that was only greeted a few years
later with lay -offs of some of the same workers that
took a wage freeze, and the remnants of that go on.
So we hear about the goose that laid the
golden egg. But we know that many golden eggs were
laid under a labour party government. And it is easy
for us to throw that out there. But I think it is important
that we recognise some truths when we look at that.
And I am sure there is criticism that persons would ably jump up, but not trumpet those particular facts.
When we look at stability in Bermuda and st ability for Bermuda in a global climate workplace, let us not look past the stellar job that our very Premier did
only last week in London on the BBC, when any les ser man could have folded and been the subject of
many a blog comment. But he went through it in a stellar way, protecting our interests in the global ec onomic community. And that is important to appreciate
because we must dispel the notion that we can fly the
flag of the bogeyman and just look past an election
platform that has been put forth.
And let us say that when we look at income
inequality and we look at the origins of it, we cannot just let it go by. We cannot. It is far too important for
anybody because I listen when persons who sit opp osite of the Government would then find great strength to talk about the very things they failed to act upon when they had the opportunity. I would hope, and I will encourage our Government, my Leader, to move for-ward on the very measures of empowerment that
many in this House, whether or not they said it —
Government or Opposition —espouse, and in the quietness of canvassing, will say, Oh, I support that.
But it is time, because I want to draw attention
to this Bill that calls for a bipartisan approach to look
at the very mechanism of taxation. It is contrary to what people protested against any number of times
with the past administration because bipartisanism
was a foreign language. But let us speak . . . we are
prepare d to speak Bermudian to this. It is Bermudian
persons who have found themselves disenfranchised, it is Bermudian people who have worked and found it difficult to find work, it is Bermudian people who have
had to endure and live without health insurance, it is
Bermudian people, by and large, who have really had
to do less with less. No need to do more.
So what is the social climate that is borne out
of that? And it is easy, it is far too easy for us to say,
Let’s just do it when everything is okay. Let’s just do it when we balance the budget. It is also the mandate of
this Government to balance the budget, and the F inance Minister and Premier has set a date. And as
one who has certainly spoken up vociferously in the past and continues at every opportunity to draw our
attention to the debt, it is important that we look at
that. But we have to chew gum and walk and talk at
the same time.
And so I would urge the Opposition to support
this measure. You are going to be a part of it. You are going to have the opportunity to say what you feel
about it. But if you really and truly want persons to
take you seriously about levelling the playing field in Bermuda, you have to admit that you have to start where the money lies, because people that look like me do not own the businesses in Bermuda. We would like to, but we do not. And there are persons out there
that will say, Work harder! But people still overlook
you, notwithstanding your educational qualifications,
notwithstanding your experience, notwithstanding the amount of knowledge that you bring where people from all parts of the globe will accept you and appr eciate you, love you and value you, except in your own
land.
So if you really want to embrace the equality
that you would talk about when you are not in Governm ent, join with us on this. It is an opportunity.
There is no need to invoke the bogeyman anymore
because 2003, 2004, 2005, when I was doing a good
job jamming up the Government, businesses (as a former leader of Bermuda once said) support gover nments. And they did well under the PLP administr ations. Businesses did well. The working class we have to cast our mind to. We really do. And this is an opportunity to look at what fairness looks like in an economic climate because it is economics that has caused the exodus, as Mr. Commissiong has spoken to so el oquently, and not just since he has been a Member of this House. He has written about it time and time again and made great sense. It is time for us to look at
measures such as this in a sober manner and look at
it with an eye to a solution that serves Bermuda well.
Persons like to talk about, I put Bermuda first.
This is the Opposition’s opportunity. This is the Opposition’s opportunity to put their actions where their mouths and their pens and their blogging friends may


Bermuda House of Assembly lie. Take this Bill and look at it for the opportunity it
presents for our future generations. Because if you
truly would like to see persons who you would trumpet
and stand with and hug up in a photo- op, if you really
want to help them, let us look at a system that has not
worked for them. And, clearly, the economic system
has not been the one. This is just but one example in
which we can do something collectively.
And we saw it happen before. I was part of
Bermuda First. There will be persons that will say,
Yes, it didn’t work, and the like. But a collaborative
effort did take place. Let us take the good out of that.
Let us not focus our minds on the bad, and let us take the positive and work toward it for the betterment of
our country Bermuda.
Tax reform is necessary. Tax reform that benefits all Bermudians makes eminent good sense, par-ticularly when all statistics, notwithstanding the delayed census, can prove that there is a group of people who fare worse and have done so for decades.
The time for fighting that argument is long past. The day for action has come. And let us cast the boge yman asi de because I do believe that international
company businesses know they did well under a l abour government once. And when we have a country
that is rowing in the same direction for equity and fai rness, all can rise with that tide.
You saw the tide rise in St. George’s and it
spilled over into the square and rose up. All the boats
rose that day. All the boats in Bermuda need to rise.
Not just the privileged few. That is my contribution.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you.

Hon. Walton Brown: We have a fundamentally unfair
taxation system. This Tax [Reform] Commission is
absolutely necessary to address it. It needs to be a ddressed in a way that creates a far more just taxation
system.
For all intents and purposes right now, Mr.
Speaker , we have income tax for poor people b ecause the totality of the income of a poor person, a low-income person, is taxable. The wealthy only pay
tax on their wage or their salary. Other income streams are not taxed. It is a fundamentally regressive taxation system and this Government is serious in its
intent to address it.
The OBA Government were not serious about
addressing the question of tax fairness and equality
because when they set up their very commis sion, or
that CARTAC would be coming to Bermuda to assess
our tax system, they gave a carve out and said, You
can look at everything, but don’t talk about income
tax. Well, how on earth can you properly address a
taxation system if you are not going to look at the fun-damental driver of a much more fair taxation system? So that was a weakness in the previous Government.
We have moved beyond that and we will give the Tax
[Reform] Commission a wide, broad mandate to be
able to address any issue that relates to creating a
better and a more fair taxation system.
One of the impediments to an enthusiastic
approach to addressing tax reform, Mr. Speaker , is
that there are elements within the international bus iness community who just whine when you talk about a
fairer taxation system. You know they have their pa yroll tax cut off at (what is it now?) $950,000. It used to
be $750,000, I think it is now $950,000. So what it means, Mr. Speaker , is that the wealthiest segment of
the community actually gets a tax break. So when
their income rises above $950,000 they do not pay a
higher tax, as it is in most responsible democracies,
they pay a lower tax because it is cut off. And so you have the most bizarre case of corporate greed, if you
will, Mr. Speaker , when a single ind ividual could earn
a pay package of $30 million in one year, but pay tax
on it as if he earned $950,000. That is unfair. That is unequal. That is what needs to be addressed.
So, I applaud the Premier for bringing forth
this initiative. This was part of our election promise.
We are carrying it out. I look forward to a robust, all -
inclusive and expansive report from the Tax Reform Commission. Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Just as brief, I appreciate that.
Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: I do not know about just
as brief; but it will be brief.
Mr. Speaker , I will address this in three ways.
First off, I generally support the Tax Reform Commi ssion. I think that any time we can take a look at the tax
system I think it will be appropriate, and I applaud the
Government in bringing a bipartisan approach. Obv i412 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly ously, the proof of the pudding is always in the eating,
who is appointed to that Commission, how they co nduct their work in the timeline that is provided, and the
openness of their consultation. But by the piece of
legislation in front of us here this afternoon, it seems clear to me that the intent is an honourable and noble
one. And I think we support that.
Obviously, everyone i n this Honourable
Chamber wants to ensure that we have fairness in the system. But, Mr. Speaker , I just reflect on what I have
seen around the world in past years in discussions
about taxation systems. It seems that there is a great
deal of discussion and no one has found the perfect
medicine at this time. And so the discussion continues
on and on and on.
I hope that this approach can bring some
positive benefits to Bermuda because, yes, we do
want fairness all around. We want people to pay their
fair shar e of taxes. And also, Mr. Speaker , as it has
been alluded to in the debate earlier this afternoon
when it started, we want to make sure that when tax is imposed on quarters of our community that it is actua lly paid. So not only do we have to go out and set the
revenue rates in various taxation, but we have to go
out and collect it.
One of the things that was interesting about
the CARTAC Report was a comment towards the end
of the report which said something along the lines of,
Mr. Speaker , tax evasion and a voidance rises when
people are uncomfortable with the system and they
find ways to try to get around it. So it helps to take a
look at the system to make sure that we put as much
equality and fairness in it as we can.
Now, the second thing that I would li ke to address, Mr. Speaker , is the fact that we are talking t oday about revenue that will be raised to Government.
There has been a great deal of conversation about
equality and raising our people up, and that is a conversation that I think we all enjoy having. But what we
are actually debating here today is a Tax Reform
Commission to take a look at how we enforce our taxes, if we change the structure, how we are going to
change it, and the levels that we pay. So that revenue gets paid into Government. So as we talk about the
revenue that gets paid into Government, I am a bit
disappointed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker , that we
have heard very little comment about the need to ensure that this revenue the Government receives is
handled and used in an appropriate way.
One of the concerns that I hear from members
of the community . . . and this is not a political comment against the Government or for the Opposition in any way. But one of the things I always hear from
members of the public is, Yeah, we don’t mind paying
our taxes; but let’s use it in the right way. And so if we
are going to look at fairness in the taxation, raising
more money for Government to go out and do the
services that they would propose to do, we also need
to make sure that the levels of accountability and how the money is spent by the Government are raised because then that will bring more satisfaction to the
people. And, obviously, Mr. Speaker , as I talked about
avoidance and evasion before, I think it will also stimulate individuals and companies to pay their fair
share of taxation.
And so with this Tax Reform Commission being formed I would also like to see a greater emphasis on proper efficiencies and greater accountability within
Government to make sure that the money is used in
the appropriate way.
Now the last thing I want to comment on, Mr.
Speaker —

Go ahead, go ahead.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: The last point that I want
to make is that colleagues have concentrated to some
extent on equality. And equality is critically important
in Be rmuda because the gaps between the haves and
the have- nots, not only in Bermuda, but throughout
the world, seem to be widening a bit. But what we are
doing here today does not deal with that gap between
the haves and the have- nots. Let us be very clear
about that.
If we are going to look to make sure our sy stem, our community, is fairer, more just, more equit able, it does not come from this Tax Reform Commi ssion, Mr. Speaker . It comes from other areas. It comes
from policies that allow, when that tide comes up, to
allow people to have the opportunity to move up and
to live more fulfilling lives and to be able to take care
of their family, to be able to get opportunities that they
previously could not get. It does not come from a Tax Reform Commission.
So le t us separate those two arguments
here—two valid arguments. We have had one about a Bill, we have some who have strayed off the mark (as
happens quite often in these debates in the House).
But when you stray off the mark and you want to talk about a piece of legislation here raising our people up
and bringing more people into a position in their life
where they feel good about what they do and being
able to protect their families and bring their families up
and have equality in justice, it does not come fro m a
tax reform system. That is politics and politicians who
are off the mark. So let us not give false hope to our
people about what this is going to do.


Bermuda House of Assembly This is going to take a look at fairness of tax ation, which we support, and potentially, probably, pu tting more money in Government’s pocket which you
have to spend in the right way.
So, I look forward to the discussions around
the liveable wage committee and all of those other things that we need to do to make sure that our sy stem is fairer and we stop the widening gap between
the haves and the have- nots. But this today does not
do it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Honourable Member , for
keeping it brief.
Any other Member?
I do not see any other Member. Premier,
would you like to take the floor? Thank you.

Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I appreciate the comments of
various Members who have spoken on this legislation,
which is a promise t hat the Progressive Labour Party
made to the electorate and a promise that the Pr ogressive Labour Party will keep to the electorate.
But it is fascinating to me, though not surpri sing, Mr. Speaker , that the One Bermuda Alliance still
has not learned the l esson of their election defeat.
Because we remember during the election campaign
that the exact same speech, which I gave in March,
which spoke about what we were going to do in r egard to taxation, was selectively quoted. And then we
heard the things —the press conferences, the mai lings, the endless YouTube ads —talking about how we
are going to tax Granny’s apartments. And we got it again today from the Opposition Leader.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker ? It did not work during the election campaign and it is not g oing to work
now because it is very simple. And if it was not heard during what was said in the introduction, you tax people, and increase in taxation systems work better for
those who can afford to pay more. Now, it could be
my Granny (who is no longer wi th us), but other grannies who may have one or two apartments; or it could
be some other people’s grannies who have 100 houses. Let us be clear.
So, let us not get into this false situation of tr ying to, as the Honourable Member for constituency 2
said, bring up the bogeyman and try the old scare tac-tics, because you ran the campaign on the scare tactics in July and it did not work. The people understand
that if you are going to change the dynamics in this
country, you have to change everything about the d ynamics in this country.
Now what is interesting is that the Honourable
former Premier who just took his seat said that what we are doing does not address inequality. Fascinat-ing! Unsurprising. And it shows the reason why he is
no longer in this seat. It is because he does not recognise and understand what is plain and clear for ev e-ryone else to see: That it is fundamentally unfair that
the only income in this country that is taxed is income
from labour. So, if you happen to own and get income
from your ba nk or your insurance company, your car
company, your liquor company, if you happen to sell
soft drinks and food and other items, chocolate bars,
chicken, chips, you do not get taxed on that income.
So here is the thing, Mr. Speaker , if you only
get taxed on your labour income and you do not get taxed on that other income, some of that other income
from the insurance companies and otherwise was paid off the backs of discrimination and slavery. Let us
keep it clear and let us keep it real. The system, as it
is allowed to go on, means that those who have more
will always have more. It is simple. Our system pr omotes the growing divide in our society. Our system is
what leads us to the Two Bermudas which we have.
Our election campaign was run about fund amentally changing the society. So, when we hear
these stories harking back to the past, it is something
that I have said many different times, Mr. Speaker .
They are the past and we are the future. This Bill is
about working together to figure out how we build
somet hing that works better for Bermuda, works better
for international business, works better for local bus iness, works better to make sure that we can grow our
economy and make sure that we can create jobs.
So although it seems as though there are
Members on that side who wanted to litigate what
should or should not be in and all the rest, the fact is
that is the reason why we are appointing a commi ssion, to give us a high- quality report so that we can
actually debate what we should do going forward as a
country. So I do not want us to get into the specifics. I
want us to focus on the fact that our system is unfair
and we can all work together to build a more fair sy stem.
And with that, Mr. Speaker , I move that the
Bill be committed.

Honourable Member s, we are now in
Committee of the whole House for further consider ation of the Bill entitled the
Tax Reform Commission
Act 2017 . I call on the Minister in charge to proceed.
Premier Burt, you have the floor.

414 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move clauses 1 through 4.

Carry on.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, clause 1 provides the citation
for the Bill.
Clause 2 provides for the definitions of terms
used inside of the Bill.
Clause 3 establishes the Commission as a
body corporate to be in operation for a period of six
months commencing on the date of appointment of
the Commission. This clause also enables the Mini ster to extend the period of operation of the Commi ssion by order subject to the negative resolution proc edure.
Clause 4 provides for the composition of the
Commission. The Commission will comprise seven members who shall be appointed by the Minister and who shall be persons with suitable qualifications and experience for the purposes of the Commission. This clause also enables the Minister to make provision for
remuneration and allowances to be paid to members
of the Commission.

Thank you , Mr. Chai rman.
Clause 4, the Premier elaborated somewhat
in the whole House, but could he give a better understanding of the seven members, who they might be?
Does he . . . has he got types of individuals in mind?
The comment, I think, in the House was that there would be Members from this side of the House. Is he talking about MPs? And will he be consulting in terms
of the bipartisan nature of the membership?

Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
In response to the Honourable Member ’s
question, the committee will maintain seven persons.
As was stated in the outset, it will represent a broad cross- section that is representative of the entire community, whether it be local business, international
business, the Bermuda Bar, academia, trade unions,
hoteliers. And to ensure that it will have represent atives of both political parties a consultation will take place between the Opposition Leader and myself when the Bill is brought into operation. The Chairman: Any further speakers?
The Chair recognises the Leader of the O pposition, Ms. Pamplin [sic] .
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier could
advise, because throughout the Bill it specifically ind icates that the Minister shall appoint . . . the Minister
will determine . . . the Minister . . . and the Minister
being referred to, obviously, is the Finance Minister and Premier. So the question . . . just based on his response that he just gave to Honourable Member
Gibbons, indicated that there would be consultation, but I cannot see that there is consultation provided for in the Bill in the selection of the committee. So I am just wondering . . . I mean, I understand and I take his word for it. But what we need to know is whether the Bill is sufficiently specific to make that commitment in
terms of how the committee will be comprised.

Let us keep those comments —so I
don’t hear them.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I am speaking to
the response that the Honourable Member . . . I apologise. I am just speaking to the response that the
Honourable Member just gave.
I asked a question whether it was likely that
we will see put in the Bill something which says that
there will be sufficient consultation, given that he is
committed to do so. This was not a criti cism; it was
just simply a question.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking
this question here because I am not sure whether this
is the place or further down. On clause 4(4) it is ind icated that “ There may be paid to the Chairman and
other members of the Commission such remuneration
and allowances as the Minister may determine. ”
That is the only place that I have seen reference to payment, but yet in the Minister’s brief he i ndicated that support staff would be compensated. So I
just wondered if this was part and parcel of the Tax
[Reform] Commission . . . the funds relating to the Tax
[Reform] Commission, and it i s not just the Chairman,
but other staff that go along with them.

Mr. Premier. Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to the questions
which were asked regarding the timeline, the expect ation is that following our regular practice, that this Bill
will come into operation as being passed by the Se nate on the 1
st of November, and soon thereafter it is
expected that I will name the commissioners for t he
Tax Reform Commission.
Regarding the question regarding payment, it
is assumed that this will function in a similar way to which the SAGE Commission functioned. And if there
needs to be payment made to not only the members
of the Commission, but also t heir staff, they will be
able to be paid as well.

Carry on.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, c lause 5 provides for the functions and proceedings of the Commission. The prim ary function of the Commission is to examine Berm uda’s tax system for the purpose of determining any
improvements that may be made to best enable a sy stem of taxation and revenue collection that is equit able, effective, efficient, c ompetitive, and transparent.
The Schedule has effect with respect to the proceedings of the Commission.
Clause 6 provides for the programme of operations of the Commission for the purposes of its functions, which is to be provided to the Minister . The
Commission is required to engage and solicit the input
of a broad and diverse range of persons, associations,
416 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly and organisations , and may employ such number of
persons as staff members and consultants as it may
determine necessary.
Clause 7 provides for reports and recommendations to be submitted to the Minister by the Commission. The programme of operations of the Commission shall determine the number of reports and
recommendations to be submitted with the final report
and recommendations at the end of the operation of
the Commission.
Clause 8 provides for the appointment of
committees consisting of members of the Commission
or other persons. This clause also provides for the
delegation of powers of the Commission to the Chai rman, any member of the Commission, the committees
of the Commission , or any public officer or employee
of the Commission. The power of the Commission to
delegate its powers does not include the delegation of
the power to delegate.
Clause 9 empowers the Commission to r equire any officer or employee of the Government or
member or employee of a statutory body who is in its opinion able to provide information or assistance to
provide such information or assistance.
Clause 10 requires the Commission and every
person employed, appointed, or delegated to carry out
the powers, functions , or duties of the Commission
under the Bill to maintain confidentiality in respect of
all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of those powers , functions , and duties of the
Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I am looking at clause 9 and clause 10. And I guess, from my
perspective, I assumed that any member who is “an
officer or an employee of the Government or of a statutory body” that the responsibility to provide information and assistance is, if you will, just embodied in
their employment and that is why . . . and also wit h
respect to maintaining the confidentiality. So I am just
wondering, is this not the case and, therefore, we are
putting this in as something extra? And if so, why?

Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.
Mr. Chairman, clause 6(1) “ The Commission
shall decide for the purposes of its functions on the
programme of operations, which shall be provided to the Minister. ”
In the House, the Minister raised, I thi nk it was
five points that he felt should be part of the Commi s-sion’s approach. I am just trying to understand the
“programme of operations.” Is this a direction that the
Minister is providing in terms of how the Commission
should go about its job? Or is t his essentially a direction in terms of what the Commission should look at?
For example, consider income tax, do not consider
income tax —I am just trying to get a sense of whether
[clause] 6(1) is essentially a set of directions which the
Minister will pro vide to the Commission and I guess
the corollary there is whether those directions will be made public or not.
I have another question on clause 7 and it is
actually 7(2). It says, “ The Commission shall submit its
final re port and recommendations to the Minister at
the end of the six -month period referred to in sec tion
3(3) or at the end of such period as the Minister may
have determined by order under section 3(4). ”
So the question here is . . . and I cannot r emember seeing it, will the recommendations be also
made public at that time or will the recommendations
be solely for the Minister?

Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, regarding the question from, I
believe, the Opposition Leader, regarding clause 10,
confidentiality (or maybe it was from the Shadow Mi nister of Finance), these are standard clauses which
are inserted into these items. Clearly, there may be confidential matters which will come to the Tax R eform Comm ission and we want to make sure those
items are kept confidential, so it is important. There
are some powers to request information and the i nformation requested we certainly do not want that i nformation to be shared. So, the reason why that
clause is in t here is that it is a rather standard clause
similar to the clauses which were used for the SAGE
Commission.
In response to the questions from the Ho nourable Member from constituency 22, the former
Minister for Economic Development, what I would say
on bot h questions —[clause] 6(1) regarding whether or
not items will be made public and [clause] 7(2) whet her or not items will be made public —the answer is
yes. And, as this Government has done, we are happy
to operate in the sunshine of public scrutiny.
What I would say in regard to the final question about directions is we are not going to put limits on the Tax Reform Commission. We are going to allow them to have a broad scope insofar as their deli berations. So I am not aiming in any way, shape, or
form to giv e them directions. They are the professionals. We will get the best results if we do not put r estrictions, such as we have done with CARTAC, but we give them a broad brush.



Bermuda House of Assembly The Chairman: Thank you.
Any further speakers? There appear to be
none. Mr. Premi er, do you want to move those clauses?

Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that clauses 5
through 10 stand part of the Bill.

Carry on.
Hon. E. David Burt: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, c lause 11 provides for the
funds of the Commission. The funds of the Commi ssion are to consist of sums appropriated by the Legi slature for the pur poses of the Commission and all
monies including grants, subsidies , and contribut ions
paid to or received by the Commission.
Clause 12 requires that at the end of the per iod of operation of the Commission surplus funds that
have not been used for the purposes of the Commi ssion be paid into the Consolidated Fund and any donations returned to the respective donors.
Clause 13 provides for the accounts of the
Commission and requires that the Commission mai ntain proper statements of its financial affairs and that it should prepare in respect of its period of operation a
statement of its accounts in such form as required by
applicable accounting standards.
Clause 14 provides for immunity from suit for
any officer, employee, or agent of the Commission,
any member of the Commission or any person acting on behalf of the Commission in respect of any act
done bona fide in pursuance or execution or intended
execution of his functions under this Bill.
Clause 15 provides for offences under the Bill.
Clause 16 provides, with respect to the appl ication of other l aws, that where there is a conflict b etween the provisions of this Act and any other enac tment, regarding the disclosure of information to or
from the Commission, this Act shall prevail. This clause also provides that the provisions of the Public
Access to Information Act 2010 do not apply to the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, if the F inance Minister can clarify, and maybe in clause 11 it
says “ all grants, subsidies , and contributions pai d to
the Commission or received from any source, and
funds raised by all lawful means. ”
I must admit I understand the first part in
terms of monies appropriated from the Legislature
because that is fair enough, we are setting up a
Commission. I was just curious as to what type of
things the Finance Minister might contemplate . . . one
thought was that there might have been . . . I know
like in Health, that there might have been PAHO or
WHO or somebody that w ould turn around and might
give us a grant towards doing something. So I am just wondering if the Finance Minister is contemplating
that there might be some entities out there that might support tax reform and, therefore, that might make
some contributions to this Commission, which then
would help us turn around and make it more econom ically viable.

I probably —

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I did not hear
what you said, never mind. Freudian slip, I understand; I accept that.
Clause 12 concerning surplus funds indicates
that “ At the end of the period of operation of the
Commission, any surplus funds not utilis ed for the
purposes of the Commission” will be (a) returned to
the Consolidated Fund (that I understand) or (b) returned to the respective donor.
The question is, Is there any indication in
terms of the hierarchy of the return of those funds?
So, when funds are being expended, are we assuming that money that is being donated from external
sources —not out of the Consolidated Fund —are going to be earmarked for a specific thing? And hence, if
that specific thing is not done, then that money will be
returned to the donor? Or are all the monies for the
418 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly operation of the Commission going to be co- mingled,
both that which comes from the Consolidated Fund
and that which comes from outside? If it is co- mingled
and there is excess at the end, how is the determina-tion to be made in terms of what percentage goes back to the Consolidated Fund and what percentage goes back to the donors? Thanks.

Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the question
from the Shadow Minister of Finance, whether or not it
is likely that we will receive donations from overseas entities, it is highly unlikely. And the Government is not pursuing that path. What we will do, of course, is that it is expected that the Chairman of the Commi ssion will seek to raise funds from members of the local and international business sector and possibly from other persons who are looking to participate inside of this effort. So from that perspective, but from an inter-national organisation basis, no, this is more looking
local. International organisations will likely say that we
are too wealthy and they do not need to give us mon-ey, which is what we face all the time.
Regarding item 12 regarding surplus funds,
and the question from the Opposition Leader, the a nswer would be it would be either/or. I am not going to
prejudge as to what role the Chairman may take in
this Commission, whether or not he will seek to raise funds for specific purposes, as you had stated, or whether or not the funds are co- mingled. What I would
state is that if they were raised for a specific purpose, I do not believe that this would probably be proper. I
would assume that the funds would be co- mingled
and I would assume that at the end of the event —at
the end —if there are any funds that are left over, it will
be given back to the proportion in which the funds
were raised.

Members, any objection to the Bill being reported to the House as printed?
No objections. That concludes that matter on
the Bill for the Tax Reform Commission.
We will now move on to the last item on the
Order Paper today, which is the Bermuda Immigrati on
and Protection Amendment (No. 2) Act 2017 in the
name of the Honourable Minister for Home Affairs.


Bermuda House of Assembly Minister Brown, you have the floor.

BILL

SECOND READING

BERMUDA IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION
AMENDMENT (NO. 2) ACT 2017

Hon. Walton Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I move that the Bill entitled the
Bermuda Immigration and Protection Amendment (No. 2) Act 2017 be now read a second time.

Go ahead, Minister.
Hon. Walton Brown: Mr. Speaker , this Bill seeks to
amend the Bermuda Imm igration and Protection Act
1956, hereafter called the principal Act, and to make
consequential amendments to Schedule 2 of the H uman Rights Act 1981.
Mr. Speaker , let me [preface] my remarks by
identifying the political context in which this Bill will be
debated. This Bill is being debated, Mr. Speaker ,
against a backdrop of a Supreme Court decision which gave the complainant (who was born in Berm uda, who was not Bermudian) the right to work in Bermuda without work permit control.
By that decision, Mr. Sp eaker , the courts have
provided for a process by which hundreds, if not thousands, of persons who secured BOTC status before
1983 will be allowed to either work in Bermuda (if they
are already here) without work permit control; or r eturn to Bermuda without work permit control and work
and live. That is the political context in which this particular legislation will be debated, Mr. Speaker .
This Bill seeks to restore the primacy that the
Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956 enjoyed —the primacy that it once enjoyed —and was
meant to continue to enjoy in relation to all other sta tutes, notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1981.
To elaborate further, Mr. Speaker , there was
already a primacy provision in this Act in the form of
section 8, but the courts decided that the primacy pr ovision of the Human Rights Act 1981, because it was set later in time, should prevail over the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act i n the absence of express words to the contrary in the principal Act.
In other words, Mr. Speaker , the courts ruled
that because the Human Rights Act came at a later date, and even though both Acts had the word “prim acy” in their legislation, it ruled that in the absence of
any express words to the contrary the Human Rights Act would have primacy over the Bermuda Immigr ation and Protection Act.
In essence, Mr. Speaker , this Bill today seeks
to exempt the Bermuda Immigration and Protection
Act 1956 from the primacy of the Human Rights Act
by amending section 8 of the principal Act. Mr. Speaker , it should be abundantly clear to
all that it is the role of the Government to protect its
nationals. And this was reflected, Mr. Speaker , in this
Government’s election platform. We promised the
electorate, a promise to Bermudians, that we would ensure that Bermudians will come first, employer
abuse is minimised, and that land in Bermuda is pr otected for Bermudians.
This Bill is intended to plug the gaps which
are unders cored in statistics published by the D epartment of Statistics prior to July 2017.
Mr. Speaker , in a country with limited r esources, currently only two main pillars of the economy—or one pillar and a half pillar —22 square miles, a
population of 65,000; the promotion and protection of
Bermudians in the workforce and the protection of
land for Bermudians is perfectly justifiable and abs olutely necessary.
Mr. Speaker , one of the reasons for this
amendment is that Bermudians continue to be the most economically disadvantaged in this country —by
unemployment, annual pay and total jobs filled. This is
reflected in the 2015 Labour Force Survey. It is also reflected in a 2017 Employment Brief. The Labour
Force Survey indicates that there were notable job
gains by non- Bermudians in 2015. Non- Bermudian
workers posted an increase of 5 per cent, or 377 pos itions, for that year. In contrast there was a 2 per cent
decline in the number of Bermudian workers, with 413
jobs lost in 2015.
The survey also highlights that betwee n 2014
and 2015 non- Bermudian workers reported a 10 per
cent increase in median annual pay, with $80,322 compared to $73,300 in 2014. For Bermudian workers
the median annual pay gap only grew by 4 per cent to
$60,250. The difference in median annual pay between non- Bermudians and Bermudians is quite tel ling. And while both classes of workers saw increases
in annual pay, the increases for Bermudian workers did not increase by half of the increase realised for
non-Bermudian workers.
According to the 2017 Empl oyment Brief,
there was also a disparity between total jobs filled by
non-Bermudians and Bermudians. This report states
that total jobs filled rose from 30,319 to 33,481. Ho wever, while total jobs filled by non- Bermudians rose by
3.8 per cent, the jobs fil led by Bermudians fell by
0.4 per cent. And, of course, the pay packages for
non-Bermudian workers tend to be higher than those
of local workers. And this disparity will take into account what we see as justifiably higher salaries for
CEOs and other persons in those industries who come into our economy.
Now, Members may ask why these statistics
are germane to this amendment Bill. Recently, as I spoke earlier, a judgment was delivered in favour of a
non-Bermudian who was born in Bermuda to nonBermudian pare nts who, together with her husband (a
work permit holder), had filed a writ in the Supreme
420 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly Court. The complainants asked the court to consider
whether the Minister’s refusal to allow one of the applicants to work without restriction was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1981. The Court found that the Minister’s (and this would have been the Minister prior to myself) refusal to allow the complainant’s applic ation to work in Bermuda without restriction was di scriminatory.
Let me just repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The
Court ruled that a non- Bermudian, born of parents
who are not Bermudian, was being discriminated against in her claim that she did not need a work per-mit to work in Bermuda. The Court ruled that it was
discriminatory and contrary to section 5(1) of the H uman Rights Act 1981. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker ,
this Government is appealing that ruling. However, if
the Court’s ruling prevails, then there are hundreds, if not thousands, of persons in this category who are not Bermudian, nor eligible for Bermuda status, who could
work without the Minister’s permission. This would not
only apply to persons living in Bermuda, but to any person living overseas who fits into this category and who may wish to return to Bermuda. These persons, no matter their qualifications, will compete with Bermudians for jobs.
But, Mr. Speaker , in order to address the gaps
that disadvantage our nationals, the Government cannot entertain claims of non- Bermudians who now feel
they are being discriminated against contrary to sec-tion 5(1) of the Human Rights Act and who feel they
are entitled to the same rights as Bermudians.
Mr. Speaker, in no other country in the world
do non- citizens have a right to obtain the same rights
as citizens of a country. I must state, and this is despite the hysteria, this is despite the organised and
contrived propaganda, Mr. Speaker, but this Gover nment is an advocate of the Human Rights Act 1981 and the Human Rights Commission. This Government gave the Human Rights Commission greater powers than it had pre viously been given.
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Point of order, Mr. Speaker .

Minister, take your seat for a moment.
Point of order, Honourable Member Moniz?
POINT OF ORDER
[Misleading]
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
The Honourable Member is misleading the
House. He just made a statement that in no other country in the world do non -citizens have these rights.
But under [Article] 8 of the European Convention peo-ple do have that right. They do have—
[
Inaudible interjection] Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: In the United Kingdom. They
do have that right. If you were born in the United Kingdom and raised in the United Kingdom, you have the right . . . you are settled and you have a path to
citizenship.

Thank you.
Minister, conti nue on.
Hon. Walton Brown: So, Mr. Speaker, since the
Honourable Member is prepared to quote from the
European Convention on Human Rights, he might want to quote it fully and not selectively. Because that
very Convention specifies that there are special considerations for small countries. There are special con-siderations for countries with a vulnerable popul ation—
[
Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Walton Brown: —first of all, first of all—
[
Inaudible interjections]

Well, I was waiting for clarification on it,
but go ahead, Minister.
Hon. Walton Brown: I will clarify. For those who look
at the UK as their mother country, they have a policy
which says they do not treat them the same. That is
precisely why there is this acrimonious debate about Brexit. So if the Honourable Member does not understand what is going on with Brexit, we can sit down and have a chat. I would say over a glass of wine, but
then my honourable colleague might think that is going to contribute to our sugar consumption.
The fact of the matter is that Britain is trying to
decide what precisely the rights are that it is going to
give to the hundreds of thousands of EU nationals who are living in the UK today.
[
Desk thumping]
Hon. Walton Brown: So we should not be here
spreading propaganda, Mr. Speaker. We need to
have . . . yes, passionate debate. But let us have that
debate based on fact.
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Yes, please.
Hon. Walton Brown: You do not have a licence to
engage in disinformation.


Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Yes, please.

Okay, Members, let the Minister speak.
Hon. Walton Brown: Mr. Speaker , the Human Rights
Commission are stewards of the protection of people’s
rights and they work very hard to stamp out discrim ination. The HRC is limited in their mandate because
they are not empowered, as yet, to address issues of
institutional discrimination. So I wonder if all the adv ocates of human rights want to talk about the instit utionalised practices that lead to discrimination, b ecause that is something that we need to look at. And I
am hoping that this Government will take it on as well.
But we will consult with the Human Rights Commi ssion to ensure that the rights of all of our residents are
protected.
We should be very clear about this, Mr.
Speaker . We will guarantee that Bermudians come
first in their country. We make no apology for that. But
equal ly so, Mr. Speaker , we will guarantee that the
rights of anyone visiting our shores, anyone who is
here on a work permit, is guaranteed protection on the
fundamental rights under the law —the fundamental
rights. We are signatories to the European Convention
on Human Rights that has been extended to us. We
honour our Constitution, which contains the fund amental rights within our Constitution. Every single person in this country is protected by our Constitution.
For those who want to engage in a fanciful
exercise about what we do not do or what we are not
believing in, leave that for the anonymous diatribes on
social media. I do not entertain . . . I do not even read
it. I have a sister who likes to read all that stuff and
she tries to tell me what is going on and I am not i nterested. If you do not have the courage to stand by
your position, I am not interested. I can have a robust
debate . . . the Honourable Opposition Leader, we
have robust debates. She tells me what she thinks and we have our discussion. But at least she identifies
. . . I know who she is, and we can have that conversation. The cowards I am not interested in.
Mr. Speaker —

Yes.

Hon. Walton Brown: —as much as we will consult
with the Human Rights Commission to ensure that the
rights of all of our residents are protected, it is equally
the Government’s mandate to ensure that, as the stewards of Bermuda’s Immigration and Protection
Act, that Bermudians must always come first. We do not have situations where people who are not citizens
vote in a country.
Mr. Speaker , those are my formal remarks
that have been ably prepared by my technical people.

Go ahead.

Hon. Walton Brown: But, Mr. Speaker , there are
three points that I want to refer to on this matter.
The first relates to this notion about human
rights. As someone who has been an advocate for human rights for more than 30 years, I continue to do
so. I will not be a part of a Government that does not
protect the basic rights of people. I do not need to present my curriculum vitae to this Parliament or to the public, because my activity as a human rights activist is a matter of public record.
But, Mr. Speaker , there was a level of concern
expressed about the nature and level of consultation
with the Human Rig hts Commission and, I should also
add, the Centre for Justice. I want to recognise the member in the Gallery, Ms. Venous Memari, who is, I
believe, the managing director of the Centre for Justice. We have met with the Centre for Justice as well
as the Human Rights Commission because my Mini stry and my Government is passionately concerned
about human rights. It is true they do not have an extensive period of time to engage in a consultative pr ocess because we also were up against a timeline i nvolving a legal appeal. So everything needs to be co ntextualised.
But I have given an undertaking, which has
been accepted by the Human Rights Commission and the Centre for Justice, that they will have an opportunity in a timeframe that they determine, not us, to
careful ly assess the full impact of this amendment.
And as Minister I am prepared to entertain and reflect carefully on any recommendations that they make with regard to ensuring that the human rights of individuals are adequately and properly protected with
this amendment, within the context of the need to
have primacy of the Immigration and Protection Act.
I want to make that clear. I have been i nformed of a whole series of just bizarre scenarios that
people are postulating about what could possibly happen. Wel l, you know, for those who believe, ever y422 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly thing is possible. So you can speculate all you want.
What you have to determine is what is a likely outcome, what is a likely decision of a Government? That
is a more appropriate way to analyse the potential
implic ations of a piece of legislation.
Yes, we adhere to our international obligations. I have heard much talk about the impact of the
European Convention on Human Rights. And just for
the sake of clarity, when Britain leaves the European
Union and Brexit becom es a reality, the European
Convention on Human Rights will still apply to Berm uda because it predates the European Union. I believe the European Convention was created in 1957, so it
was applied to us a long time ago. We have never
diverged; we have never acted outside of that Con-vention. So for those who wish to postulate all kinds of
scenarios, you have a duty to be responsible. You do
not have a need to be hyperbolic in that which you
present for the sake of political support and/or reward.
Mr. Speaker , let me talk a little bit more about
the legal nuances that have gotten us into this position
where we are today. It might be a little bit technical,
but it relates to the fundamental reason why we are
passing this amendment today. And it will pass, Mr.
Speaker, because the majority of the people of this
Parliament understand the political necessity for it.
[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Walton Brown: That might be true too.
But Mr. Speaker —

Continue.
Hon. Walton Brown: There was a Supreme Court
decision, I believe it was last year, in which the courts ruled that what government provides is a service and
not a function. That was a, shall we say, unusual i nterpretation that is inconsistent with how courts in many other jurisdictions have interpreted a gover nment’s role. If only the government can do something,
is it truly a service? No. The more orthodox approach
is that it is a function.
The former Government, when beset with that
decision, had an opportunity to bring clarity to the mat-ter b y launching an appeal. The OBA Government
refused to appeal and allowed a legal ruling to stand
which now classified virtually the majority of decisions
by a government as that involving the provision of a
service. It is because of that, and because of that
alone, that the courts could now look at the carrying
on of government duties as a service and assess it in the context of the Human Rights Act. Because all the
Human Rights Act covers . . . not all, but what it does
cover is discrimination on the basis of employment,
housing, and delivery of service.
So now we have this conundrum, perhaps,
unintended consequence, from the former Gover nment’s side. I do not know. I cannot speak for the for-mer Government. But it is a matter that should have
been appealed to bring clarity. So we are now beset
with this and we will address it by making this
amendment, because what Government does in most
of its activities is a government function. Is the prov ision of a passport a service or a function? If it is a
service, then we cannot discriminate against anybody
in the provision of a passport. So that is a fundamental reason why we are here today.
And the final point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, relates to the issue of the consultative immigration
reform process, because I have heard comments from
the Opposition side that this does not represent consultation , and what a bad way to start off the whole
process . Let me be absolutely clear. Let us be abs olutely clear. This amendment repositions the Immigr ation and Protection A ct. It puts it back to the position
of primacy that it enjoyed until a recent court decision.
It puts it back. We do not fundamentally alter the I mmigration and Protection Act 1956.
We are committed to a consultative reform
process. And for the sake of edi fication, yet again, Mr.
Speaker , let me relay the process. I have no doubt
that there will be a series of comments coming which
decry the absence of consultation and a less than
honest approach to the reform process.
We are here today, Mr. Speaker , precis ely
because the former Government refused to engage in consultation. The former Government rejected it. I
personally spent hours talking to Members of the OBA
about how to find a way to reduce the tension and to
engage in a collaborative process [and] it w as rejec ted. And so we are fundamentally committed—

[Inaudible interjection]

Member.

Hon. Walton Brown: Okay. All right. So I am going to
take the bait.
[Laughter]
Hon. Walton Brown: So I will just digress . . . I will
digress for one minute. The Honourable Member who
sits over there with that look on his face, he knows very well, he was the one who was i ntransigent —
[Inaudible interjections and crosstalk ]

Deputy —
Hon. Walton Brown: —the Government refused to
come down . . . It was only when Parliament was shut
down; Government was beset with a crisis of conf idence, a crisis of its ability to run the country that we
engaged in the process involving consultation that we
had politely asked for , for three years.
[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Walton Brown: Right. So, Mr. Speaker —

Continue on.

Hon. Walton Brown: The Immigration Working Group
was set up, I believe it was in March or April of 2016.
And, yes, I was a member of that group. We received
a mandate from the community activists and the Government to look at a series of changes to the Immigr ation and Protection Act involving adoption, mixed st atus families, PRCs, and Bermuda status. That was not comprehensive immigration reform. We accepted it
because it helped to prevent that awful piece of legi slation called Pathways to Status from being put forward, which had no consultation in it with key stak eholders —none. We accepted it; but we knew it was
only partial immigration reform and we managed to
make one change to provide for the adopted children
of Bermudians to be automatically granted Bermuda
status on adoption, as if they were born Bermudian,
which is a very good step —[it was] easy, low -hanging
fruit.
When we became Government on July 18
th,
shortly thereafter, the mandate for that group was
change d. They were given the responsibility to identify
the principles by which decisions should be made on
PRC and Bermuda status and mixed families —the
principles. Because I know, my colleagues know, that
there is a much broader set of immigration reforms
that need to take place. So we will get those principles
October 31st.
The Committee is run very capably by Mr. Wi lliam Madeiros, and I have no doubt he will meet the
timeframe to have those principles in place. And then we will have a bipartisan committee that will look at
those principles and then every other issue related to
immigration reform. That is where consultation will
take place. I have invited and I have received the ac-ceptance of Members from the OBA to sit on that
panel. I extended an invitation to the Human Rights
Commission, who are now going to sit on that panel.
And we will invite other people from the community to partake in those deliberations because it will be a
comprehensive approach.
Now, to do it properly I was advised by my
technical people that it will take a year to have the
reforms in place. But I understand the political sens itivity and know that to wait a year, or maybe more
than a year, is perhaps not appropriate because there
are some plights that people are engaged in that need
to be resolved. There are some harrowing stories of people who are marginalised, who are in limbo, and
we will address it because we will adopt a humanitar ian approach. But it will be comprehensive.
So what we will do in the first instance is d ecide on P RCs and Bermuda status —that will be the
first tranche—ideally maybe by February or March of next year. And then the other related reforms will come later, simply because we think it is best not to
wait an entire year to resolve some of the issues that
need to be resolved. But it is fundamentally rooted in
consultation.
We are going to consult on the work permit
policy. The previous Government had three people
who wrote the work permit policy, three private sector
people, three business people, wrote the wor k permit
policy. There was no consultation. Oh yes, yes, I am
sorry, let me retract a little bit. The Government will
say that they sent it out to other stakeholders in a pro forma sort of way to say there was consultation. But
there was no consultation. T hree individuals wrote the
work permit policy. We will consult.
There are some key issues that need to be
resolved in the whole immigration legislation, which were not even on the previous Government’s radar.
What does it mean to be ordinarily resident? That is a very amorphous term. We are going to clarify the i ssues that relate to “ordinarily resident.” That is a pr ecursor to people’s entitlements to rights.
So, Mr. Speaker , let me wrap up this part of
my presentation by saying [that] this amendment does
not represent a step toward immigration reform. It helps to keep us at the status quo. It is the Gover nment’s role to pass law. It is this Legislature’s role to
pass law. It is not for the courts to pass law. Right?
We have a three- tier system —the Executi ve, the Legislature, and the Judiciary —they work in tandem.
Each has a distinct role. The role of the courts is to interpret the law. Who would allow for the courts to
determine what the law of the land should be? Only a
weak Government would do that. Only a weak Government would do that. We are not weak.
We are passing this piece of legislation to
hold in abeyance the judge’s decision to ensure that
the status quo, with regard to the Immigration and
Protection Act, remains as it is until such time as we
can have that proper consultation and refine it.
Now, I forgot one point. There is a lot of talk
about human rights. Human rights are fundamental; everyone is entitled to human rights. But it is very i mportant to know the distinction between what is a hu424 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly man right and what is a privilege. And sometimes
when you are entitled . . . when you have a sense of
entitlement and are used to privilege, that gets translated in your mind into a right. We do not buy into that. Basic rights are core rights protected under our Con-stitution and protected by the Human Rights Act. We will continue to abide by that.
And all those who believe in the exhortation of
human rights, let us be consistent. If you are a human rights activist, you should be consistent in your adv ocacy of human rights, not just on one aspect. What about the issues of gender discrimination, racial di scrimination? Same- sex discrimination? Disability? Let
us be consistent. When you select out what you think is a human right and that is all you care about, well
you are going to lose credibility because you are not consistent. So with this feigned interest in human rights, without a track record of demonstrated com-mitment to human rights, I am not convinced.
So, Mr. Speaker , let us have this debate, let
us try to move away from diatribe. Let us have a fact -
based discussion. Let us forget all the unwarranted, unsubstantiated rhetoric or the most bizarre scenar ios, the what -ifs.
I was talking to a reporter today who provided
that he was trying to pummel me with these what -ifs. I
said, Mr. —and I cannot give his name, I will not give
his name today —but I said, So what do you mean
what -if? Anything is possible, but what is lik ely and
what is practical? A Government that attempts to engage in a fundamental infringement of people’s rights
will be called out —locally and internationally. This
Government and previous PLP Governments have been the defenders of the rights of people. And when it comes to people who are not Bermudian, who on earth created the PRC status?
[
Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Walton Brown: Let us go back a little bit in time,

Minister, speak to the Speaker, this
may help you out.
Hon. Walton Brown: I am speaking directly to the
Speaker, but sometimes my eyes just wander.
Th
e Speaker: Come this way, I will give you a little
hand there. Come this way.
Hon. Walton Brown: Right.
You know, if you want to go back a little bit in
history, we had an immigration policy that was funda-mentally racialised —fundamentally. I remember telling
the story of one of my good friends whose mother was granted Bermuda status and did not even apply for it. And when she said— it may or may not be material —
that she was an English woman (you can figure that one out), and she said, Why would you give me st atus? I didn’t apply for it. I am happy to be married to my husband and I don’t need status. She was told by
the then- Minister responsible for Home Affairs that we
need your support.
[
Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Walton Brown: The funny part is that she never
voted. She has passed away now, but she never vot-ed. But there was a racialised immigration policy. To his credit, former Minister Fahy recognised that. He recognised that the 1960s was a period of dastardly
deeds and racialised immigration policies, but then he
seemed completely immune to what he was trying to do in 2016.
So you cannot take the past and act as if it did
not shape the present. The former . . . the predecessors of the OBA —sorry, my apologies to my colleague—the UBP had to abandon the discretionary grant of Bermuda status in 1989 because it was be-coming increasingly controversial and political. People were getting status because they met certain criteria. Race was a key factor. If you go back and look at all
the old files and look at all the comments that were made, race was a fundamental factor, so it was stopped in 1989.
But then you had people who were here from
1989 who had—because of the racialised immigration policy —the reasonable expectation that they would be
guaranteed some kind of security in Bermuda. From 1989 to 2000 nothing was done. It was a PLP Gov-ernment, Mr. Speaker, that in a humanitarian gesture—they did not have to do it, in a humanitarian ges-ture—extended permanent residency to every sing le
person who was in Bermuda at the cut -off point when
the discretionary grant of Bermuda status was no longer provided for.
Our track record is consistent on the question
of human rights. Now, some of my Members are a little bit retrograde on one aspect of human rights and
we will deal with that in due course, Mr. Speaker .
[
Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Walton Brown: We will take care of that in due
course. I have not commented. I do not know why I
should feel guilty about something; I have not said
anything.
All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that fundamentally we are focused on defending and protecting the human rights of individuals in this country. We will continue to do so. This Act holds in abeyance any r eform or any change in the current Immigration Act until such time as the collaborative process can be con-ducted, carried out, and new legislative measures are brought before this Parliament for debate and for adoption, Mr. Speaker .


Bermuda House of Assembly So I look forward to a debate that is robust,
one which is based on fact, and hopefully we can
come to an understanding that there is nothing to
apologise for when you say Bermudians should come
first in their own country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Now, Member, Member, let us keep the
tone . . . let us keep the tone where it needs to be,
please.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: He said he did not want to
hear any diatribes, but I will try not to copy his example.
Just for one of the factual matters, he made a
number of factual errors. You know he spoke about no country in the world granting citizenship on the
grounds of connection and status, and that was completely wrong. Under the European Convention all the
countries that have signed up to the European Con-vention give a right to privacy and to family life. And if
you have a certain connection with a country, then
you do gain rights and a path to citizenship. And that
is throughout, certainly, throughout the European
community, so it is about 30 countries ri ght there. So it
is quite a standard practice. These are not people . . .
You know, he keeps making the mistake of referring
to we have to keep control of our borders and who we
let in. But you know we are talking about people who
were born here.

Hon. Wa lton Brown: Point of order.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: We are not talking about people who are strangers to us. The Speaker: Will you yield a minute on a point of
order from the Minister?
Minister.

POINT OF ORDER
[Misleading]

Hon. Walton Brown: The Honour able Member is misleading the House. I did make a single comment
about controlling our borders and being careful about
who we let in. I was very clear, and the Member needs to understand that. It is a question about what
rights and privileges you give to p eople who are here.

Just continue on and keep the tone
correct.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: The fact of the matter is that it
was this Member who, for the longest time, said there
should be no changes —no changes —to the Immigr ation Act without broad consultation. And he admitted, after he initially denied, but then he admitted that, yes, he was p art of the Immigration Working Group for a
year and a half. So there was consultation. Whatever
kerfuffle there was at the beginning, he was a central
part of that consultation. That Group was supposed to
produce some results in short order. It did not produce
very much. Now, they are going to report, I think he said, within a week, two weeks?

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: First of November.
[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thirty -first of October.
So we are dealing with this piece of legislation
today. Now, the people we are dealing with in this legislation, by and large people who registered for British
Overseas Territory Citizenship, are those people who
were born in Bermuda and spent the first 10 years of
their lives here. Now, one of the things that the committee was meant to deal with is people, children who
were born here or came here when they were young, and they were supposed to be making recommendations on that very group.
Now, the Honourable Minister is saying he
cannot wait from today until the 31
st of October. I think
it is the 20th today. So he cannot wait 11 days; it is too
important, we have to rush this piece of legislation through without waiting to see what that Group, which
he was on (I think he stepped off now, but the Group
426 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly which he was on) are recommending. I do not know
what the unseemly haste is all about. I understand the
position with the Tavares judgment, but the decision
of the Tavares judgment has been made, and it is not
a question about the l aw changing. There was a
judge’s ruling that defined what the rights are that go
with those conditions that people have, if they are registered as a British Overseas Territory citizen, et
cetera.
Now, it is that Honourable Member , that Mi nister, who brings all sorts of racial connotations in it
and beats his breast and says he is a great champion
of human rights and it is all about race and who is u nemployed and who is not unemployed. But it is really
just a straightforward matter of his own Statement that
he said that no changes should be made to the Imm igration Act without broad consultation.
Now, he came to the House on the 6th of October and he said to the House, “ This Bill represents
another phase in our next wave raft of immigration changes. ” That is what he said. He said it is part of
that broad review; but there has been no consultation
on it. So he has broken his own promise to this House
and the people of Bermuda because he will not wait
11 days.
Hon. Walton Brown: Point of order.

Thank you, Minister.
Honourable Member ?
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Well, yes, I think . . . you
know, at the beginning . . . this is what I . . . the Honourable Member did not speak to it too much, but, apparently, there was original, and he said broad consu ltation, is what he has insisted, across Bermuda. But
originally , apparently with this Bill, the Human Rights
Commission were given an idea of what he might be
doing. They told him they disapproved, and he said,
Well, I’m going ahead anyway. They had not seen the
Bill at that point.
Latterly we understand there has been some
meeting and there was a statement that was issued.
The statement itself to most Bermudians did not make
any sense because he said, Well, you can make representations; but I’m going ahead anyway. Now, I am
not quite sure. On the floor of the House he seems to
be saying that he views this as some sort of emergency measure, and then he will consider changing it. But
the difficulty with that is that this is such a broad and
sweeping change. Again, in a Statement that he made on the 6
th
of October, he said that “. . . the Bill seeks to exempt
the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956
from the primacy of the Human Rights Act 1981. ” That
is a broad and that is a sweeping statement. The H uman Rights Act 1981 will not apply in any way, shape or form t o the Immigration Act. That is pretty clear.
Anyone can understand that.
He then went on to say that any decisions
made under the Immigration Act will adhere to the Articles of the European Convention. But the Articles
of the European Convention are enshr ined in Berm uda law in the Human Rights Act, and he is specifically
saying we are not going to be bound by that. So he is
saying one thing and doing another, and it is pretty
plain here. And I think that the Government, to give
some sort of vague, reasonab le excuse for it, you
could say they are panicking over the Tavares dec ision.
Now, the Honourable Minister has been
known in the past to exaggerate somewhat. You know
going back to the 20B(2)(b) decisions for people who
were getting status under the Immigration Act, at that
time people in the PLP —now the Government —were
saying . . . some were saying, Oh, there could be
8,000 people, some were saying 12,000 people (some
of the Members on that side). And, of course, we were
saying the numbers were no such thing, they were much smaller, in the hundreds. I think eventually it
turned out to be about 800 people.
And I think, again today, you are seeing that
temptation that they fall prey to on their side of exag-gerating. Today he is talking about hundreds, and
then he says perhaps thousands. I think the fact of the
matter is that there may be, and the Honourable Mi nister can help here, there may be applications ou tstanding with the Department of Immigration for regi stration, as opposed to naturalisation. And I wo uld suspect that there was less than a hundred people . . . it
might be about 50 people.
But, again, everyone acts as if these people
are strangers to us, they are some sort of foreigners,
they are not part of our society. But these, in truth, are
people w ho were born in Bermuda and spent the first
10 years of their lives here in Bermuda. They are not
strangers to us. You know, they are not people who,
as someone said, pitched up on our beaches . . . you
know, illegal sort of refugees, or someone is talking
about migrants. You know, these are not migrants.
These are people who were born in Bermuda and lived here for the first 10 years of their life. They are
not these invading strangers who are threatening us
that we see put up as a straw man in the argument .
And quite frankly, I have been disappointed
that some of the human rights groups that we see out
there did not put up a bit of a stronger opposition than
we saw. I did not hear anything from the Centre for
Justice, although the Minister said he met priv ately
with Ms. Memari. I would have thought the people


Bermuda House of Assembly who were such strong champions of the European
Convention on Human Rights in general would have
had a little bit more backbone when they were consi dering this matter.
Now, that is not to say that there is not some
sympathy with the position that the Department and
the Minister find themselves in. And there was not just
one ruling; there were a string of rulings. Certainly,
while I was the Attorney General, I think we had the
case of Griffiths; we had the case of Barbosa (which
was won); and the case of Tavares. But that is the way the world is going. People are given broader
rights now, and that is just the way of the world.
You know, the Honourable Minister spoke to
services —functions versus services. But you know
that old idea that there was a big divide between Gov-ernment functions and services has gone out the wi ndow now. The new interpretation of the law by the j udiciary is that all of those things are services and they
fall under the remit of human rights. And that is why
the case was not appealed, because if we appealed,
we would have lost. There was no reasonable chance
of success. And people always ask, Well, why didn’t
you appeal this case, or why didn’t you appeal that
case? Well, because the best advice you received
was that if you appealed you were going to lose and it
was a pointless activity.
Now what has been suggested is that the Mi nister, if he took a little bit more time and if he wanted to retain control by the Immigration Department ov er
some of these aspects, he could do so and still be
within the realms of human rights. Because, you
know, as I think the Minister himself pointed out, ma ybe in his Statement on the 6
th of October, and perhaps
otherwise, that there are tests of reasonable ness wit hin the rights that are given in the Constitution. And so
what we are favouring on this side is that the exem ption which would be given under the Immigration Act,
would be more of a targeted exemption which would
have to stand up to a reasonablenes s test. So it was
not this broad blanket exemption from human rights
which, quite frankly, gives Bermuda a black eye internationally. It is just a bad way to operate.
And, you know, again, people have said, Oh,
well, you know, other countries control thei r immigr ation. Well, again, in the UK the exemptions for imm igration in the UK are narrow and targeted exemptions,
and there are these tests that the Government must
meet in order for them to exclude people, et cetera.
But it does not take away the Governm ent’s powers;
they can exercise them in appropriate cases.
So, Mr. Speaker , I hope that is not too em otional, but we feel the Government has gone down the
wrong path here. They reacted in a panic, and in our
view they should just wait to see, firstly, what the Immigration Working Group is recommending. Because right now you have people out there who have the right to work. And these are people who were born
here, lived here for the first 10 years of their life—that is a baseline requirement. But the truth i s a lot have
been living here their whole lives and at the moment
they are able to work and all of a sudden this passes
and they cannot work and what are they supposed to
do? Are we going—

Hon. Walton Brown: Point of order.

Thank you, Minister.
Member, continue.
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: That may be true. But the
point is, Mr. Speaker , that people who were in that
position wo uld now not be able to work. I mean in that
case he is saying it is subject to appeal.
[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Well, presumably there are
other people who are also in that position.

Well, just continue to speak to the
Chair. The Minister can answer when he gets up to do
his reply.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Anyway, Mr. Speaker , there
has been such undue haste with this matter that we
just urge the Minister to withdraw this, to rethink it. We
think it needs a much more targeted approach, and
428 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly that way he can meet his requirements under the E uropean Convention as well as achieve his objective.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Member.
Does any other Member wish to speak?
We recognise the Honourable Member from
constituency 36. Honourable Member Scott, you have
the floor.
Hon. Michael J. Scott: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I take an entirely different and diametrically
opposed view to the Shadow Attorney General and
Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Moniz. I do. This
is not a matter that we should be tip- toeing around.
And I want to commend the Minister of Home Affairs for the forthright device that he has deployed against the judicial activism that we have seen exhibited in this matter.
I have heard the Minister indicate that it is a
holding pattern. I wish to commend to the Minister that this position ought never to change, no matter how much consultation or findings of the Working Group, because this is, as the Minister indicated, returning
the policy of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection
Act back to its normal parameters. It is a protection Act that has had legacy experience of protecting this country. And indications that there should be some equivalency, indicated by the Shadow Attorney [Ge neral], between large states such as the United Kin gdom linked with the European Union, are false equiv alents, as the Minister properly pointed out that small states are entitled to take a more restrictive approach.
Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity to
refer to the case of Tavares. And may I just for Hansard indicate that under the sub judice rule if the matter being discussed is under adjudication, but relates to a matter which the Minister is bringing, then we can discuss it with your discretion. And this precisely falls into the category. Tavares is precisely wrapped around and intertwined with today’s amendment to
section 8.
[
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr., Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair]
Hon. Michael J. Scott: So, the other reasons for this
matter being both important nationally [and internationally] is that when the Human Rights Act, Mr. Dep uty Speaker, was first promulgated and passed in this House in 1981, even at its section 29 (in its original manifestation) it contained restrictions. It was not an open- ended affair.
With your permission, it speaks to the basic
human rights paradigm that in any proceedings before a court —and it is always the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeal, it does not . . . the jurisdiction of the
lower courts, Magistrate’s Court, do not apply. And proceedings in the Supreme Court under the Human Rights Act, or otherwise, the Supreme Court may declare any provision of law to be inoperative, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the extent that it authorises or requires the doing of anything prohibited by the Human Rights
Act—and here are the operative words —unless such
provision expressly declares that it operates notwit hstanding this Act .
So that is the first “unless” provision contained
in the Human Rights Act itself that challenged the pr imacy that was necessary under the Human Rights Act
to allow our Supreme Court to declare all statutes that offend against the Human Rights Act to be inoper ative, unless, of course (says section [29] in the original
Act), the Act that is seeking to breach human rights.
[That section] says that it is expressly inapplicable and so can continue to allow these human rights to be abridged. So it begins in 1981. And in 1981, oddly, the primacy provision, Mr. Speaker , at s ection 30A . . .
you know there was a 30, and now 30A was only
added, Mr. [Deputy ] Speaker , in 1993. And the prim acy provision repeats, a new declaration of the primacy
of the Human Rights Act. And, with your permission, may go to that?
And so we have got it being restated. I am not
quite sure why section 29 did not cover it or kick it, but [section] 30A in 1993 . . . we should try and understand what was happening in the country in 1993 to understand why there was this reinforcement in 1993 with [section] 30A being inserted into the Act. So [sections] 30A and 30B are entitled . . . in fact, it is 30B for
the record. [Section] 30A is for an “Annual report,” [section] 30B is “the Primacy of this Act.” And it says:
“[(1)] Where a statutory provision purports t o
require or authorise conduct that is a contravention of anything in Part II” (of this Act —the Human Rights
Act—then) “this Act prevails.”
So again, the primacy of the Human Rights
Act 1993, those three words, “this Act prevails” when-ever any Act seeks to breach or introduce conduct contrary to human rights, “this Act prevails.” So there is the primacy provision. But here is an important
word, Mr. [Deputy ] Speaker , yet another “unless” occurs in 1993, “. . . this Act prevails unless —(a) the
statutory provision specifically provides that the stat utory provision is to have effect notwithstanding this
Act.”
This is where the Minister of Home Affairs has
indicated that Judge Hellman in the Tavares case r egarded this as not applying —remarkable judicial acr obatics—and—

Member, let us try to stay away
from the Tavares case.
Hon. Michael J. Scott: Mr. [Deputy ] Speaker , I hear
you, but that is why . . . and I will respect that. But Mr.
[Deputy ] Speaker , so that we get it in Hansard, “A
matter awaiting” . . . and with your permission I am reading “Matters pending judicial decisions.”


Bermuda House of Assembly “A matter awaiting or under adjudication by a
court of law should not be brought before the House
by a motion or otherwise. Subject to the discretion of
the Chair” ( yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker) “reference
may be made to matters awaiting or under adjudic ation in civil courts insofar as they relate to certain mi nisterial decisions or concern certain issues of national
importance.”
So, I will try . . . I will not —

Yes.

Hon. Michael J. Scott: —because I was alive to the
sub judice.
But, Mr. [Deputy ] Speaker , the “unless” prov ision in the 1993 Amendment is clear in that it intr oduces “unless the statutory provision specifically pr ovides that the statutory provision is to have effect notwithstanding this Act,” (the Human Rights Act), and it
goes further, “or the statutory provision is listed in Schedule 2 [of the Human Rights Act] as a statutory
provision that is to have effect notwithstanding this
Act.”
Now, if we look at today’s Human Rights Act,
there is a Schedule 2. And there are a number of i nsertions in there, from the Companies Act to the Transport Act, to the Bermuda Immigration and Pr otection Act. All of those are out of scope and will have
operative effect, notwithstanding the fact that they
may abridge human rights.
So the point one is making is that even in the
original Human Rights Act, in its original manifestation
the carve out for primacy being restricted, or primacy
being deflected, is there. And now th e Minister comes
today because of this case to put primacy on the third
time, but it is more expressed and it is necessary, it is positively necessary. If it did not occur, Mr. [Deputy ]
Speaker , the concept of “restricted person,” which is
so central to th e Bermuda Immigration and Protection
Act . . . “restricted person” would become meaningless. Surely, as responsible Bermudians that is not the
direction, notwithstanding all of the arguments, s ophisticated as they were, by the Shadow Attorney
General. Surely we have to recognise that gutting the
Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act of the ap-plicability of “restricted persons” makes no sense for
all of the reasons contained in the Minister’s brief.
And so I do not dance around section 8 as
being something that we should ever hope to revisit
as returning to where this case has said it ought to be
allowed to go. These kinds of restrictions in a country
this size, as we have seen from the implications of jobs, unemployment, schooling, needs to be in place
forever. Unless, of course, we recover and reclaim
massive amounts of land and resources and more
tourists so that the economy absorbs these kinds of
contemplated expansions of people and job takers. So it does keep us to the status quo.
Mr. [Deputy ] Speaker , can I turn now to the
question of further justification, if I may put it that way, to what we are seeking to do here today? Can I just
turn to the principle of judicial restraint? Now, judicial
restraint is the very polar opposite of judicial activism. Again, with your permission: “Judicial restraint is a
procedural or substantive approach to the exercise of
judicial review. As a procedural doctrine, the principle
of restraint urges judges to refrain from deciding legal
issues, and especially constitutional ones, unless the decision is necessary to the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties. ”
And these are the really operative words: “As
a substantive one, it urges judges considering const itutional questions to grant substantial deference to the views of the elected branches and invalidate their ac-tions only when constitutional limits have clearly been
violated. ”
“Compare judicial activism” . . . the polar opposite. This occurs when . . . judicial activism is the
dynamic process of judicial outlook in a changing s ociety—the US [historian] Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. intr oduced the term “judicial activism” in 1947.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary , judicial
activism is a judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from the traditional precedents in favour
of progressive and new policies. Judicial restraint is a
theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges
to limit the exercise of their own power . . . it asserts
that judges should hesitate to strike down . . . I beg
your pardon—I have now gone onto judicial restraint.
So, those are the two contrasting legal co ncepts and it has brought the Minister of Home Affairs, the Government, the people of Bermuda, by extension, into a direct head- on-head collision with judi cial
activism, which is having an important negative i mpact. And I accept the Minister of Home Affair’s indic ation that it can affect hundreds to thousands of cases.
I have understood that. And it is all being driven by an
equally active member of the Bar who is prepared to
take up this in relation to companies, under the Companies Act, or wherever.
The country must always be in a position to
restrict persons who are neither Bermudian . . . by just
simply making it necessary for there to be controls
through work permits. What was remarkable in this
Tavares case, with your permission, was the interplay
between the ins istence that there be complete, unrestricted right to work. And as the Minister of Home
Affairs has indicated, we need people to be working in
the country. It helps the economy. And far from what
the Shadow Attorney General was saying that it is
going to prevent people from being in Bermuda, it is
430 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly only going to prevent them from working unrestricte dly. It is going to stop them so that the Minister knows
from one moment to the next, one week to the next,
who is on the work job rolls so that he can manage the policy of putting Bermudians’ rights properly into context when they are bidding for . . . that is what it is about and that is why we should have the restrictions
maintained.
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker , one thing that Mr. Moniz also said, which was entirely wrong . . . this case
was assigned . . . the participants in it were assigned
British Overseas Territories status, and in cons equence of the applicant being born in Bermuda—not a
Bermudian, no parent Bermudian. And Government
House, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker , is the authority which
grants naturalisation. And we all understand that this was another requirement. And yet, Government House was supporting (I think it was former Minister,
the Opposition Leader and now this Minister) by not
granting naturalisation, having had the applicant apply
for it, because they were not compliant with the cat egories contained in the Constitution. And Mr. Moniz did not mention that. And the Constitution provisions that the applicants in the case did not satisfy in order
to qualify for naturalisation where found at [Schedule
2, Chapter 1] 11(5) of our Constitution.
So, the qualifications were that one of the
parents . . . defines a person as belonging to Bermuda and a person is deemed to belong to this country, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker , if they possess Bermuda status,
are a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the grant of Governor by Certificate of Nat uralisat ion, are the wife of a person to whom either of
the foregoing paragraphs apply, are under the age of 18 as the child or step- child, et cetera. So, Gover nment House was supporting by inaction the Minister’s
position. And it no doubt was taking the view that it
was awaiting the outcome of the Minister’s policy ha ving found that the Minister found that the decision in
Tavares was one that was under review. Yet, the find-ing of the court in this case was that the delay was so
long that even the waiting to assign naturalisation to
the applicant was unlawful. More judicial activism,
more judicial acrobatics, in my submission.
So, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker , the critical point of
today’s amendment is that it is reinforcing that which was already in the Human Rights Act, as should be in
any sensible legislation. You give rights, but you qual ify it; just as it is qualified in our Constitution. You have
the right not to discriminate, save when it is possible to be accepted, in order to make sure that a civilised and democratic society . . . that is the provision, I am doing it off of . . . civilised and democratic society d emands that there be some abridgement ––acts of
emergency, acts of national importance, make it nec-essary that the constitutionally protected rights do not prevail when those conditions apply.
It is normal legislative drafting. It is wise draf ting. And what the Minister today is doing is drafting in the face of judicial activism, driven to this point when
the Act itself had incorporated in it the provisos, and
so I commend the Minister. There should be no apol-ogy for it. There should be no departing from it ever.
Legacy legislators in this House introduced
the Immigration and Protection Act in the context of a country that is 20 square miles long with a fixed population that has to be protected. It did so by introducing concepts of aliens. The word morphed into “restricted persons,” and it would send the wrong signal for the judicial branch to interpret the Human Rights Act in a manner, in the context of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act, in a manner that we are now being
caused to introduce an amendment to put beyond
paraventure the primacy of the power of the Minister
to control the working of restricted persons in our country.
It is a matter of public importance. It is a matter that is essential. And if sirens who say that we are
bringing the human rights world to a complete death
and end would just stop and think, or if they would read the original context of their very own Act on which they rely for their defence, they will see that in the Act itself these restraints, these provisos, are
there against the primacy of the Act.
And, of course, no one can challenge this
Minister of Home Affairs for his adherence and championing of all of the rights under the Human Rights Act
in our country. No one can do it. This is a remarkably different case that departs into a narrow rabbit hole of
unrestricted permission to—unrestricted right to—
reside and seek employment in this country for two persons who heretofore have no parent who is Ber-mudian, no grandparent who is Bermudian, who are not Commonwealth citizens, and it goes straight to the heart of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act.
It drives a coach and six through it, and this is why
this should be mi nisterial activism —or just wisdom —to
bring the matter back to base and to normalcy.
It is proportionate action. It is reasonable action. But it is also imperative and necessary action.

Thank you, Honourable Member, from constituency 36, Mr. Scott.
Just want to remind all those in the Gallery, if
you can put your phones on vibrate, we would certai nly appreciate that.
Any further speakers? The Chair recognises
the Opposition Leader, Ms. Pamplin.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
[Deputy] Speaker . . . that is Ms. Gordon- Pamplin.

Ms. who?
[
Laughter]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Gordon- Pamplin.


Bermuda House of Assembly You know, I think, initially, when I heard that
earlier today I thought it was a mistake and an oversight. But now I am beginning to get a complex about
it. I am a “Gordon,” irrespective of what others might want to hold on to.
Anyway, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, it falls to me to
respond and to give some observations with respect
to the amendment that we have before us today
which, in essence, is a Bill which is taking the Imm igration and Protection Act outside of the Human Rights Act.
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, the Minister, in his
presentation earlier, indicated that one of the reasons
for taking the steps that he is taking today is effectiv ely to put a holding position on an egregious challenge
that had its genesis, perhaps under the previous administration, where the judgment actually came down .
. . I think I actually inherited that judgment when I sat in the seat that he now holds. So, I am sensitive and
understanding of what it is that he was attempting to
do.
But let me just say that to do something that is
just putting us in a holding position is effectively acknowledging, and listening to the Minister’s further
comments that he will take amendments later and,
you know, has committed to acting on such amendments as time goes on. What that really is saying is that we are rushing to create bad law that we know to
be bad law —

Hon. Walton Brown: Point of clarification, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker. Just for the purposes of elucidation —

Mm-hmm.

POINT OF ELUCIDATION
Hon. Walton Brown: The amendment has been thoroughly and carefully assessed and analysed. We
have come to the conclusion that it is the appropriate
time to do and will have no long- term implications for
the violations of anyone’s human rights.
The undertaking I gave to the Human Rights
Commission [HRC] and to the Centre for Justice is
that even though we have not seen any potential for
abuse and human rights abuses, we are prepared to ascertain and assess any weaknesses or any unfai rness that they find. We have undertaken a careful r eview and assessment. But we are giving the opportunity to two highly respected organisations to be able
to bring forward to us and our attention any issues
that they may come up with. But we have done a proper and due diligence on this matter.

The Deputy Speak er: Thank you, Minister.
Carry on.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. The Honourable Minister, as I said, has given his presentations. And the way it has come
across is that we need to hurry to get this in place.
And he made mention of a specific case for which the
decision was passed down and for which this is one of the methodologies by which to close such a loophole. And, as I said, I understand.
What this Bill is doing in taking the Immigr ation and Protection Act outside of the Human Rights
amendment caused incredible consternation in the
community. We heard from all manner of interested
persons, not least of whom were the Human Rights Commission (or people representing them), which
basically said, Minister, withdraw the B ill. And why
would that have been the approach that they would
have taken? Because there was nothing, obviously, in
the communication —if there was any between the
Minister and the Human Rights Commission—that
gave them comfort to say that this was not undermi ning the authority that we had as Human Rights Commissioners in trying to pass this Bill.
Now that, to my mind, would have been a re latively simple and simplistic approach to even just pick up the phone and say this is what we want to do.
Have sufficient consultation to say what the intent was and thereby diminish the anxiety that came from, not
just the Human Rights Commission, that came from,
you know . . . there is a litany of other people who
were headlined talking about, you know, diminishing Human Rights Act could open doors to abuse. The
Minister has told us today that that was not the intent.
We saw campaigners oppose the Immigration
Act; Human Rights amendment will destroy basic
rights. These are the anxieties that the Minister, by
virtue of the approach that he had taken, created in the community to have that kind of response.
Now, the Minister also said that, you know, he
has been an advocate of human rights, and I support
that position, for the most part. Perhaps he is more
progressive than a lot of his colleagues in other areas
in terms of supporting human rights. So, I applaud him
for his stance that he has taken and the reputation
that he has developed for himself in that regard. But
as he spoke to the importance of embracing and cr eating policy that . . . or, the laws, immigration laws,
ought not to be changed without full consultation (which was effectively the statement that he made in
January, I believe it is, of 2017), and then to table a
Bill that says in two weeks’ time we are going to take
this up and, as he said, they were going to pass it. And, yes, they will pass it, because they said, You
know, 24 will beat 12 any day and any way you count.
I am an accountant. I am an accountant and I can fi gure that much out.
But wherein lies t he protest? Because when
the Minister speaks to—
[Inaudible interjections]

432 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I said, the protests
that came in the headlines, in the newspaper headlines, and the reactions that have come from people at large. Wherein lies that? And that is because —
[
Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon- Pamplin: I hear Members
opposite saying manufactured. It is not manufactured.
When people have legitimate concerns . . . because
those concerns do not tie with what you are attempt-ing to do. It means one of two things: (1) either you do
not care; or (2) you have not explained it well enough
to defuse the anxiety that might exist. And what I am saying . . . and I am not listening to the Honourable Member , but what I am saying here is that under this
circumstance that is what has happened.
Now, the Minister said earlier, you know, we
want to have good immigration reform, and we embrace everybody, and we want to reach out and have
a bipartisan committee. Now, what I find interesting is
there is a lot of ex post facto behaviour that I have
seen by the Honourable Minister, because the Human
Rights Commission, who a week ago, or 10 (whenever it was) said, Withdraw the Bill, Minister . And, then,
the next headline was that the Minister has invited the Human Rights Commissioners (or their represent atives) to sit on a committee such that we can have this
hold- hands -and-sing-Kumbaya moment so that we
can come up with something that is appropriate.
Now, had that been done prior to, then you
could understand that we would not have the anxiety
that has existed in the community. What we saw sub-sequently is the position taken . . . and the Minister said he is going to invite the HRC to sit on this com-mittee that he is putting together, this bipartisan committee. What I have not seen . . . and I would certainly
question their position. Have they had a rethink about their request to the Minister to withdraw the Bill?
Sitting on the committee is basically saying, I
will placate you. You have asked me to withdraw the
Bill. I am not going to allow you to embarrass me in public by asking me to withdraw something, so I will help to placate you by saying you come and sit on the committee and we will listen to you for further down the road.
Now, I do know the way in which these cases
appear on the Minister’s desk, because I have had the benefit and the privilege of sitting in that seat. The Minister would know now how many cases he has on his desk awaiting some kind of decision that would cause this urgency to have to be enforced today. There may be 10 cases, there may be 20 cases, Minister. There may be none!
There may be none.
So, if the Minister knows that within a 10- day
period of time there are going to be recommendations in respect of work that has been done by a committee, of which he was an integral part, and that they will be reporting to him, would it not have been in good co nsultative taste to be able to say , I will give you the
benefit of coming to report to me on October 31, and
as a result of those reports, given that I have zero cases on my desk that are going to impact this par-ticular legislation and its immediacy for being effective, that maybe we can go forward together and have
a good consultative process and in the short term ensure that whatever legislation comes gives comfort to
the community that this is not something that is being rushed only to be changed later on.
And I say that that position that the Honour able Minister has adopted . . . I have seen it in action i n
other areas. We spoke of . . . the Minister spoke earl ier of a bipartisan consultative; let everybody get t ogether on this. And then he said that he had invited members to sit on a committee, the bipartisan commi ttee, and the Minister will know . . . we have had ex-changes on this because as the Leader of the Oppos ition, the Minister chose members from my team to sit on this committee and did not have the courtesy to send me either . . . or pick up the phone as . . . the
Deputy Premier picked up the phone one day, called
me up and said, Minister, we are going to do a
ABCXYZ, I just wanted to make you aware. You
know, I am not difficult. But, when you are asking our
Members to sit on a bipartisan committee, at the very least, you would have the courtesy and the decency to say, you know, Leader —
Hon. Walton Brown: Point of clarification —
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon- Pamplin: —would you
mind? I am going to give you credit. Give me two sec-onds, if you will. If you will . . .
So, I pointed that out to the Honourab le Minister. And he came back at me and he said, Opposition
Leader, I apologise that protocol was not followed .
Now, this was maybe —
[
Inaudible interjection ]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: And you said . . . I
can tell you exactly what you said.
You apologised. You said protocol was not
followed. And he also said that I was not the only one
whom he slighted in that regard, that he had not . . .
that he had a similar admonishment from the Premier because he had not told him either in terms of the Member s that he had chosen from the Government
side. So, basically, he was an equal opportunity dis -
respecter (is what he was saying). And, you know, that is what he said.
So, when you see that happening and then
the HRC comes along and they are the holders of things relating to human rights and they themselves did not have that —the decency of that early advice —
they might start to wonder if this is this a pattern that
says, Oh, I will do what I wish to do. You know? I think


Bermuda House of Assembly the expression says it is better to as k for forgiveness
than for permission. So, these are the kinds of things
that make you question the genuineness of the e mbrace of a consultative process and herein lies some of the anxiety.
When I first saw this and I saw . . . you know,
as I said, the HR C has not come out and said, I withdraw my comments with respect to asking that the
Minister withdraw the Bill. They have not, publicly. I do
not know whether they have done in their communic ation with the Minister, but they certainly have not publicly sta ted that their initial reaction was perhaps over -
reactive and, therefore, they have changed their
minds and, therefore, now support the Minister. All I
see that has happened is that they have said, Yes,
thank you, we will sit on your committee. But we stil l
think that what is out there is that the HRC did not
want the Minister to proceed with this Bill.
Now, whether . . . you know, the Minister will
do it because that is what he feels that he must do. But I think that when we have legislation that is so broad-based and is so all -encompassing as to create
that level of anxiety, in the absence of people banging
down the door to indicate that this is another case and another and another and another that we need to r eact on immediately , then I think that it does not hurt to
pause. It does not hurt to really embrace and speak
with the people who have expressed concern and to
say, I hear you. I hear you and I am genuinely concerned about allaying any fears that may have existed as a result of my actions that I hav e chosen to take.
So, that is where we were coming from on this, Mr.
[Deputy] Speaker.
The situation . . . I do not need to go into the
technicalities of it because I believe that my honour able colleague, the Shadow Attorney General, has
done it very succ inctly. But the issues that gave rise to
this particular case were such that it could have
opened a Pandora’s box. And the manner in which . . .
and what I find really quite interesting (I have to say
this), is that the Minister mentioned in his presentati on
that this was something that came down under the
previous Minister, because the Minister said no, you
will not be able to stay here without . . . or free of i mmigration control, and the parties chose to appeal. Okay? To hear the Government —the now Gover nment —tell it, when we were in the Government, Oh,
they let everybody come through our borders; there
were no controls. They did what they liked, and they
do not care about Bermudians . But this is actually . . .
this proves that there was a “no.” There was a no that
gave rise to a Supreme Court application to overturn the Minister’s decision.

[Inaudible interjections]

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: This shows right
here. So, it does not, you know —
[Inaudible interjections]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Well, we lost the
election, so now it is your turn to do that. So, it is e ntirely up to you.
But, what is interesting is that, you know, you
cannot have it both ways. So, if you are going to crit icise, criticise. The Honourable Minister sai d som ething that is absolutely 100 per cent accurate. That is,
when you are going to present, present with facts. So,
do not come on the one hand and say we rubber -
stamped everything that came before us to allow all
and sundry to come through the flood gat es and now,
Oh, but the Minister said no, and therefore it has led
to an appeal and now we have to close that loophole. So, it shows that actually the system works. The sy stem works.
Now, the Minister spoke about some of the
challenges that befall and bes et Bermudians who are
negatively impacted by some immigration issues and the things that happened within the immigration . . .
the rules as they exist. The Minister mentioned things like annual pay (this is from the study, the statistical
study), annual pa ying jobs fell and benefits offered.
But I have had words with the Minister again to say,
Watch some of the things when you criticise publicly ,
or when you make public statements make sure that
you are not exposing yourself to doing the same
things for which you are now making public criticism.
Because there is evidence to the contrary.
It is fine to say that we are champions of Bermuda and Ber mudian rights, and yet, there are things
that are going on that contradict that assertion. So, I just simply say for the sake of clarity that the Minister
cannot make a blanket statement for things that have
obviously still not been properly rectified in t erms of
how his Government and how he has approached new immigration policy.
Now, all I say is that a lot of the things we do
can have unintended consequences. And all I can say is that, you know, but for a chronological sequence,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I w ould not be here because my
father was not Bermudian— was not born, had no
Bermudian ties when he came to this Island. And notwithstanding the challenges that he faced when he came he was resolute and he remained. And I am
here, much, perhaps, to your chagr in, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. But that is okay.

[Laughter]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I understand. And
I am willing to accept that.
So, the Honourable Member might say I probably just made the case; I have just made the case for
enhancing immigration c ontrols. However . . . however, the Honourable Member would have to know none
of us have to go too far back.
434 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly So, we want to make sure that when we talk
about . . . and, you know, I was very heartened and
very warmed this morning to have listened to the
Honourable Minister Caines when he spoke about the
people who were honoured this morning by the J amaican community and the impact that they have had on our society. [So I want to make sure] that we do
not conflate what we feel about foreign workers and
then somehow have a dichotomy of our opinion in
terms of the benefit that they bring to the country, be-cause I do not believe that my dad would have had the privilege of being a National Hero, or that my fam ily would have had the privilege of knowing that my
father has been considered a National Hero if he
brought nothing to the table.
So, there are times, because we want to pr otect in a newer and more modern society, that we
want to be able to ensure that our people are looked
out for. That is not dissimilar f rom what was obtained
while, certainly, I sat at that desk.
So, I would just like for the Government and
for the Minister to appreciate the fact that when we
have situations such as these which have created the
angst that this has caused, such that the w atchdogs of
the organisation that you are excluding from the pr ocess felt as though they were anxious , and in the absence of any of a plethora of outstanding cases on his
desk that the cure has to be immediate and today, I
do not believe it hurts to take a moment to wait until
the end of October to consider what his committee will
bring, whether their recommendations are going to be part and parcel of a combined attitude of reform.
The Minister says this is not changing an ything; this is just moving the Im migration Act from here
to the Human Rights Act and it is putting it here. But
when people do not get that message, then something
has failed in the communication. So, I would simply
ask that the Minister reconsider the urgency of getting
this done today i n light of . . . unless he is able to say
that there are another dozen, half dozen, cases or whatever sitting on his desk to be adjudicated on this
particular issue.
I would just say that when we talk about numbers and, you know, the people born in Bermuda who
have non- Bermudian parents that the very nature of
immigration is that it is discriminatory. And, you know,
this is a comment that was made by the Premier to
the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers
(ABIR) in the early part of the week. And I have spoken about that meeting that he had earlier on. So, the nature of immigration is that it is meant to be discrim inatory. Therefore, you have the right to say, Yes, you
can come into my borders, or, No, you cannot come
into my borders . So, that, by its very nature, is discri minatory. But you do not want to create anxiety for your
people who live here.
You do not want for people who . . . we are
not talking about brand new people coming across the borders. We are talking about people who have been here—some of them their entire lives. Some of them
have made requests to be able to operate outside of the immigration control, and I have said no. Clearly,
the Minister has had opportunity to say no, because
the circumstances can be looked at to be determi ned
that there is nothing that is special about that case
that gives people the right to remain outside of imm igration control.
So, I do not see that there is anything wrong
while we are formulating good law, rather than hasty
Bills passing that may or m ay not require additional
changes somewhere down the road that are coming
anyhow, that the Minister says that he is open to accepting that, I think there is nothing wrong, in my estimation, to ensuring that we are not using a sledg ehammer to crack a nut.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Foggo from St. George’s .
. . St. David’s.
Hon. Lovitta F. Foggo: Thank you, Mr. [Deputy]
Speaker. I have to rise on this particular piece of legi slation because of all of the ramifications that it will ultimately have and because of the mandate tha t we
were given as a PLP Government when we were elected.
Now, let me just say this. I want to
acknowledge . . . and I accept some of the concerns
that have been raised by the Honourable Member
who just took her seat. I think that some of them are
valid. However, I can also say that before we became
the Government the issue of immigration was som ething that was very live and something that we spent much time considering as an Opposition group. So,
when my Honourable Member who is responsible for
the piece of immigration that is coming to the floor
today says that it was not something that was decided as a quick fix, or was not without much consideration,
he is speaking the truth. And I think that every Member who sits on this side of the floor can speak to that.
What has been advanced earlier with some of
the comments made is, historically, basically what immigration powers deal with . . . and I think ever yone, on both sides of the House and the listening a udience, understands that basically immigration ver y
much deals with the national sovereignty. Immigration
very much deals with the ability to decide who are n ationals and which nationals can come and reside wit hin our jurisdictions. That is not a question which is on the table.


Bermuda House of Assembly Let me say this before I c ontinue down that
vein. The works of the Human Rights Commission . . .
I think we all benefit from what that organisation does.
I do not think that anybody can speak in any sort of
negative terms in terms of what the Human Rights Commission brings to the t able. Our Minister has undertaken to work with the Human Rights Commission
to ensure that whatever suggestions, if you will, will be
greatly considered in terms of how certain things, going forward, take place. But, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker,
what is important here today is making certain that, as
has been stated, and based on the mandate that we
were given, we put Bermudians first. And that is what
we are seeking to do when we do this.
I do not think there is anyone, at least on this
side, who will say, with w hat I am about to say next . .
. will disagree that most of the people that I encounter,
most Bermudians, born and bred, that I encountered
when on the doorstep before the election and even
now after the election are concerned about the birt hright of their children and grandchildren. When there
are policies in place that, from where many of them
sit, seemingly have caused Bermudians to be di splaced, especially when we speak about in the wor kforce. So, as I continue to canvass, Mr. [Deputy]
Speaker, that is amongst some of the first things that
are continued to be expressed to me from my consti tuents and people who I pass on the street in terms of what our remit is and what their expectations are as
constituents for this Government to get correct.
And I woul d think that in any jurisdiction those
who are born, bred, or whether, they are status Ber-mudians, that they have the right to enjoy first the rights that they should enjoy as dependent territory
citizens —in Bermuda, anyway —or citizens of Berm uda.
So, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker . . . and I wanted to
emphasise that because in real talk there are many Bermudians who today because of displacement in
the workforce and because they have seen (and st atistic reports have borne true) that when jobs were
rising for expat workers in Bermuda, jobs were being
lost for Bermudians. We cannot ignore those types of statistics and as a Government if we are talking about
ensuring a stable economy as a Government, if we
are talking about creating a fairer playing field, as a Government. If we are t alking about getting things
right for our people then we must create the right
framework as a jurisdiction that allows and encourages that, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker .
We are not trying to create a situation, if you
will, that discounts those who come to our shore and provide services. We are trying to ensure that we cr eate an environment that is fair for all who reside here
in Bermuda with Bermudians coming first, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker . So this legislation that is being put in
place is just one mechanism that is going to be ut ilised to try and ensure that this does happen be cause
we cannot forget, we cannot dismiss that certain things that we have seen play out in the community at
large in terms of findings and certain court cases, for
whatever the reasons, we know what certain loopholes exist. We know what is there in play. And we
have to fix it. It is our responsibility to ensure that we get things like that correct, and not just for any one
particular group but for everyone.
Every single country through its im migration
laws has set up a situation that provides protections for its citizens first. I think that is the prudent thing to
do as a jurisdiction, for us to do the same. We cannot be apologetic about what it appears that we are trying
to do in the best int erest of this society as a whole. It
is something that must be done. We understand that
for some, they may see it as a device used to disadvantage them. But that is not what we are guided by.
We are guided by doing the right thing for all the pe ople we ser ve. We are guided by ensuring that our
children and our grandchildren are protected. We see
it as being our responsibility to ensure such, Mr.
[Deputy] Speaker.
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, I never intended to
speak long, but I did want to bring it right back t o the
real reason why we are here today. And we are here
today to create a level, fair playing field that recogni ses the rights of Bermudians. Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, I
know there are those in the public domain—and you
have heard me say this before in this H onourable
House— who have questioned what a Bermudian is.
Well, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, I am a Bermudian. And I
am here to say that we as Bermudians have the right to set up our immigration laws for the protection of the people we serve. We were voted in plac e to do that,
and that is what we are doing, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker .
And on that note, I will take my seat.

Thank you, the Honourable
Member from constituency 3, Ms. Foggo.
Any further speakers? We recognise the Deputy Premier, Walter Roban. You have the floor, sir.
Hon. Walter H. Roban: Thank you very much, Mr.
[Deputy] Speaker.
You know, it is very interesting, the so- called
discussion that has emerged around this amendment,
for a number of reasons. Let me firstly say before I get
into that discussion that I wholly support the Minister
in his efforts to bring this Bill. I wholly support the r ationale that the Minister has put forth publicly around
the need to bring this Bill because, as has just been
eloquently stated by the Honoura ble Member who sits
in constituency 3, this Government was elected with a
mandate to put Bermudians first, to create an env ironment for a fairer and better Bermuda. Those two statements are very clear, and support around that is
also extremely clear.
Additionally, it behoves the PLP as a party
based on its very history having been founded to ad-dress injustice, inequality, a situation in this country
436 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly where black people, poor people, people who were
not white (those privileged and seen to be the benef iciaries of the wealth of the country and the opportunities of the country), men and women were discrim inated against. It is a party that was founded as its core mission to address these issues and find ways to ensure that people would be elected to the legislat ure
who can bring about change on these very key areas during a time when it was a lot more apparent on these inequalities, and championing the efforts to deal with these issues on an ongoing basis. It is a part of the party’s core mission. So, it would ha ve been unnatural for the Progressive Labour Party to have not
brought this Bill.
When you look at the environment that has
required this Bill to be laid, it is an environment that
has taken a piece of legislation . . . and let us be clear. It has always been the intention of the Progressive Labour Party to see that we have substantive imm igration reform. It is a position the party has taken con-tinuously over the last four years. Every opportunity hammered that position, substantive immigration r eform on the Immigration Protection Act 1956.
This Act, it has been recognised, even in its
current form is strained to provide the protection and the support that many Bermudians desire. It has in the past been used as a tool to convey injustice, to oper-ate an unjust system against black people, against poor people, people who were striving for opportunity in the country. Seeing the Act and the mechanism of
the Act used to bypass what should have been just
and fair practices, the Act itself has been used in that way. So, here we are now some . . . 1956 is a long
time ago. The Act was drafted for a different circum-stance that Bermuda was in. It is strained even in its current operation to do what is required.
So, here we are. Over a number of years we
saw successive court actions literally pulling the rug
out of what protections are left in the Immigration and Protection Act of 1956. That is the environment that we have faced. The courts, and those who sought to
influence the courts, have literally been pulling the r ug
out of what protections are left. In the meantime, there
is a call for reform. And that level of chaos around this Act got so severe, we had people circling this House to stop policies and Acts within this Legislature that they felt would jeopardise their lives and their future.
So, here we have it. We have an Act, the
principal Act, that itself, as I say again, is strained to convey and ensure the protections which it should be providing to its population, as has already been stated by the Honourable Minister and others. It is the right of every sovereign country —whether it be a colony like
we are or a full sovereign nation—to protect its cit izens through policies and laws that ensure that their lives and their quality of life, and those who are part of
the community will be able to move forward and pros-per with a sense of safety and security —and identity.
That is the universal purpose of immigration law, to discriminate and distinguish actions that will promote
those activities for their citizens and do what is necessary to do that, even if it runs awry of certain understanding and practises.
I am not condoning anything that is not in
practice with international law or international stan dards. But immigration law, as has been said, by its
nature is discriminatory. It decides that the people
who have been identified as the citizens or those at-tached to that community shall have greater protection than those who are not, in entry and in conduct within that jurisdiction —whether it be in the purchase of land ,
getting jobs, and other general activities. Immigration
law governs that, and that is international. That is in
every country.
Now, let us be clear. It is not perfect. We see
around the world that the question of immigration is tearing many ideas of national identity apart because countries are grappling and wrestling with this issue.
So, in many ways we are not any different from the
other 200- plus jurisdictions around the planet, and no
one should act like we are. We see what is happening in Europe. We see what is happening in North Amer ica around the questions of immigration, which at this
point threaten to severely damage the stability of the
European Union. That one question alone, you know.
Okay, forget about the recession and all the
other economi c issues. That one question alone for
the European Union—and let us not even talk about Brexit; that is just a totally different creature altoget her—is bringing serious instability as countries seek to
grapple with it. And sometimes it is the grappling that manifests certain occurrences that are not even in the country’s interest, as we have seen with the rise of far-right sort of organisations politically questioning
certain civil rights and liberties that have been seen to
be natural within the space of a society.
Immigration is an issue of great emotion, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. It brings about anxiety. It brings
about concern. It brings about fear, and every country is struggling to manage it. So we are no different. And
no one should park up in this House, or outside this
House, and suggest somehow we are doing som ething that is so unusual. Really, it is the desire to e nsure protections for the citizens of Bermuda, for those residents here who . . . this is their country. They have nowhere else to go. They desire economic, social o pportunity for themselves and their children, and a Government taking a measure to make sure that ha ppens is somehow unusual? Of course not.
Now, when it comes to the question of this Bill
(for the benefit of the listening public, the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Amendment (No. 2) Act
2017) and what it desires . . . I hope that it is understood at least by what I am saying that the process that we are going through with this Bill is natural. It is a requirement, because it is a universal requirement of any Government to ensure that it is protecting its citizens and their interests, and putting them first. And


Bermuda House of Assembly any law within the body of laws of that coun try that
aggrav ate that purpose has to be amended a nd
proper ly adjusted to make sure t hat that balance and
that level of protection can be ensured. And what we
have seen through the courts, and the decisions of the
courts, is that it has upset what little protections many
people perceive we should have.
Now, the effort really here, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, is to bring a level of stability since, through
the decisions of the courts and perhaps some policy
decisions of the past, we find that those protections are in jeopardy. The understandings are in jeopardy.
And this is a recent occurrence. And I declare my i nterest, as somebody who wants, not only as a legisl ator that I have been for nearly 10 years, but also I was
somebody who worked in this department and dealt
with these issues. I was actually in the department
working in 1989 when they closed off the status mor atorium. I was there. So, I understand the environment
and some of the emotion that decisions on immigr ation can bring into a community and the rationale for
many of the changes and adjustments that had to be
made.
And, yes, we have to find a humanitarian balance in providing these protections. But, ultimately, this is the Immigration and Protection Act. Immigration
law should not only facilitate easy passage in and out of the jurisdiction. It should also ensure protection. It is
the protection question that we find seriously at risk
here due to decisions of the court and policy dec isions. The protections that underpin the law have been weakened and put the sense of security and
stability of the citizenship at risk —just as it did pre1989 and why the Government then had to stop and
pause and totally eliminate the awarding of discretionary grants at the time because that is the situation it
was presented with.
So here we are again in another situation
where we are seeing that certain c hanges in interpr etation and policy have brought that environment again.
We would not have had March of 2016 if people did not feel that way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. People
felt at risk. People felt fearful. People felt their livel ihoods were in jeopardy. But here we are now. And
what is the Government supposed to do? Yes, the Human Rights Commission has given its opinion as it is entitled to do. But so have the Bermuda public.
They have been very clear. Even if it makes certain
people uncomfortable they want their rights protected.
They want immigration reform.
So this is not an effort to stall or inhibit or limit
the reform. It is to make sure that we have a certain
playing field as the reform is going to commend, to
bring about a better situation. But it is almost like a
shooting target. Do we, as we are trying to change for
the better, still have to grab and shoot and get a hold of it at the same time? No, that is chaos. If, as we are
looking to reform the immigration framework, which
does not just include the issue of a person’s status or residency or right to be here, it includes even the abi lity to own land . . . there are so many very important Bermudian rights and understandings that have a
deep history behind them that the immigration law is
tied to.
People can just talk . . . Oh , it is just about le tting a few people stay here and to be happy and
peaceful. It is not. It is deeper than that. We have had
the Minister come to this House and talk about the
sudden recurrence of other activities around immi gration which are a cause of some concern which speak
to the same issues of us efficiently having the opportunity to engage in a reasonable, objective process of
review. I do not believe, and certainly this Government
does not believe, that we can do that if we are trying
to stop the bouncing balls, or grab the bouncing balls, at the same time we are trying to reasonably, in a r ational, sensible way, deal with the question of imm igration and we have an irrational situation that is
emerging on another level. We have to stabilise it.
This law is to bring stability to the current sit uation which, in itself, is tenuous so that we can then
bring about the rational change and evolution that is
required around immigration. That is what this Bill is
for. And this w ill bring greater peace of mind to the
persons who are all concerned about immigration,
which is every person who lives in this country —every
person who feels this country is where their future lies;
every person who deserves an opportunity; every
child wh o desires an opportunity; every family who
deserves an opportunity; every Bermudian who feel
they should be first. The process we are going through is to bring peace of mind, ultimately, to them,
to our partners, and to all concerned.
So, it is our duty to bring this Bill. If not, the
legal chaos around immigration will just escalate (in
my view), and I believe that it is in that spirit this Government has brought this amendment today.
I have heard the Opposition’s arguments. And
they are entitled to them. But I also believe, as do my colleagues on this side, that we have accurately taken
a reading of the feeling and the temperature and the
wishes and the aspirations of the majority of the Bermuda public and they have said they want a Gover nment that prot ects them —at all costs, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. Even if it upsets some people outside of our 22 square miles who do not understand the history of
this country, who do not understand the injustice that
people have witnessed, and are only concerned about
ticking legal boxes of principles of which many of us in
this House —perhaps even this generation —have only
had the benefit from, that were drawn up by persons who had no idea about the struggles that this country
has had to go through to bring about social justic e,
racial justice, opportunity, education to the wider public, discrimination. They have no idea.
And so this Government, in its own effort and
mandate is taking action to challenge all of that —
those injustices, those inequalities, the lack of oppor438 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly tuniti es—and bring about an opportunity in society for
us all to move together on this very important question
of immigration to remove some of the chaos that it has
sadly represented to the lives of many people for decades. That is our job. And as I have said b efore in this
House, the Opposition has an opportunity to stand
with us on this and walk with us. Or they can condemn
themselves to the dustbin of history and be seen as
not putting Bermudians first.
And, maybe . . . I am not suggesting that they
do not b elieve in that. But actions will ultimately speak
louder than any words that they will say. But we are a
Government of action. We are a Government that is
taking the words that we presented to the electorate
and transforming them into real opportunity that every
Bermudian will feel they are a part of.
So, this Bill, the Bermuda Immigration and
Protection Amendment (No. 2) Act [2017] will pass,
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, and will bring about a journey,
a process that will allow this Government with whomever wishes to cooperate and be a part of the pr ocess, a better situation in immigration that every Bermudian, everyone who loves Bermuda, anyone who
respects what we are t rying to do for our community
will be proud of.
Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Acting
Speaker, or Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will not be long, but I guess I was struck by
how the Government is trying to rationalise this broad and sweeping change to essentially sweep aside the
Human Rights Act. In fact, it is ironic in many ways
because I think as some of my colleagues have said the very Minister who is bringing this Bill was the one
who certainly advocated very strongly for human
rights, advocated very strongly for lots of consultation
going back a year or two, advocated ver y strongly for
not taking a piecemeal approach to immigration r eform, and yet the first piece of legislation the Honourable Member brings is one that flings aside the H uman Rights Act when it suits political expediency.
Now, I do not know whether this is a change
in moving from Opposition to Government or whether there are other issues here, but I think it is useful to
sort of go back and look at exactly what the Bermuda
Constitution Order did versus what the Human Rights Act did. I think that the Honourable Member who
brought the Bill made the case that there is still the
Constitution there. It protects human rights. But, just, I
think to remind people, the Bermuda Constitution O rder prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, place
of origin, politica l opinions, colour, or creed. Now, I think that Honourable Member was
certainly around; I think he was paying attention. But
earlier versions of Parliament decided that this was
not sufficient; that the Bermuda Constitution Order did
not provide sufficient protections. And so, when the Human Rights Act was brought in in 1981 and subs equently amended, it now prohibits discrimination
based on race, place of origin, colour, or ethnic or national origins, sex or sexual orientation, marital status,
disability, family status, religions or beliefs or political
opinions, and criminal record, except where there are
valid reasons relevant to the nature of the offence for
which the person is convicted that would justify a di fference in treatment.
So, in essence, what this amendment is doing
is permitting the Minister of Immigration to legally make decisions in a discriminatory fashion on the b asis of ethnic and national origin, sex, sexual orient ation, marital status, disability —

Hon. Walton Brown: Point of order, Mr. [Deputy]
Speaker .

What is your point of order,
Member?

POINT OF ORDER
[Misleading]
Hon. Walton Brown: The Honourable Member is misleading the House; he is misleading the public. There
are a wide range of requirements that constrain the
freedom of the Minister responsible for Immigration to
engage in any activity involving the issuance of work permits, the granting of PRC or st atus. So, the fanciful
exercise that this Member is on is without foundation.

I am being very careful,
Mr. Deputy Speaker.
So, I think people have to be very clear about
what is going on here because I think, as Honourable
Member s have said on this side, this is really taking a
sledgehammer to crack a nut. Honourable Member s
on this side have also said that there may be mischief
here. There probably is mischief that needs to be a ddressed, but it is also, I think, clear from the Human
Rights Commission and others, that there may be a
more targeted approach, a better way to address this
rather than simply sweeping aside the Human Rights
Act.
I think it is fair. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will
remember this. A former Progressive Labour Party Government was quite happy to discriminate against


Bermuda House of Assembly Bermudians who were married to non- Bermudians in
terms of land purchases, land ownership, and that
goes back not that long. So, there are clearly prec edents here in terms of . . . and that issue of requiring a licence was obviously overturned. But there are clear-ly issues here where there is the potential for mischief.
Now, I am not saying that this particular Mini ster is necessarily going to do any of the stuff. But I think we have to recognise that we are putting in place
something—and in spite of the Minister’s sense that
this is perhaps only a holding pattern, something—that may be there for some time and we may have
other Ministers, t hey may not be quite, I will say, as
forward thinking as the current Minister. They may not
have quite the same sort of approach to things. So, I think we have to recognise that there is certainly a
potential for abuse here in terms of sweeping aside
the H uman Rights Act when it comes to the Immigr ation Act.
I think the other thing that troubled me a lot as
I was listening to the rationalisations on the other side is that when we hear about putting Bermudians first
and certainly protecting Bermudians, who can argue
with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No one can. In fact, I
think a former OBA . . . sorry, a former UBP Gover nment, had “Putting Bermudians First” as one of its
campaign slogans. Besides that, I think that what we are hearing here is a very old argument. And that old
argument is the ends justify the means. The ends justify the means. So, what we are hearing here is that it
is okay to push aside the Human Rights Act when it
comes to the Immigration Act because the end (which
is protecting Bermudians) justifies the means. Now, I do not think that anybody on this side
is arguing that there does not need to be reform, there
does not need to be a way to approach this. But this
broad- based, broad and sweeping change; certainly
from our perspective is not the way to do it. This issue
of the end justifies the means . . . there are many examples from history, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and I do not
think I need to go into them. All sorts of purges have
been carried out on the basis of the end justifies the
means. And, again, I am not suggesting simply that
this current Minister is necessarily going to go down
that path. But I think it is a slippery slope and one, I
think, we need have to be very, very careful about proceeding down.
And so, as I said, I will not be long, but I think
there are certainly concerns. The Human Rights Commission had concerns. Others have concerns.
And I think those concerns are well deserved. And I
think, as my honourable colleagues have said on this side, this is one where haste could well g et us into
great difficulty. It sends a terrible message in terms of
our approach to Human Rights, because if we can do
it for this piece of legislation why can we not do it for others.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think I need to
prolong this, but I think this is the wrong way to go. I think it is something that needs to be reconsidered
and a more targeted approach needs to be taken. And
I think, as some have suggested, the reasonableness
test . . . all of those things need to be done here rather
than thi s sledgehammer, which I think all of us have
great . . . not all of us, many of us have a great deal of
discomfort in terms of proceeding down this track.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Honourable Member from constituency 22, Mr. Gibbons.
The next speaker —the Chair recognises the
constituency 30 . . . 34?

[Inaudible interjections]

Hon. Kim N. Wilson: Yes. Thank you, Mr. [Deputy]
Speaker . I actually will be very brief.
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, a lot has been said this
evening about the facts, in particular the Honourable
Member that just took his seat mentioned that this Bill
in particular is discriminatory in nature, and much has
been said that to pass legislation that benefits Berm udians firs t is in some way suspect.
However, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, there are
many jurisdictions, in fact one to which my honourable
colleague that sits to my immediate right oftentimes refers to as the “Mother Country,” England, in partic ular, as well as other juri sdictions, we have seen that
they have been subject to court challenges with r espect to proceedings that have been placed in front of the European Court of Justice, and that those cha llenges in particular deal specifically with the point of
discrimination. In fact, the case that I would like to r efer you to (which is a United Kingdom case) has said . . . the court held, the European Court of Human
Rights, that if discrimination is justified, then it is not
discrimination.
Let me refer you, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, to the
case of Bah v. United Kingdom 2012. And if you will
allow me to just read from the judgment and then I
would like to talk about the case in particular and just
spend a few moments on that.
So, in this particular case the order for an i ssue . . . this is actually related specifically to section
14 of the European Convention o n Human Rights
,
which nobody has referred to in its entirety, so with
your leave, I would like to jus t read it real quickly:
“Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination,” and,
again, this is the European Convention on Human
Rights. “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Convention shall be secured without di scrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Again, that is Article 14 that deals with the
prohibition of discrimination in the European Conven-tion on Human Rights. However, the European Court
440 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly of Human Rights in its case law has ruled —and it was
a case particularly emanated from the United Kingdom—that if discrimination is justified, it does not
mean it is discrimination.
The c ase, again, is Bah v. United Kingdom
2012. And in this particular case, it was the applicant
made an application under Article 14 (which I just
read) and the Court held that there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous or rel atively similar circumstances. Such a difference in
treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification. In other words, if it does not
pursue a legitimate aim, or if there is not a reasonable
relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aims sought to be realised, the contracting state (and in this case it was the United Kin gdom) enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences and other use
in similar situations justify a difference in treatment.
So, the case is saying that, again, if it is just ified discrimination then it does not amount to discrim ination. This is the case that I am speaking about. The
case is Bah v. United Kingdom and in this case it was
a mother from Sierra Leone and she was a national
and she sought political asylum in the United Kingdom. She was denied asylum; however, she did r eceive an order to allow her to remain in the United
Kingdom indefinitely.
Shortly after she received that status, she
brought her son, her minor son, to the United Kin gdom to live with her. Obviously, for the same reasons
that she left Sierra Leone. She wanted her son to be
with her. He was able to come into the United Kin gdom; however, he was under immigration control. So,
we have one woman who has no immigration control
and her son, her minor son, who does. She was living
in rented accommodations and her landlord said to her, If your son comes to live with you, I am going to
evict you —which he did. So, she filed an application
with her local council claiming that she was uninte ntionally homeless, and in the United Kingdom if you have that status of being unintentionally homeless,
then you get to go on the top of the list for getting council housing or social housing. All right? They put
you in a temporary accommodation first and then they put you in social housing. So, you go on the top of the list.
However, it was revealed, because her son
had immigration controls placed on him, she could not be part of this service. She could not get the [social]
housing. So, she appealed. And that case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. And the European Court of Human Rights held that in these
circumstances to deny this woman the service (nam ely, the housing) was justified because of the immigr ation controls on her son and, therefore, it does not
amount to discrimination.
So, let us take that case and apply it here. In
this particular scenario we are talking about legislation that we are trying to pass here today to cure a defect
with respect to a judgment that was made earlier this
year, last year, excuse me, that, in my submission
based on this particular case, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, it
was not a justified decision that was made and, ther efore, you can argue that this is not discrimination
here—that this Bill is not discrimination because we
are attempting to cure something that happened wit hin the courts and that the fact that the Immigration and
Protection Act, as my honourable colleague that just
took his seat says, it is also there to protect Bermudians. Not just Bermudians, but in this particular case
we are speaking about a service that the court says
was offered or denied to this woman, but yet in the
United Kingdom when the service was denied they felt
that the Europea n Court, the highest court in human
rights, said if that service is denied and it was a justif iable reason, it is not discrimination.
And I would submit here that this scenario can
be applicable to what we are discussing here today. The Bill itself is not discriminatory because it is justif iable. We are here to protect Bermudians and Berm udians first. That is why we were elected to this position and we will continue to do so, and we will make no
apologies. Thank you.

Thank you, Honour able Member from constituency 34, Ms. Wilson.
The Chair recognises the Honourable Member from constituency 7, Richards.
Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Acting Deputy Speaker.
You know, immigration is a topic that is . . .
everybody knows it is c ontroversial no matter where it
is, which country it is. It is just a controversial topic.
And I am not going to speak long. I do not disagree
with the reasons why the Minister is looking to do
what he is looking to do. As a former Junior Minister of Home Affairs, and working closely with the former
Minister of Home Affairs, we had to deal with the
same circumstances that the current Minister is fac-ing.
I, as a Bermudian, was very perturbed by the
judgments that the courts were making and the Mini ster at t he time and I struggled with what we could do
to remedy magistrates and judges who were basically
making law from the bench. It was a very, very difficult
situation, and we struggled with what we could do to
remedy the situation. So, I get it. I really do get why
this needs to be addressed because the courts are going to continue to rule against what they perceive to
be loopholes or, you know, the Government is not ac ting, making legislation to close up these perceived
loopholes. So, I get it.
The one iss ue that I do have, though, Mini ster, is the timing. There is a Bermuda Immigration Committee that has been looking—



Bermuda House of Assembly The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Richards, do not leave me
out.

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Sorry, sorry, Mr. [Dep uty] Speaker . He is my good friend and I am really
making an appeal to him.

[Laughter]

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: But I will look at you, Mr.
[Deputy] Speaker . My apologies.
There is an immigration committee that has
been sitting, looking at immigration for a few months
now. And in 11 days they are going to make their re commendations to the Government. Then there is going to be a joint select committee, bipartisan, put t ogether. That is the right way to do it. I am all on board for that. That is going to look at comprehensive imm igration reform because what we have been doing
over the years is piecemeal and it clearly is not wor king. You know? It is not working.
But the appea l that I am going to make to the
Minister —I am going to look at him —is 11 days, Mini ster. Eleven days. Nothing is going to change in 11
days, from a court’s perspective, unless there is some
judgment coming down that you are aware of that I
am not. But it is the perception and the uncertainty that this is being rushed through.
So, my appeal is only, you know, you have
got a committee that is going to make a recommendation on October 31
st—11 days from now. The Human
Rights Commission has basically said they have some
concerns, they want to have a seat at the table and, to
your credit, you have done that. So, my only appeal is
if we can just . . . we can rise and report. I am not
even saying withdraw the Bill, because I think this has
to be done. But I just t hink there needs to be more
input from those organisations that are really co ncerned about the human rights of this. That is my only
appeal. Thank you, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker .

Thank you, Mr. Richards, from
constituency 7.
We recognise the Minister Simmons, from
constituency 33.

Hon. Jamahl S. Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, on issues like this, when
I rise to my feet I have to think of why I am here and
who I am here for. And, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, the
issue of immigration has been contentious as many
Members have spoken on. But I cannot accept a
Bermuda where a court can say that a person born
here with no Bermudian roots, with no Bermudian ties,
can live here for 10 years and have the right to compete with my children or your children, Mr. [Deputy]
Speaker , or the children of any Member of this House. Citizenship should have value, Mr. [Deputy]
Speaker . And we have heard the reference to using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut. And I would say this: If
someone was climbing in a window to my house to
interfere with my children’s future, a sledgehammer
would be wholly appropriate. Wholly appropriate.
Now, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, there is a mindset in this country and we have heard it said before, proudly, there i s no such thing as a Bermudian. The
only Bermudians are the skinks and the hogs. There has been a systematic and historical attempt to erase the value of something that so many people want so
desperately —being a Bermudian. So, what it comes
down to today i s we have heard there are people who
have anxiety. But we have not heard what those anx ieties are. We have heard that there are people who
feel unsettled. But we have not heard the substance of that. That is the point of discussion.
We have also heard Mem bers in this debate
speak glowingly of collaboration of working together when just one Bill before, and in the Throne Speech
Reply, collaboration, committees, consultation was
mocked and derided. But, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, it is
clear that the courts will continue to legislate from the
bench and undermine the value of being Bermudian . .
. redefine what being Bermudian is. And I was not
sent here to sit idly by while that happens. I am not going to go back to White Hill Field and say I am going to sit and w ait while some judge is giving away
birthright left, right, and centre. It is not happening. I
was not sent here for that.
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, we have seen, and it
was described as complete and unrestricted right to
work. That is what this judgment wil l do; complete and
unrestricted right to work. That is something that all of our children in this Chamber have now. This is a direct
attack on the birthright of Bermudians and we will not
tolerate it. We were not sent here to tolerate it. We
were not sent here to entertain it. We were sent to deal with it and this is why we have taken this action
and I am very, very proud of my colleague, the Honourable Minister responsible for Immigration, because
he does not have an easy job. And I do know that those who know his heart know that the process of
looking at Immigration in a comprehensive manner will be one that will be involved, open, transparent, and, more importantly, one that we listen to the people. But
there is a clear and present danger now. A clear and
present danger now for the future of what being Ber-mudian means in this country.
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, we inherited an economy where for successive years the only job growth was among non- Bermudians, while Bermudian jobs
fell. That is the environment we encounter. We are in
an environment where there are some employers who have moved heaven and earth in an effort to hire an ybody but Bermudians. We are in an environment where every group possible, legally, there are some who prefer to hire . . . and they are entitled to work,
442 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly but they would prefer to hire spouses of Bermudians.
PRCs who have earned their status, things like that.
That is the world we live in right now, a world that would be worsened by a judicial decision that will un-dermine the legal right of a Bermudian to work in their
own country to open up complete and unrestricted right to work to non- Bermudians who were born here
and lived here for 10 years.
And it concerned me because the Shadow A ttorney General did not seem to have a problem with that. That bothers me, Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, because
I want to ask the question, If it does not bother you that someone with no ties to this country other than
having being born here and lived here for 10 years will
have the right to work, if that does not bother you, what does bother you? What will you fight for, for Bermudians? What will you stand up for?
Mr. [Deputy] Speaker, I am not going to be
much longer, but the mind -set that the only real Bermudian is a skink or a hog . . . that is the past. That is
done. That ended on July 18
th. That ended. And so we
believe that for us to protect our people, to put Ber-mudians first, this is necessary. This is necessary and we do this without fear. We do this without apology.
But understand that as we go forward our immigration
system needs to be reformed from top to bottom. We need to address the families that have been divided because of bad piecemeal immigration policy in the past. We have to address the fact that there are still many who feel they can discriminate against Berm udians with impunity. We will address all the aspects of immigration that have plagued us and we will do it in a collaborative manner. But today, a threat exists, and that threat must be addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
[
Hon. Dennis P. Lister, Jr., Speaker, in the Chair]

Thank you, Minister. I recognise the
Honourable Minister of Education.
Honourable Minister, you have the floor.
Ho
n. Diallo V. S. Rabain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and thank you to all the colleagues that have spoken on this very important topic that we have here in front of us.
Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to speak,
but listening to some of the comments that I have heard today, you know, it just strikes me very, very odd that we have such opposition to anything that we are putting in place to protect Bermudians, and an ything that puts Bermudians first. But, Mr. Speaker,
when I look at the legacy of the Members who now sit
Opposite, and we look at the last four and half years,
and when you look at that it does not come as a sur-prise why you would have such opposition.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, everything that I have
heard from that side is an emotional plea that relies
on, Why are you altering the Human Rights Act? We have not heard any tangible ideas to come out of that side on how to address the situation we currently face.
But there is an attempt to tug at heart strings. But, Mr. Speaker, it is too little, too late. Under this former
Government, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague to my
right spoke of, we have seen advances for non-Bermudians grow in leaps and bounds at the expense
of Bermudians. We have seen our housing market
opened up to non- Bermudians who have traditionally,
since we began to take statistics, earned more—earned much more money than Bermudians. But we have seen our housing markets opened up. We have seen families lose their homes right at the time when
the recession hit and people were finding themselves
underwater. What di d we do? We opened up the market to a bunch of non- Bermudians —flush with money,
flush with cash. How else can we have statistics that say the average home is going for $800,000 cash? Who is walking around with that, Mr. Speaker? And,
then, we hear some of the things that are coming from
that side.
We have a Member on that side that who said
either you have not explained properly or there has been no proper consultation. Mr. Speaker, I do not
see thousands of people marching around this House. I do not see it. We have immigration laws brought by
that side when they were Government and we had thousands of people around here. So, how dare they talk about proper consultation. Just about everything they did vexed this country. Just about everything they
did seemed to give the impression that they cared
less for their fellow Bermudians and more for non-Bermudians to come here and do whatever it is they wanted. So this Government makes no apologies for doing things that put Bermudians first at all times and every time.
I stand here firmly committed to that ideal.
And if we make a mistake we admit that mistake and then we correct it and move on. But we have to make a stand and draw a line in the sand. Bermudians come first —period —across the board. We cannot
continue to push the agenda of people who do not
have the best interest of this country in mind. We can-not continue to have a situation where people who have come here under a former Government, man-aged to cheat the system, hang around here for 20
years and then say, I have been here for 20 years. I
have earned . . . I am entitled to have all the rights
and privileges of a [Bermudian], while stepping on the
backs of the very Bermudians that they say they care
for.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker . This is why
this legislation is here today and this is why this legi slation needs to be passed. We need to be serious about helping our people. We need to be serious about making everyone know that everything we do is in the best interest for this entire country, and that put-ting Bermudians first is nothing to be ashamed of, Mr.
Speaker . It is nothing for us to hold our heads low


Bermuda House of Assembly [about]. We hold our heads high and walk out of here
and know that we have done everything that we can
do to make sure that Bermudians come first always.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Minister.
I recognise the Honourable Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have the floor.
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker .
[Laughter and crosstalk ]

Hon. Derrick V. Burges s, Sr.: Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Protection Act is just what it says —
protection for the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition, the Loyal Opp osition, has said that we are acting in a panic and we
are racing down the street. I can ass ure you, we are
not doing that. But if they think we are racing down the
street to protect Bermudians, then I will be a part of
that race.

[Laughter]

Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: Mr. Speaker, one has
to understand the history because . . . let me first say
this. A young writer wrote this here . . . let me read
this, if you do not mind, it is just a line.

Go ahead.
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: He said, “One might
argue that the process of emancipation initiated in
1834 cont inues today.” This is from a very young wri ter who gave a presentation at the BUI last year (and
happens to be a cousin of mine . . . a blood cousin).
Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have in this country, the history, all the Acts that the Government of the
past, Immigration Acts, has been against particularly
blacks and Portuguese. You know, I think it was the
1842 Immigration Act what they did, because at that time, blacks were the ones that had all the trades (like
the joiners, the carpenters, the shipbuilders), and just
. . . so what they wanted to do was to put a strangl ehold on those craftsmen. So they brought a law in
place that blacks had to pay a tax. And just to encourage whites to get into this trade, they gave them a
bounty.
Mr. Speaker, again, there was a revol t in the
1800s, I think it was, when the Government of the day taxed the workers —the black workers —of this country, the slaves actually, and to bring in workers from
another country. And the reason why they brought in
workers was to undercut the wages of w hat the blacks
were demanding. Every time they bring in a foreign . .
. even up to today. You heard the Minister say, I think
it was last week, or the week before last, he said he came across an application where they wanted this
nanny to do a whole lot of things, probably working 19
hours a day, paying her $900 a month. Well, you
know, not one of my cousins could work for that rate
so they have to bring in somebody from overseas.
I think you know what I have said about when
we bring in workers in this country. It is quite clear in
Leviticus 19:33. When you bring anybody in this country, you treat them right and you pay them. You should
not pay me more than them for doing the same work.
But in this country, [it is] the policy that we continue to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say, not all emplo yers are like that, because some people think that the PLP are against the establishment (and mainly when
we talk about the establishment we are talking about
the whites). And that is not so. We have some good employer s. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I remember not so
long ago, a couple of years ago . . . and now I will tell
you about a recent story. A Bermudian, a fully qual ified CPA, worked alongside a guest worker. And they
got on very well doing their work. You know, a very
competent young black lady, and she found out that
they were paying him $20,000 more per year and gi ving him a living allowance. Well, when she approached the powers that be about that on the job,
well, they started to treat her different. She could not take that, so she left. And just here the other day, I will
not call that Member’s name, but this Member was
asked to interview somebody to take their place on
the job. So, she interviewed two people, one was
hired, and what they done, they paid this expatr iate
worker, who is already here, paid him more money
than they were getting plus they gave him $8,000 a
month in living allowance. So, the practice continues
against blacks and Bermudians, again.
Mr. Speaker, you know, there was a time (I
was not born, but you probably were here) when you
had three classes of people in this country: blacks, whites, and Portuguese. And up until 1982, the Port uguese could only do one type of work —maintenance,
gardening. And I think it was in 1982 they lifted that, and they could do construction. Because prior to
1982, every construction site in this country was
blacks. It is different today because I guess they can pay the lighter colour people lower wages than they
can pay blacks.
There was a fellow that is retired, and he told
me he worked for this guy for years doing all this work
and the guy retired himself and gave him the bus iness. And he continued to work for . . . it is a little bit
distracting when you have an attractive MP up there and I am trying to talk to you—

[Laughter]
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: And . . . so he was
working for the same clients and when he presented
the bill to these folks, they would not pay him. They
444 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report
B ermuda House of Assembly were a little lighter than me—but they would not pay
him. They said it was too much money. I mean, the
same work, the same people he was working for, but they would not pay him because they were not used to paying blacks what we should be paid.
That is why we have the wage/income dispar ity that we have today. It continues because they get
paid more than us. Thank God it is not in Government
and thank God for the unions for that because that would have continued also.
Then to prove my point, Mr. Speaker, earlier
this year . . . and real estate agents were talking about the sale of homes. And these homes were over
$900,000. And the agent said we do not need any bank loans. These purchasers do not need a bank loan. They can write a cheque. Now, I know they were none of my cousins. They do not have that type of money. So it tells you that, again, the money that they make . . . and that is why in 2007, I think it was, the
Government brought legislation to this House to pr otect land for Bermudians, because you had people like
the Honourable Member beside me marrying foreig ners—which is great, because if not, he would have
probably married one of his cousins —and we put a
hold on whether you could buy a house or not without a licence because we tried . . . we only had 6,000
acres of land—residential acres of land. And so we, you know, we had to conserve some land.
So it was not discriminatory. We were just tr ying to preserve some things for our folks. They fought
us, but the Bill passed. I think it has been changed
again now for economic reasons, as they say, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker, when we go back to 1903, in
fact, it was in 1898 that Reverend Monk was brought in here. He pastored at Allen Temple and Mount Zion,
and also he did a little tenure down at Bethel [AME]
and one at, I think it was, Richard Allen [AME Church].
[
Inaudible interjection]
Ho
n. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: But …yes, up the west
and helping those folks up there. Right. And, when they brought him in, the powers that be brought in 250 workers from Jamaica— men, women, and children.
And even during the last 24 hours of their voyage they were not fed, they were not given water. But, anyhow,
before they left they were promised—guaranteed —
accommodations, wages, and all of that. Right? So,
when they got here, those 250 workers, they tried to herd them into a 17- room unfurnished house. Obv iously, they could not fit in there and some had to live in tents. They were not given blankets or sheets. They
had to use the grass as their beds. And then, they
went out to work. I mean, Mr. Speaker, I get a little
sensitive when I am talking to you and you are not looking at me.
[
Laughter] The Speaker: Deputy, you always have my undivided
attention.
[
Laughter]
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: Yes, they went out to
work and they were not getting the wages that they
were promised.
Reverend Monk, being a good AME, that is
what we were born out of . . . injustices. He went and
took on the fight. He was also a writer. He had a p aper called The New Era and he wrote about these
things, what they were doing.
Some workers got . . . they revolted. And what
they had done, they took abuse from the employer.
Some riots broke out in 1902 and they read the riot
act to them. Well, eight of them were jailed for eight months and Reverend Monk wrote an editorial be-cause I think one or two of them even died as a result
of the unjust actions. And he wrote an editorial about
that saying that these employers were responsible for
that.
So, they took him to court and they charged
him with criminal libel. And, Mr. Speaker, he had to
raise some money for his defence because there was
only one lawyer in the country at that time, a black lawyer named Eugenius Jackson, his cousin. And he was afraid to take the case because he did not want to go up against the powers that be. So, he hired this guy from Jamaica, Spencer Joseph, an emin ent QC
and he came here with his Caucasian wife.
The retainer was £300. That was a lot of
money, because at that time an acre of land cost £ 20.
But my great -great -uncle Reverend Dr. J. D. Smith
and Michael Scott’s great -grandmother (I think her
name was Sarah) Scott, they went about raising money to help for the defence of Reverend Monk. And, the
night before the trial Monk died—42 years old. He died in his wife’s arms. It was speculated that he was poisoned. Well, you did not have any forensic labs
around to find out what happened. So, Monk [sic] had
to conduct his own case —

The lawyer died, the lawyer died.
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: The lawyer died, yes.
Thank you, yes, it was one of Mike ’s elders right
there, he has got me straight. He died! And Monk had
to conduct his own case. The case lasted 51 days and only one case in the British Commonwealth has lasted longer and that was Richard Hector .
But, Mr. Speaker, his judge was a fellow
named Gray. The Chief Justice was his son- in-law,
and the prosecutor was his cousin. Monk labelled them the “father, son and the un- holy ghost.”
[
Laughter]


Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: And it was an all -white
jury. Obviously, Monk was found guilty and he was
sentenced to four months in prison and fined £ 100
and in failure to pay that £100 he had to serve another
six months. Well, you know, my cousins raised the money and paid that £ 100 so he would not do that six
months. But, he w ent to jail as a result of fighting the
injustices of the day.
Now, 100 years before then, 1799, Reverend
Stephenson came here from the Methodist Church. And he was working with the slaves of the day, the workers of that day, trying to educate them. And the
powers of that day fined him and locked him up. He
was a white fellow. And then, as the Anglicans will
have, Reverend Goldring who was the Pastor around St. Paul’s Anglican Church —

[Inaudible interjection ]

Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: Minister, ple ase, not
right here.
Around St. Paul’s Anglican Church—he wrote
articles in The New Era of Reverend Monk and he
was going around helping the Reverend Monk. Well,
you know they kicked him out of the Island. Would not
even pay him; kicked him out of the Is land. And then
you had a Pastor around Evening Light, around Parsons Road. Right? And he got involved—

[Inaudible interjection and laughter]
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: He got involved with
fighting the injustices of the day, and they kicked him out of here. And the idea was that if any one of you
stepped out of line, this is what is going to happen to
you. And you see, nobody has done anything really
ever since.
Well, you had Reverend Coles from Richard
Allen who campaigned to get Vivian Ming, Kerwin Ra tteray and [George] De Silva out of prison early. It was
successful —that was for the 1965 BELCO Riot. Bis hop Bi rd and Reverend Little got involved in fighting the
injustices. Reverend Thornley who was pastor at St.
Paul’s AME Church and a presiding elder got i nvolved. In fact, he got involved with helping to form the BWA, Reverend Thornley, presiding elder Thornley, which is now the BIU.
So, we have always had advocates out there
in the AME Church, because that is what we are fighting —injustices. And Reverend Talbott . Reverend
Talbott pastored Richard Allen. He and Reverend
Rufus Stovell, a Bermudian, and Adele Tucker formed Bermuda’s first union —the Teacher’s Union—fighting.
Why? To fight the injustice of the day.
The AME Church had a school in St.
George’s, a high school, and Reverend T albott was
first head teacher. Reverend S tewart was the one that
opened the school. He was also a pastor down at Richard Allen. But because Reverend T albott got involved
with the union movement overseas, the Governor t ook
money from the church. Now, let me say this here, if
you look in Dr. Eva Hodgsons’ book, she will tell you it
was the AME ministers that introduced secondary e ducation to Bermuda. So, they have been in the va nguard. And they kicked Talbott out. So ther e have
been some rough times for these folks, Mr. Speaker .
Discrimination —they dare not let anybody else to get
up.
Now, you have Reverend Nicholas Genevieve -Tweed, and what they tried to do to him. They
banned him out of the pulpit. How do you ban a
preacher out of the pulpit when the congregation
wanted him? But thank God, you know, guys like
Tweed will fight every fathom of injustice until injustice
is broken.
That is what we are about. And this Bill helps
to protect black Bermudians in particular, bec ause the
Portuguese moved up a bit, as you know, because
they needed the numbers. Everything was about good
numbers, you know. They needed the numbers, so they start giving Portuguese . . . they let them go to
these white schools, gave them some mortgages, and
some of the Portuguese even changed their names to
be more accepted. Some changed their names. Juan
De Silva , Zane’s cousin, went to Dennis —

Dennis is a nice name. Dennis is a nice
name though, you know?

Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: Yeah, yeah, he was.

[Laughter]

Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: And every time . . .
Now, in 1968, in the House of Commons in the United
Kingdom, during our Constitutional conference on the
floor of the House, said there were 762 applications
for status in Bermuda. Only four were given to blacks. And that has been the trend in this country. And they
brought in numbers. Every time they brought in numbers because the Governor . . . Willcocks (you r emember that fellow?) . . . when he came in here in
1920, practically all the constables in the police force
were black. I really want to quote him properly b ecause I do not want to do him an injustice. Right? I
wrote it down. He said that Reverend, if you do not
mind, Mr. Speaker —

Go ahead.
Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: He arrived in Bermuda
and he considered the police force unreliable because
446 20 October 2017 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly blacks comprised most of the constables. He said that
the “black police caused him a great deal of concern
because the white population was large in proportio n
to blacks.” He said. “there was a perceived need to
safeguard w hites from t heir own police force.”
So, he went about talking with the powers that
be to bring in white police officers. And he got that permission. And what he had done, he sent the police
chief off to the UK to bring in 20 new officers —white
officers. He increased the wages by 50 per cent and
gave them housing. That is why you find a lot of those policemen staying in Prospect and those they could
not fit up there they gave them a housing allowance.
And he said, he found a way to say, the Governor said, “black domination of the police force would
not be tolerated again.” So, Government House has been complicit in keeping this country divided all
through the years. And as the Honourable Member
Commissiong said this morning, in 1842 when Britain
wanted to give us some assistance, [Bermuda] had to
meet certain conditions. They wanted to give us mon-ey for social and economic advancement and if we did
not meet those conditions, we would not get the money. Well, the Bermuda Government of the day did not.
They said no, we are not doing that. We cannot do
that. We love these slaves —they work for nothing.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have to do something to
protect Bermudians —whether they are black, white, or
Portuguese. But we know that the most disadvan-taged crowd was th e blacks. And they remain that
way today. We have to protect, we have to get . . . we
have to close that gap of the wage disparity and we have the living wage crowd out there going to bring something to this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill . . . we ar e not backing
down off this here. We are not rising to report pr ogress. We came here to pass the Bill. We were elec ted . . . and they gave us 24 seats. That tells you
something. They do not want us messing around.
They want us to do what we have to do— gove rn this
country. And that is what we will do. And those that
probably do not like that, they should try to get along
with us, you know, because it will make life much eas-ier for them. Right?
The UBP never put black Bermudians first.
Never done that. Right ? And so we must take care of
our people. We must take care of the people of this
country, and we know that when whites joined the
Progressive Labour Party, other whites had no more
use for them. And, thank God, we had a Dr. [Barbara]
Ball around, we had a Dorothy Thompson around, we
had a David Allen around. Now, we have a Zane De
Silva around. Zane. And you know what colour he is.

[Laughter]

Hon. Derrick V. Burgess, Sr.: But, you know, thank
God we have people like that that are sincere and they see the injustices and they fight to eradicate the
injustices of the day.
And I want to thank my Minister, Walton
Brown, for bringing this Bill to Parliament. Because
any existing Bill that serves as an injustice to the peo-ple of Bermuda, we will deal with it. No w, get . . . get
used to it because that is why those people put us in
power. They said cut this foolishness out . My children
are coming back home from university and they cannot get a job. That is not supposed to be. Why do we
have to be standing second f iddle? It makes no
sense. There are always conditions put on us. Oh, did
you go to Sunday School? Or did you do this before
you can get a job? No, that foolishness has got to be
over.
And our children are not going to take it much
longer, and we cannot continue to lose our children to
bigger countries because they cannot find a job here.
We must protect our children. We all want our children
and grandchildren around us because somebody has
to look after us when we get old. They cannot do it if
they are in England or somewhere else, you know.
There’s one other thing I almost forgot —the
US Base. When they came here in the 1940s to build
a US Base, the Government of the day put a law in place and they told the US officials If you bring any
dark skin Americans here, any black Americans here,
you will not be able to land. So, the US Government
was not allowed to bring blacks into this country to
build a Base.
Also, the US baselands were paying the Bermudians that worked down there to build the Base the
same as they were paying the workers that were from
the United States. The Colonial Government put a law
in place, No, no, you cannot pay them all that money.
This is what you pay them. They cut the rate of those
people. And these are some of the atrocities . . . that
is why we are so far behind today. It started way back.
It just did not start in 1980. It started way back —
1800s, 1700s. And I do not know if we can catch up. I
do not know if we have to wait until Jesus comes or
what. But, I hope not. But if it has t o be until he
comes, then let him come soon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .