March 7, 2016

Right. Thank you, Honourable Member.
Let me . . . Yes, just one second, Attorney
General .
Let me just say, Honourable Members, for
your edification, I have actually looked at the motion in
consideration for what is presently . . . I am of the view
that it is, in fact, a matter of urgent public importance,
and a matter to make a decision. And the decision
that is being requested, I believe, in the motion is for
an immediate setup of this committee, which will in
fact, at the end of the day, make recommendations to
this House on the issue.
So, I will recogni se the Attorney General .

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
But, as Members are aware—I do not know
about members of the public, but Members of the
House—that Honourable Member already has a m otion on the Order Paper which is very s imilar to the
motion he is now putting.

Yes.
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: It is a little bit of change. But
all he is doing is getting his business put to the top of the paper.
Can you tell me and tell the House, and tell
the public, Mr. Speaker, what you and the Member
feel is the urgency that this cannot be dealt with in the
ordinary fashion?

Sure. All right. Honourable Member,
take your seat.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: I think we need to share with
the public what the urgency is that t his cannot be dealt
with in the ordinary way. We are not saying it is an
insubstantial or unimportant matter; but what gives it
such urgency, such as a declaration of the Second
World War, that would say, Oh, you can do no other
business until this is deal t with?

All right. Thank you, Attorney General .
1152 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Let me just say, Honourable Members, that I
have given this significant and full consideration in
relation to what is happening in our Island right now.
And I think that, in my view, the reason why I have
ordered such is that I consider this, in fact, to be a
point of urgency.
I recognise, first of all, the Honourable and
Learned Member from constituency 34. Then I will
recognise the Member from [constituency] 25. Then I
will mention the Leader of the Opposition, from [con-stituency] 26.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw
Members’ attention particularly to [Standing Order]
9(4) to provide a little bit more insight with respect to
this section as it relates to, as you rightly said, Mr.
Speaker, the Speaker’s ultimate decision, which is definitive and can make, as you rightly say, an order
under the terms pursuant to [Standing Order] 9(4) with
respect to allowing for this motion to be tab led. N owhere in this Order does it even suggest that the
Speaker, who is the Head of this House, has to pr ovide any type of explanation as to how he comes to
that decision.
So, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Erskine May is
very clear on this point. And I do not know, with r espect, what [path] the Honourable Speaker may be
being led down here, but is the intention in going
ahead with this that the House will then be adjourned
today? Because that is what this type of motion is
about. It commences with the statement of Motion to
Adjourn the House. So, we are going to adjourn today
for six months? Is that the plan?

Then I fail to understand, with
respect, where we are going with Motion to Adjourn,
because the motion is Motion to Adjourn, not to debate on this.
Let me be very clear on this, because Erskine
May is quite clear on this, which makes sense. In rel ation to [Standing O rder] 9(7)(2), at [page] 319(d),
“Matters which may only be debated on a substantive
motion expressed in specific terms ” (that is the imm igration issue) “are inadmissible on an adjournment motion.”
It is very clear, and it makes sense, as well,
because what has to be clear, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the Rules of the House, is that you cannot bump it up to the head of the list because it is important. It is a Motion to Adjourn the House. That is what
it is. The Speaker: Thank you. Thank you, Honour able
Member.
Let me read for Members’ sakes . . . it is certainly . . . As the House is adjourned for a period. The
House can adjourn and resume this afternoon.
[Inaudible interjections ]

SPEAKER’S RULING
[Standing Order 9(5)]

This House can resume this afternoon.
The House can resume immediately once we have
finished this business. It can resume immediately.
In fact, if you read Standing Order 9(5), it
says, “If the Speaker is so satisfied the motion shall stand over until 11:30 am or until the Orders of the
Day have been disposed of (whichever shall be
sooner) on the same day, or until such earlier time as
the Speaker may order and at that time any proceedings on which the House is engaged shall be pos tponed until the motion has been disposed of.”
Honourable Member, this is our Orders. This
is our [Standing] Orders. And that is why I approved it.
So I have one more. Yes, Honourable Atto rney General .

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, then, all that those of us on this side
would suggest is that we stand it over until the end of
today. And we will debate the Member’s motion today.

Honourable Member, I feel I have
thought about that. And it is a matter which I think
should be just gotten rid of . Because in my view, it is
an urgent matter that needs to be disposed of and gotten out of the way, a decision made upon it.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: I am not sure it will be di sposed of, but I glory in your hope on that. I think the
Member will just keep grinding away at the —

No!
[Inaudible interjections and l aughter ]



Bermuda House of Assembly The Speaker: Honourable Members, I have made my
decision. And I certainly appreciate the manner in
which the Honourable Members also who object have
put their views forward. And I hope that it can continue in this way always, because things are not always g oing to go the way that we want them to go.
I have a tough job, to be made tougher by
some kinds of behaviour of Members in this House.
And I have got to say I do appreciate the fact that
Members can, when they object, object in a manner
that i s absolutely parliamentary.
MP Walton Brown.

MOTION

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE TO
EXAMINE WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I
appreciate your ruling to allow us to address the matter that is of fundamental and urgent importance.
Mr. Speaker, we are on a precipice. There is
an increase in the volume, there is an increase in the
level of agitation on this matter. This is a matter, i mmigration reform, that has been fundamentally divisive
in this country. And we need to find a way in which we can tone down both the direction and the level at
which these issues are being addressed.
And so, Mr. Speaker, this motion is an opportunity for this House to demonstrate real leadership, bipartisan leadership, on a matter that is tearing this
country apart.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us talk first about the i mportance of a bipartisan approach. For three years,
there has been a call from this side for a bipartisan
approach on this issue. For three years, that has been ignored. And with the series of proposed amendments
that have yet to be tabled, we run the risk of becoming
unstable in this country.
I have heard Members from the Government
side say on many occasions that they were elected to lead, and therefore they will do so. It is true, Mr.
Speaker, that the One Bermuda Alliance was duly
elected in December of 2012. They have the mandate
from the population, from the electorate, to lead. But they do not, Mr. Speaker, have a mandate to lead in
the way they are leading on immigration reform.
I say this because this Government made an
express promise to the people of the country that they
would not do what they are currently doing, in their
pre-election statements. They made a repeated promise to the people of this country that they would not do
what they are proposing to do now. So they do not
have the mandate to do it. They cannot argue that
they have a mandate.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any
real dialogue with key parties in this country, I pose
the question to the Government: What is the urgency? Why must this be done right now and to this extent? There has been no answer from them. The position
that the Government is taking today is completely opposite to what they said in 2012, 2013, and 2014. The
way to address it in a mature, responsible way is
through bipartisanship.
There was a danger, Mr. Speaker, of unilateralism. There was a danger of one side d oing ever ything at once and doing it fully, without regard for op-posing or competing viewpoints. This Government has taken one unilateral position. It is not healthy on such
an issue, Mr. Speaker, because there are unilateral
positions on the other side, as well. The Government
says they will give out status grants to every single
person who qualifies or who has been here for a certain period of time.
One position on the outside, Mr. Speaker, is
that no such Bermuda status grant be issued until
such time as Bermuda becomes a sovereign state.
That too is a unilateral position. So what happens
when the PLP regain power and decide to eschew a bipartisan approach to mimic what this Government is
doing? Do you want to have two unilateral approaches
to immigratio n reform? You would have a series of
unilateral approaches that do not benefit the country. It will send nerves of unease in the international bus iness community. It would have those people whom we have invited to come to work here have a level of confusion about the direction of government. And it
just does not make good parliamentary sense to have
large swings in terms of policy.
So, unilateralism is an unhealthy approach in
a democratic society. Yes, you won the government.
Yes, you have a mandate. But you do not have a
mandate for this. So let sound minds prevail. Let us
commit to a bipartisan committee so that the two un ilateral positions can interact and come up with what
has to be a compromise solution. Everyone on this
side embraces the notion of compromise solution.
Yes, you have heard unilateral positions. You have heard positions way on one side. But you have heard
it all around. In a committee, there has to be a give
and take.
And what we are calling for is for this Government to allow us to ste p back from the precipice,
allow us to engage in a serious, mature discussion,
and not an arrogant disposition which says, We were
elected to lead. Therefore, we will do so.
Mr. Speaker, any discussion on any critical
issue in Bermuda that is burdened dow n by historical
precedents has to emanate from a position of respect
and understanding. Respect and understanding are
key components of what a government should be doing. What Government is proposing demonstrates no
respect and no understanding for the impact of the
past.
Let me just share an analogy that was raised
Friday on the grounds of Parliament by my friend,
Toby Butterfield. She talked about cacti and daisies in
1154 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly a desert. Cacti thrive in a desert. They love the arid,
dry atmosphere and the boundles s sun. For them, the
weather is good. Daisies do not do too well in a d esert. They complain about the heat. They complain
about the lack of water. And if the cacti rule, they say,
Everything is fine. What are the daisies complaining about? You have no empathy. You have no understanding for the pain and the hardship of the daisy.
The difference, Mr. Speaker, between daisies,
cacti and people —is that daisies cannot rise up and
do anything. But people can. And when you have what are seen to be unjust laws , unjust proposals,
people will engage in civil disobedience to resist. And
when there is a pattern of disrespect, a pattern of a
failure to understand, you will see greater and greater civil disobedience.
No one wants to do that. But I can assure you,
Mr. Speaker, every single person whom I have talked
to who has engaged in civil disobedience understands
fully that when you break the law, there are cons equences. And so, when you saw that protest at the
East Broadway last week, every single person there
was prepared to be arrested, so severely and so generally do they understand the importance of these i ssues.
So you cannot go forward with legislation of
such a magnitude without an understanding, without a
respect for the past. We know that everyone knows,
especially because the Minister responsible for Imm igration said a few weeks ago that he understands the
legacy of the past when it comes to Immigration policy. He appreciates that it was used for political purposes. He appreciates that there was a racial component to legislation in the past regarding Immigration.
So, how can you go from that appreciation and understanding of the 1960s and 1970s, adopt proposals on
a unilateral scale that embrace elements, which contain elements of the 1960s and 1970s and say that,
This is what we think is right, and we do not care what
anyone else has to say?
You cannot have public meetings where your
public meeting is designed only to tell the public what you intend to do, as opposed to getting input from the public to s hape the direction of government. This law
was drafted months ago. So, we need that, Mr. Speaker.
We are standing here today offering this Go vernment an opportunity through the parliamentary
process to engage in a mature discussion based on
genuine bipart isanship where, by the way, Mr.
Speaker, the Government will control the committee! The Government will have the majority of members on any such committee that is set up.
There have been many comments about what
is meant by comprehensive immigration reform. I find
that a little bit disingenuous, Mr. Speaker, because the Government side has been fully informed on a mult itude of occasions what the elements of comprehen-sive immigration reform are. But for the benefit of the public, Mr. Speaker, for the benef it of the public, I will
highlight some of the key issues that are a necessary component of any comprehensive immigration reform.
Let us take first the issue of Bermuda status.
Up until 1989, there were only 40 discretionary grants of Bermuda status award ed. Other Bermuda status
grants were by birth or by marriage. And then, of
course, you later had the relevant section in the Imm igration and Protection Act 1956, section 22(1)(d),
which provided a provision for people with a family
connection. So, the government abandoned that. This Government said no status grants were on their electoral agenda, but now we have it.
But how would a discussion go in a commi ttee? In a parliamentary committee, we would have to answer a few questions. What should be the process
by which further Bermuda status grants are to be awarded? What should be the criteria? Should you
have to speak English to get status, or not? How
many should be given out a year? I know the Go vernment was paying someone to fill out applications
for people who did not speak English. Some people might say, maybe you should speak English in order
to get Bermudian status.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan committee will say, We believe “X” number should be
awarded a year. Here are the criteria. Here is the
process by which it should be done. We do not reject
the awarding of Bermuda status in and of itself. That was not our earlier position. We recognise that there
has to be some kind of compromise. This Government
has refused to even talk about number s. Every cou ntry in the world has an idea, or some controls over,
how many citizenships they award, how many perm anent residence certificates [PRCs] they award. This Government has refused to even discuss the issue.
And in refusing to discuss the issue, i t begs
the question, Why? Why not? What is the hardship?
What is the harm? So, a bipartisan committee would look at the issue of Bermuda status, decide on criteria,
decide on numbers, decide on processes that will be
involved.
Secondly, PRCs. We recognise that PRCs are
a category of people who should be given certain
rights. And we should talk about how that could be extended. It is the Progressive Labour Party that cr eated the category of PRCs. We brought that in to pr ovide a measure of security to people who have been
here for the long term. But going forward, what should
be the process in place? The only current law in place
for PRCs, in my view, is racist, sexist and class-biased. I think it needs to be abolished. But a bipart isan committee will look at the current legislation r egarding PRCs and come up with a more compromised approach. How many PRCs should we issue each
year? By what criteria? And what rights should be attached to them? There is one view which says the current
situation regarding PRCs is inappropriate, saying,


Bermuda House of Assembly How could you give someone the right to live and
work in a country without work permit control, and yet
tell them they can only buy property at certain bands?
Some will see that as inconsistent with the rights of
someone living in a country. So we do not have firm
positions. We are submitting to a bipartisan committee so that these issues can be addressed in the spirit of
compromise, Mr. Speaker. We want to avoid unilateralism, because, Mr. Speaker, unilateralism is not
healthy in a country as divided as we are today.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan committee will
sort out what is a right and what is a privilege. What
are the rights for Bermudians, and what is a privilege
for Bermudians? What is the right for a PRC and what
is the pri vilege for a PRC? I hear a lot of talk about
human rights issues and so forth. What right does someone have who comes here on a work permit that the employer renews repeatedly? There are a mult itude of views on that, Mr. Speaker. We know that
there are cer tain rights enshrined by law, equal pr otection under the law. But what right does that person
have to permanent status, and what right does that person have to Bermuda status? A committee can
sort that out!
What you have to date is a Minister —I am not
even sure which technical people the Minister was using —but you have the Minister who has made such
decisions and been supported by Cabinet. Bermudians have rights in their own country. Should Bermudians come first in their own country? I think everyone
who loves this country would say Bermudians should
come first in their own country. That is not to negate
the right of anyone else whom we invite here on work
permits and so forth. But we have to assess it. Again, you have the parliamentary committee to do s o. It
avoids a unilateral approach on such matters.
Another issue of great concern is that of the
family unit. No one on this side wants to see policies
and laws in place which have the effect of dividing
families and giving families different political r ights or
a different political status. It is inappropriate for one
person in a family to have Bermuda status, someone
else to be a PRC or be on a work permit. So we want
to see common political status. We have not even had that discussion with the Government because they
refuse to talk about it. They refuse to engage in di alogue. And if you go by all the rhetoric, racist comments or provocative comments that you hear and
read about in social media, you would think Bermuda
is about to be at war with itself. So I appreciate, Mr.
Speaker, your recognising the urgency of this.
But when it comes to the family unit, we need
to find a mature and responsible solution so that fam ilies do not find themselves divided on this issue of
different political status. This i s our opportunity. This is
the opportunity for this Parliament to demonstrate leadership that transcends what many see as a more
narrowly defined political agenda that has less to do
with the human rights, has less to do with rights of long-term residents, but more to do with a more crass
political motivation.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan committee will
address a very delicate issue about what right and
what privileges people should have who are born here. Should everyone born in Bermuda have Bermuda status, as is the case with citizenship in the
United States or Canada? Or should we look at a
modification based on what you see in the UK, Germany, and other countries, where being born in a
country does not automatically grant you citizenship rights?
Our policies have to be determined based on
our circumstances. And so, those who wish to refer to the European Convention on Human Rights should
read it very carefully. Do not just read the part about
the importance of the family unit, because everyone in this P arliament I know recognises the importance of
the family unit. But what the European Convention on
Human Rights says is that any policies you advance
should be mindful of local circumstances.
And, you know, there was an actual provision
in the European Convention which says that, if the administering powers (i.e., one of the Colonial powers,
like Britain, the Netherlands and France) are to apply
or to extend this con vention to their territories, in
France, the département . In Holland, the Netherlands,
it is one of their integrated territories in the ABC cou ntries, in the Caribbean, or the British Overseas Territ ories. They have to be mindful of the small sizes of
these populations. That is the European Convention
on Human Rights.
So, what should be the cri teria in place? At
one point, we has 12,000 work permit holders in Ber-muda. If 6,000 had children born in Bermuda, would
this Government say they should all be granted Bermuda status? What should be the policy? What
should be the legislation in place? Any legislation in
place has to be mindful of what is a right, what is a
privilege, what are the rights of Bermudians, and the
rights of those who are here on work permits.
These are delicate issues, Mr. Speaker. They
are sensitive issues. We are sensitive t o that sensiti vity. And we believe that a bipartisan approach is the
only way to properly and fully address these issues. In
the absence of bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, this coun-try is going to go through a period of turmoil and unease, and that is not good for anyone.
Intimately connected to the whole question of
PRCs Bermuda status is that of work permit policy. I
do not know how anyone could not see work permit
policy as being an integral component of this whole notion of moving toward a lessening of restrictions
with respect to PRCs and Bermuda status. Work permit policy is enshrined in the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956. So you cannot separate
work permit policy from immigration policy.
Mr. Speaker, there are some very interesting
components in the Immigration and Protection Act and
1156 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly in the work permit policy that tie in directly to longevity
of stay and opportunities for Bermudians.
I will give you a couple of examples, Mr.
Speaker, that this bipartisan committee will have to
look at. We already have in immigration policy a pr ovision that requires nannies to be paid a minimum
wage of $10 an hour. It is minimal. It is not enough to
live on. But at least it is a minimum base wage. That
base salary, Mr. Speaker, is not sufficient to attract
locals to apply for those positions. Because when you
juxtapose the very low salary, the very low wage, with
the working conditions, it is contrived to ensure that
Bermudians do not apply for that position. And so, you
will have someone in a position for fi ve, ten or fifteen
years precisely because no Bermudian is going to
apply for it. And the employer knows that.
So, we have to consider in this bipartisan
committee what is an appropriate wage or salary for
workers, because it is that, Mr. Speaker, that is being
used to deny Bermudians opportunities and lead to
the denial of jobs that leads to those staying here for 15 or 20 years, working as nannies or in other areas.
When you have hospitality sectors paying
people $5.25 an hour, you are not offering a li ving
wage. You are contriving a set of employment circumstances that effectively deny Bermudians jobs. We do
not have a liveable wage. And you cannot look at this apart from immigration policy, where the employer
says, Oh, well. I’ll see how much of the gr atuities I am
going to share with my staff this week, where you rely
on the good graces of the employer. Now, the employer has an incentive to hire only foreign workers in
certain categories because employers do not need to pay pension for work permit holders. If you have 10,
15 or 20 employees, you are going to structure your
business to maximise [using] foreign workers because
it is reducing your cost. It is a basic economic decision
that employers make.
So you cannot extricate work permit policy or
wage scales from any proper discussion of immigr ation policy, Mr. Speaker. This has to be an item i nvolved in immigration reform, comprehensive reform. It has to be an item that is discussed by this commi ttee. These are some of the issues, Mr. Speaker, that
we need to look at. Every time a PRC certificate is
issued, that job has been removed from work permit
control. That job is no longer open or available to a
Bermudian to apply for.
A Government has to be sensitive to these
kinds of issues when you have 3,000 people unemployed. And I have heard some very disparaging r emarks about people who have been out protesting
and so forth. The reality is that those who are out of
work today, Mr. Speaker, fill the gamut in terms of
qualifications, experience and skills. I t is not one si ngle class. I have heard the group described as a mob,
uneducated people. Only those who have contempt
for the people use such language, Mr. Speaker. And when you use such contempt, people respond accor dingly.
We have a volatile environment. We do not
need to have a volatile environment. We have to have
an approach that is focused on compromise. Co mpromise has to be a critical part.
I listened to a speech by President Obama a
few weeks ago. Everyone says they love Obama here. Everyone here sa ys they love President Obama.
And everyone wants to embrace his approach to pol itics. And each side accuse the other side of being like the Republicans. But let us take a lesson from
Obama. He made a speech a few weeks ago. One
very powerful statement he m ade, among many po werful statements. He said (and I quote —well, I par aphrase. I may not get it exactly right.) He said, If you
cannot compromise, you cannot lead. Let me repeat
that: If you cannot compromise, you cannot lead. Because no leadership, no matt er how many votes you
have, can decide to act in a unilateral manner on all
major policy simply because you have the votes. Ha ving the votes in Parliament does not mean you get the
support of the people.
When Parliament refuses to act in ways that
reflect, respect and respond to the public interest, the
public has a right to reject what Parliament does. The
[people] have a right to reject parliamentary measures
and resort to extra- parliamentary measures.
But here we are, Mr. Speaker. We have a s acred duty t o respond in ways that are meaningful and
respectful and reduce the tension. This is our oppor-tunity today. This is our opportunity today, Mr. Speaker.
One of the other items for discussion on this
committee for bipartisan reform will be to look at the
category of PRCs who are investors into Bermuda.
Should we create a category for the super -wealthy
who are either going to invest a significant sum of
money or buy a significant property? We already have laws on the books which say that if you buy a property
of a particular value, in a particular area, you get the
right of residence. We have that already on the books
for one property that I know of.
But consider wealthy individuals who are not
interested in coming to work in Bermuda, but they may set up a busi ness and hire people. What prov isions can or should we make for these investors, who
will bring money into the country, who will develop
new businesses? Let us forget about the job makers. I
have been a critic of the Job Makers Act since it was
first table d. And yes, you could talk about whom it was
tabled under. These individuals are not job makers. I
do not know why it was called a Job Makers Act,
right? The investments of these companies came from
the mutual fund, the hedge fund. These guys (because they are mostly guys —it is a very sexist sort of
enterprise, this segment of international business) do
not invest money. They benefit from the investments
of others.


Bermuda House of Assembly So if you want to create pathways to PRCs for
the investors, talk to the guys who are putting up the
money, not the guys who benefit from getting the
high-paying jobs, because they are not creating the
jobs. Yes, they have a big economic impact. But the
Job Makers Act is a misnomer, and we need to look at
providing, or at least assessing, what can be done for
those individuals who are truly bringing money into
Bermuda, who are creating these opportunities for
growth, and particularly those who might be looking at
new areas of investment. So these are some [ideas],
Mr. Speaker.
The last issue that I will raise that I think could
be a matter for discussion with this bipartisan commi ttee is the notion of equal political rights for everyone who has Bermuda status. Because right now, Mr.
Speaker, those who have Bermuda status, we do not have equal politi cal rights. And some may be confused by what I mean. The reality is that an American
who acquires Bermuda status can sit and serve in this
Parliament. If, on the other hand, I decided to go and
[I] take on American citizenship, I would be ineligible to sit in this Parliament.
So how can we, in the twenty -first century,
want to move full steam ahead looking at this series of immigration reform and not tackle the issue of equal
political status?
I know. It is based on an old colonial model,
because our Consti tution says that if anyone has
sworn allegiance to another party other than the
Queen of England, then you cannot serve in our Parliament. So why should I be denied the right to take
out citizenship in a non- commonwealth country unless
I am prepared to giv e up my seat in Parliament,
whereas someone who comes from a non-commonwealth country can do so?
Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I have no i ntention of taking out citizenship in any other country. I have no desire. I travel wherever I want to travel. I do
not have a British passport; I have a Colonial pas sport. Let us just get that straight. And as I said before,
Mr. Speaker, I would renounce my British citizenship
tomorrow if it did not render me stateless. So I am
caught in a bind. I am British because they passed a
law.
But here there is a principle involved of u nequal political rights. So, for all the comments by this
Government about human rights and so forth, you
have never once heard this Government talk about
the human rights and equal political ri ghts for those
current Bermuda status holders.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined eight or nine
items that could and should legitimately be addressed
by a bipartisan committee of this House and another
Chamber. This is a sincere effort at taking everyone
back from brinkmanship politics. This is our opport unity today, Mr. Speaker. For three years we have
called for it. We watched the Government engage in a series of measures with respect to immigration reform, which has demonstrated callous disregard for the le gacy of the past, callous disregard for the sincere efforts toward a bipartisan approach. And even amidst
all of that, Mr. Speaker, against that backdrop, we
stand before you today, we stand before Parliament today and we stand before the people of thi s country
today, Mr. Speaker, to say, Let us engage in a sincere
bipartisan effort. These are the items we have tabled.
We want to get away from brinkmanship. And we are
saying to the Government, Let us do it for the people
of this country. Let us do it for those who hold work permits in this country, Mr. Speaker. We do not want
to see things further unravel.
I know there is a lot of cynicism all around this
country. But we are united on this front. We want to
see a demonstrated commitment. This is our opport unity, Mr. Speaker. This is [possibly the] last opport unity for Parliament to show it can rise above the div isiveness that has been so inherent in what we have
been doing since 2012. It is an opportunity to show
genuine leadership. But also, Mr. Speaker, it is an
opportunity to show genuine love and concern for the
future of our country.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Desk thumping]

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Honourable Member.
The Chair will now recognise the Honourable
and Learned Attorney General, T. G. Moniz. Minister,
Attorney General , you have the floor.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, we seem to be in a very curious position
today. We are revisiting the Motion to Adjourn on Fr iday evening, when we debated this i ssue at great
length. And we are anticipating the motion that the
Member already has on the Order Paper, number 22.
I was listening carefully to the Honourable
Member to say, well, was there anything new in his
speech today from what I have heard before? I really
could not find anything new. And I was looking for the
urgency. I mean, we are talking about urgency the
equivalent to the declaration of the Second World
War. So where is the urgency here? I could not see any sign of urgency. The Member really di d not speak
of any urgency. The only time I recall his mentioning
urgency was when he talked about people making racist, provocative comments on social media. He
said that gave urgency.
Well, you know, unfortunately, people make
all sorts of intemperate r emarks on social media all
day every day. And one of those was from that Honourable Member who, you know, when the Gover nment went out with this and this, that he said, This is
. . . I cannot say the word! But he said B-U-L-L-S-H-I,
and the last letter.
1158 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly So, he was up there, one of those people
making intemperate remarks on social media. He was
urging people to break the law. He was inciting people
to, as he called it, civil disobedience . And then he
comes to the House, some might say hypocritically, Mr. Speaker, saying, Oh, we must pull back from the
brink! When, who is out there urging people to the
brink but the Honourable Member himself? He is the
one urging people to the brink.

That is right. Yes, that is right.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz : So some might say, Well, you
know, you cannot come here trying to wash your
hands and say, Oh, it is te rrible, terrible, this situation
out there is getting out of control, when the person
making it out of control is, arguably, yourself. It is, arguably, yourself.
Now, I am not sure where the Opposition PLP
stand on this. That Honourable Member, I understand,
is not in the Shadow Cabinet, does not speak for the Opposition. He is not the spokesman for Home A ffairs. He is not the Shadow Minister of Home Affairs. So, you know, I guess it will come clear during the rest
of today whether he is, in fact, the Opposition
spokesman for Home Affairs and he is speaking for
the Progressive Labour Party, he is speaking for the Opposition, and he is the one in charge of their policy
on Home Affairs. And I guess that will become clear.
It looked clear on Friday evening when we
were doing the Motion to Adjourn on the same subject. And I suppose we will see whether that comes
clear today.
Now, we on this side of the House, we look
back at 14 years of the Progressive Labour Party rule.
And we remember many statements on this side of
the House. We do not remember any of their pr emiers, whether it be Dame Jennifer , or the Honourable
Paula Cox , or Ewart Brown, we do not remem ber any
of them coming to the House and saying, Well, we
want to govern on a bipartisan approach. We want to
take a bipartisan approach on these important issues.
In fact, generally speaking, they took the opposite approach, particularly the Honourable Ewart Brown. He
said, Look, we’re over here and you’ve over there.
And, you know, you can say what you like, but we’re
the Government. We’ll go ahead and do as we think
appropriate.

You have your say, we have our
way.
Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: That is right. You have your
say, we have our way. That is what he said.
I do not remember Walton Brown taking issue
with that, the Honourable Member. I do not remember
his taking issue with that and saying that was an inappropriate approach for a Governm ent.
[Inaudible interjections ]

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: I do not remember that.
[Gavel]

We are not going to have Members
shouting out! We are going to have Members speaking and other Members listening.
Carry on, Attorney General .

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I do not recall the Honourable Member
Walton Brown ever being a shrinking violet on his
views, having to be in a certain place at a certain time
to express his views in any way. He is well known on
social media. I think he was previously a Member of the Senate. He is now a Member of the House and
very free to express his views.
In fact, I seem to remember a speech trying to
show the distinction between Members, being del egates of the constituency or being representatives. I
seem to remember the Member saying, Look. I do not
come here to just cast my vote the way I am told to
cast it. I do not go and find out what my constituents —
precisely what the majority of them want me to vote
on any given issue. I am not a delegate; I am a repr esentative. The constituents have elected me to use
my best judgment.
And he is in good company there. He is in
good company, again in the company of Winston
Churchill, some of the great leaders. You cannot an-ticipate when you are elec ted what issues are coming
up. And you are elected to use your judgment. Yet when someone else uses their judgment, he does not
like it. He says, That’s terrible! You must never use
your judgment! You can only be a delegate! You can
only do what you’re tol d! So there is one rule for him;
there is another rule for everyone else.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do
not like to see the House misused. We do not like
Members to behave in a manner which is unbecoming. We certainly believe it is unbecomi ng of a Member of this House to go out and encourage people to break the law! But that is what that Member has done, not once, but numerous times —and says he is proud
of it.
And, you know, we see this. The Members on
the opposite side on Friday were talki ng of hubris and
arrogance. But the Honourable Member compared himself to MLK —compared himself to Martin Luther
King! Now, tell me what hubris is, Mr. Speaker! Tell
me what hubris and arrogance are. I think I can point
to it. I think I can see it. I think Glenn Fubler can see it.
Glenn Fubler wrote a letter to the paper about that
Honourable Member and his reference to MLK. And
he effectively, in the kindest, politest, most diplomatic of ways, warned that Honourable Member Walton
Brown that he was going dow n the wrong road. He


Bermuda House of Assembly was saying to him that you should not be encouraging
this sort of behaviour in our community, encouraging
people to break the law.
And he went back, and he talked about the
general strike of 1980. I do not want to put words in
Glenn Fu bler’s mouth at all. But it seemed to me that
he was referring to the strike of 1980 to say, Look.
You can win a battle and lose the war. We took the
view that we won the strike. We were full of ourselves; what a great victory. But then businesses closed. Hotels closed. People lost their jobs. They faced har dships. And it was what is called the pyrrhic victory; you
win the victory, but the loss you suffer is greater than
if you had not taken those steps.
And that is the situation here. So, the Honourable Member is urging upon us, Do what we did not
do! Be bipartisan! We never believed in it when we
were in power. But YOU should be bipartisan! We do
not believe in it, but that’s what you should do. And
then go out there and encourage people to violence,
encourage people to break the law. And then come up
here and say, Oh, oh, we have got to stop before
people start breaking the law and we have unrest in
our society! Well, the unrest in our society seems to
be emanating from you.
He was talking about how this G overnment
should proceed. Well, the Government is proceeding
in an appropriate fashion. The Government is putting out its policy, it is putting out its initiatives. It tried to
have a public meeting, tried to have a public meeting,
but was shouted down, which is an unlawful act encouraged by that Honourable Member. And what did
the people say? We don’t want to hear you! We don’t
want to discuss this! That is what those protesters
said. We don’t want an open debate! We don’t want
the facts to come out. We want to take a strictly polit ical position. We want to stifle debate. We want to
shout you down!
We saw the same thing Friday. If someone
tried to speak, they want to shout, No, no, no! And
then they want to talk about bipartisanship. Well, to
me that does not represent bipartisanship. The way
you reach bipartisanship is by reaching out your hand.
But I do not think that is reaching out of the hand.
Now, as I have said in this House more than
once, let the Government table its Bill. And then you discuss that Bill. Then you have something to discuss.
Until that point, you do not really have anything to di scuss. Government have listened. They have heard the
views. They have read the report of the Fiscal R esponsibility Panel. We know that report says in detail, and it has been repeated by the Honourable Finance
Minister in his brilliant Budget Statement, to say, Look.
Our society is being hollowed out. We have a shrinking birth rate. We have an ageing population. You
need to get people here. You need to get people contributing into your health system so they make their
contributions to the Mutual Reinsurance Fund that support FutureCare and HIP. You need to get them paying into pensions because our pensions are underfunded and are at risk of eventual (not present, but
eventual) collapse.
These are the independent economists telling
us this. We know that previously, when the Members on that side were sitting on this side, we know that
they complained about the hollowing out of our soc iety. The then- Minister Patrice Minors, the Honourable
Patrice Minors, complained. The Honourable Member Zane De Silva brought it to the attention of the House.
He has made statements about it. We have a problem with the hollowing out of the population. They reco gnise that. We are trying to address it.
Now, they may not agree with how we are tr ying to address it. They are entitled not to agree. They
are not required to agree. All they are required to do is
to allow us to bring our initiative. They are entitled to debate it, and we are enti tled to vote on it. That is a
thing, Mr. Speaker, which I have always called “ democracy ”! But the Members on that side do not like
democracy because they do not like sitting on that side. They want to act as if they are still the Gover nment. And they want to say, We must have our way.
Their ex -Leader, the Honourable Ewart
Brown, said it at a public meeting. He made no secret,
you know? He made no secret. He said, You cannot
wait for an election. You cannot use the democratic
process. You have to close this Government down
any way you are able to. You cannot allow them to . . .
What is the worst thing we could do? What is the
worst thing we could do? The worst thing we could do
is to be successful, to turn around the disaster that
they lef t us of an economy. That is the worst thing we
could do is to turn that around to have Bermuda
headed in the right direction.
And they know we are headed in the right direction! They know we have the America’s Cup! We know that consumer confidence is up. T hey know that
business confidence is up. They know that we are
beginning to turn around the bottom of this economy.
They know we are beginning to create more jobs.
They know that! Are they on board with it? Som etimes, they say they do. And other times, the y say
there will be no cooperation with this Government. So
they seem to be schizophrenic. Do they want Bermuda to be successful? Or is their real aim to be the Government again?
We would like to work together with them. We
would like nothing more than to work together with
them, and very happy to do that, very happy to talk to
the Honourable Member Walton Brown or anyone
else on a public platform or private platform. Any day of the week, any place they want it to be, I would be
there to discuss this. But t his is obstructionism. That is
all it is. There is no matter of urgency today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say that
you have been hoodwinked. But we on our side do not
agree that this is a matter of urgent public importance that we have to adjourn t he House during Budget,
1160 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly which is the most important time of the year. We debated all of this on Friday night. We are going to debate it all once again when we get to Order No. 22.
And we wish to table legislation to move the Island forward.
The Honourable Member raised many issues.
Most of them were red herrings. He spoke about
commercial immigration. And we have looked at it. We
looked at it in depth for a long period of time. And he
says, Why now? Why now? Why are they doing this
now? Well, because at fi rst we looked at commercial
immigration. Our Minister went to conferences. We
had consultants. We had papers. We looked at this up
and down and backwards and forwards. But guess
what? There was no answer in commercial immigr ation. There was none. There was none.
So we came back to this. And we felt that this
formed the best way forward for this society, to have
people who are here already, who are assimilated into
our society to stay here, to keep them here. Why is
that important, Mr. Speaker, you might ask? That is
important because all those people have savings. And
if they have no hope of remaining in Bermuda, I think
we can all guess what they can do with their savings.
They send them back. There was an estimate, I think,
that the last 10 years something like $1.6 billion had
been remitted to home countries of people who were here on work permits. Well, we want to keep that
money in Bermuda, in this economy, supporting HIP,
supporting FutureCare, which are underfunded, heavily subsidised government programmes. We want
them to support our pension system, and we want that
money in our community producing jobs for people, producing incomes for people.
You can see the beginning of the economy
turning around. You can see an increase in planning
applications and building permits. You can see things
are moving forward now. And there are some people
who probably would not like that to happen. We don’t
want this Government to be successful. We don’t want
them to be successful. We want to sabotage the ec onomic rec overy of this country. And I hope the Members of that side are not included in that group of pe ople.
The Member on that side talks about respect
and understanding. I wish people who talk about r espect and understanding would have some. Respect
and underst anding of the democratic process —we are
doing what we are required to do.
And it is strange, you know, that the Member
gets up and he speaks about minimum wage. He talks
about nannies. He says he does not want families to be split. Well, we are all agreed on that! We are all
agreed. Well, he has agreed with us on that. I do not
know about the other Members on his side. But if he
speaks for them, if he is their spokesman for Home Affairs, then I can take it they all agree. Otherwise, I
can only take it that he agrees. But if he agrees with
keeping families together, he agrees with all of these issues, then all he needs to do is to say so and move
forward! But he is saying, No, no, no, no. We need
this joint select committee, and I need to be the
chairman and it needs to go on for six months or a
year. We need to waste more time discussing these
things.

Attorney General .

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: I will accept that. But time is
passing very quickly, as he well knows. And we have
already wasted time because we were looking at
commercial immigration, which as I said, came to naught at the end of the day. So it was sort of disappointing in that regard.
So, I have seen much of this before. I am perhaps the Member of this House, who has been co ncerned the longest with matters of long- term res idence. I started campaigning on their behalf in the
early 1990s, at least 1992. And then people thought I
was the weirdest of animals. Why are you, as an aspiring politician, supporting people who do not have
the votes? They cannot help you. And everyone else is going to vote against you. But that was not true, you
know. That was not true. Bermudians have an innate
sense of justice that they exercise. And th at is what
they did in that case. That Honourable Member departing the Chamber did not like that. But it is the
truth.
And we made changes in the 1990s. And
these same allegations were made then. They did not have any effect on the election in 1998. In fact, it was
probably the other way around because I think people
felt that the then- UBP had not done enough. And a lot
of people that the UBP felt should have supported them supported the Opposition—surprise, surprise. And there was an overwhelming victory. And they did
not complain about that. They did not say that that
amnesty that was held in 1994 and forward from there
until the election affected that at all.
And then they went on and did the PRCs. And
I give them credit for that. But they admitted that that
was only one shoe that dropped. They admitted that
these people had to have rights. Under the European


Bermuda House of Assembly Convention, they had to have rights. You cannot keep
people in second- class citizenship. They have to have
rights. So, for Bermuda—

That is right.

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: The International Convention
on Civil and Political Rights also speaks to it. You cannot go ahead and have people with second- class
rights. Some of them might say, Well, Bermuda is not
independent, so we are not true citizens, so the rights
do not apply. I disagree. I disagree. As a lawyer, I say
the same rights apply to those people. They have
those same human rights. It does not change.
But the Member keeps blowing hot and cold.
He wants to go out and say, I support these people. I
feel sorry for the Filipinos. I want family rights. I want people to be together. And then he turns around and
says, Oh, but Bermudians are threatened, and we
cannot have this. And we have got to put it off and
have this committee. And you sort of wonder, well, is it
a case of a politician who wants to be speaking out of
both sides of his mouth, to say, I support this side. But
I support the other side. And let’s set up a committee.
Let’s look at it, and let’s go nowhere.
This Government is trying to be decisive. We
are trying to put forward a plan. Let us put the plan forward. The Members of that side can agree. They
can disagree. We can discuss it ad nauseam, which is
democracy. That is democracy at work. And I do not
know why the Members on that side disapprove of
simple democracy. There is no . . . He talked about
people having crass political motivation. There is no
crass political motivation on this side. We are trying to
turn the ec onomy around, and this is the way of doing
it. I do not think it is going to have any political
outcome. In fact, the backlash is likely to be the other way, as it was in 1998. You know, in 1998, people
thought we had not gone far enough. So I do not know
what political calculus people think that we have on
this side. It would not make any sense if you had half
a brain to look at it. It would not make any sense. The
Members on that side perhaps are running scared.
But they need —

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Trevor G. Moniz: And the last thing I will say,
Mr. Speaker, is I hope —I hope that the Royal Gazette
today (there is a recorder in the House) sees fit to actually report both sides of the debate. Friday night on
the Motion to Adjourn, the reporter on ly reported one
side of the debate. I thought that was very strange. I
thought one of the basic tenets of professional journa lism was you had to report both sides of the debate,
whether you agreed or not. You have to say, Well,
one side said this, and the other side said that. So I
just hope that we get some reporting of both sides of the House today.
So the other side, they love to complain about
the Royal Gazette, so I thought, Well, let me have a
little complaint. Because I think they cry in their milk a
little too much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Desk thumping]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and my personal thanks for accepting this motion and
understanding the importance of this motion. And thank you to my colleague, the Honourable Member,
Mr. Walton Brown, for bringing this to the House.
This is a matter of national urgency. It is a
matter of that. And, Mr. Speaker, you would know
first-hand, having lived this history before, there are
few people in this Chamber who have lived this history
before. But we seem to be on the path of, those who do not learn from the past are going to repeat it.
Mr. Speaker, when the Honourable Member
who just took his seat was speaking, I almost felt as though I had been caught in a time warp. I almost felt
that we were back in the 1930s, when the same argument, the same line was being dropped by Honour-able Members who, quite frankly, if there had been
political parties back then, would have been OBA, that
we need to increase the population for the economy. We need to get these people in here working, while at
the same time, bringing in people like Margaret
Sanger to reduce the black population, encouraging emigration of black people.
1162 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Mr. Speaker, it is the understanding of this
history that should create empathy, because there is
an old story somebody told me once. They said, If my
grandfather got eaten by a shark and my father got
eaten by a shark, I at least should be respected for
not wanting to be around sharks. Now, when our
grandparents had this same line dropped on them,
Oh, it’s not about political manipulation. It is about the
economy, what happened, Mr. Speaker? When our
parents experienced this, when the same line was
dropped, what happened, Mr. Speaker?
You know, the playbook gets funny, you
know, because we hire all these foreign consultants.
They could have just gone to the records and Parli ament and just read what the likes of Sir Henry Tucker
and people said back then. They could just read it.
They do not even need to pay anybody to write an ything for them. They could just read it off, because it is the same line. And, Mr. Speaker, that is why thi s is a
matter of urgency.
Mr. Speaker, I was reading in the old archives
of how Dame Lois stood on this House and warned the Government before the hanging of Buck Burrows
and his compatriot, and warned them. And do you
know what the then- Government said? You are inst igating this. You created this. No, Mr. Speaker. Just as
it was then, we are reporting what we are hearing. We
are standing for our constituents. Because marches
and a little disruption can be managed. If we continue
to not learn from the past, there are things that will
happen that cannot be managed as easily. And that is
why we are here, because we love our country.
The Honourable Member spoke utter, utter,
errant nonsense when he said that we want them to fail. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you. We have family
members who are out of work. We have siblings and
neighbours and cousins and people who are out of
work. And quite frankly, there needs to be positive
progress. But I am mystified as to how people who
have jobs already, who have jobs, who ar e earning a
living, earning more in many instances than Bermudians, on average, why the urgency of now for them,
but not for the unemployed Bermudians! Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Why is there no . . . You know, the
Government of Jamaica has a very good programme,
and I know a lot of our honourable colleagues across the way do not feel very positive about the Caribbean,
but they could learn a lot. They have a programme
where they constantly seek to re- patriot Jamaicans of
ability. India has a similar programm e. Mexico has a
similar programme, as well. Why are we not seeing
the effort to bring back the talent and intellect and abi lity of Bermudians who have left, some because they
had no choice, some because of better opportunities?
But why are we not as eager to bring them home?
Mr. Speaker, those who do not learn from the
past are doomed to repeat it. And this could be 1930, it could be 1920, and we are having the same debate.
The only difference is just a few more black faces here. That is the only difference. And it is sickening,
Mr. Speaker. I mean, I would like to refer to CURB’s
[Citizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda] report on
Bermuda immigration, with your permission, Mr.
Speaker.
“Bermuda’s history of immigration is complex.
It involved repeated efforts to reduce the Black population through multiple banishment/transportation of hundreds of free Blacks over the first 218 years of
Bermuda’s history; followed by concerted efforts post
Emancipation to increase the white population through laws passed to encourage emigrants; and finally in the
20
th century by racialized immigration policies and
birth control.” That is our history, Mr. Speaker. Our
grandfathers and grandmothers were eaten by that
shark. Our fathers were eaten by that shark. And now
the One Berm uda Alliance wants to tell me that the
immigration shark has no teeth? How foolish they
must think we are! And to say that, Oh, you know, we
do not see any political ramifications —a party that has
lists of how many white voters are in each constit uency, because that is how it measures what is a safe
seat and what is a marginal [seat] —white voters, the
number of white voters in a constituency.
Mr. Speaker, we need to be honest! We need
to be honest. Look at how this issue has divided us, Mr. Speaker. If you are on social media, look at how it
has divided. And the Honourable Members on the
Government would say that we have created this divide. Mr. Speaker, this divide was created long before
any of us were born. And there is a reason why two
groups of people, for the most part, see the issue
through this perspective. We were bitten by the immigration shark; they rode it to prosperity. That is the
difference. And so, we see the urgency. We see the urgency because people are hungry, Mr. Speaker.
People need jobs. You cannot tell me ever ything is up when unemployment is up, Mr. Speaker! You cannot boast about all these things when Ber-mudians are the only job category that has lost jobs in
the past couple of years, the only one! PRC’s jobs are
fine. Non- Bermudians, are fine. Work permit holders
are fine. But Bermudians? No. So where is the urgency of now for Bermudians, Mr. Speaker? That is
the question.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me go a little bit further.
There is a lack of trust for the One Bermuda Alliance
on this is sue of immigration. And that contributes to
the historical knowledge that we shared, the shared
historical knowledge of what immigration approaches
have done. So, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I
would like to briefly just go into the history of the One Bermuda Alliance and immigration.
And to begin with that history, Mr. Speaker,
we have to go back to 2007, with the then- Leader of
the then- United Bermuda Party, Mr. Michael Dunkley,
who now serves as this Island’s Premier. In 2007 that
Honourable Member, in a previous life, pushed and
pledged to grant status to all PRC holders. That was


Bermuda House of Assembly the 2007 general election pledge, of which arguably,
they lost the election.
During the 2012 election campaign, on the
Everest D eCosta Show , the then- Deputy Leader of
the Opposition stated, on the Everest DeCosta Show,
that the OBA would not —would not be granting Bermuda status to PRC holders. Pre- election, the One
Bermuda Alliance promised that they would not scrap
term limits; they would only suspend them. So, Mr.
Speak er, they win the election, as is the democratic
process, peaceful transition of power. Mr. Speaker, nowhere in their platform did they talk about granting
status to PRC holders. As a matter of fact, they denied it. They ran ads saying we were lying, Mr.
Speaker.
So what you are seeing now is a Government
with no mandate from the people to take this position. Because we have seen, when they tried to get a mandate on it in 2007, they lost. Because they knew that
people knew they could not be trusted to manage that
process. And they still, Mr. Speaker . . . I can tell you
right now, I can say with pure clarity that if they had
put this in their platform, if they had had the courage
of their convictions that they believed this was about
human rights and we have to stand on issues of pri nciple, they would have lost again— because the people do not trust them on immigration.
But let me continue, Mr. Speaker. On January 31
st, 2013, the One Bermuda Alliance attempted
to grant the children of guest workers the right to
compete with our children for jobs, for summer jobs,
Mr. Speaker. While youth unemployment was at an
unprecedented level, they wanted to give jobs to the children of working non- Bermudians, while Bermudians were out of work, while Bermudian youth were unemployed. That is what they wanted to do, and the
public stood up, and they backed down.
Do you know why? Because the public knew,
Why did we not see that in the One Bermuda All iance’s platform alongside their scheme to grant status
to thousands of PRC holders? Because they knew the
people would not accept it. And they are being inte llectually dishonest in continuing to prate this story that this is urgent and this is the thing, y ou know. Maybe
they looked under the hood and found something.
So, in February 2013, Mr. Speaker, continuing
the record of the One Bermuda Alliance on immigr ation and why the public does not trust them on this specific issue, if nothing else, Minister of Home A ffairs, the Honourable Member from another place,
who sits in another place, Michael Fahy, unilaterally
abolished term limits without any form of public co nsultation, opening the floodgates, opening the floodgates for issues that would come later.
Now, Mr. Speaker, February 13
th, the Ho nourable Member who sits in another place, from another place, Minister Fahy, proposed to amend the
work permit policy to allow the children of work permit
holders under 19 years old to work during the sum-mer. That was forced to back down on February 19th.
So we look at the Job Makers Act, December 4th,
2013, making it easier and cheaper, Mr. Speaker. In a government situation where we need money coming
in they made it cheaper for people of wealth and priv ilege to gain their status. Hmm.
Yes.
Bermuda first, huh?
On July 23
rd, 2014 . . . Oh, wait, hold on. I will
go back. March 22nd, 2014, the One Bermuda Alliance
amended the Companies Act, granting exempt co mpanies the right to acquire residential land, reducing the stock of land available to Bermudians yet again.
And then, on July 23
rd, we have the Minister who sits
in another place, from another place, announcing that they will grant PRCs the right to seek citizenship. So,
Mr. Speaker, this was not an agenda that the voters signed off on. And that is why you have seen repeated
protests circling this House and circling the Cabinet
Office. The people feel deceived.
And, Mr. Speaker, they will go to the old line
pf their political forebears —the PLP did it. It is the
PLP’s fault. It is bad public relations . You know, our
public relations machinery needs to be fixed, which it
does. But it is not just that. It is not just that. Mr.
Speaker, a people cannot be led in a direction they do
not want to go. If we were inclined to go out and stir
up some trouble and make the natives restless and all the other euphemisms that they like to use, if the pe ople did not feel it, they would not move on it. And, Mr.
Speaker, the people are getting tired. They are getting
tired of marching. They are getting tired of the Government not listening.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Honourable
Member, spoke of our record in government (and
rightly so) as saying, Well, you didn’t believe in bipartisanship then. You didn’t believe in all that, you know,
and all this sort of chest -beating and dramatics that he
has become prone to . . . and, Mr. Speaker, perhaps
that is one of the reasons we are sitting over here.
The One Bermuda Alliance likes to paint this
picture like political parties are stati c, that we are unchanging and we do not grow. But political parties are
based on the people who make up the parties. They
make up the people. And, you know, he threw a little
stone, asking who speaks for Home Affairs? Mr.
Speaker, on this issue, as with so many issues, this
Progressive Labour Party is united, because this is
bigger than politics. It is about the future of our chi ldren and about the security of generations of Bermudians unborn. So you can play those games all you
want. We are united on this issue.
Bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker. You know, for
years, the One Bermuda Alliance and all their political
predecessors used to espouse the value of, We need
to come together. We need to come together, the best
and brightest minds uniting on the issues as all of our
people. But it never actually really happens. But, Mr.
Speaker, that philosophy that has been thrown out
1164 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly there as a vote- getting measure actually has some
merit. Because the Westminster system does a di sservice to our people, because we do not a lways have
the best and the brightest working on the ideas and
the solutions that benefit our people. We do not.
So, Mr. Speaker, the One Bermuda Alliance
campaigned on a vision of a better way, a new way of
doing politics. If they felt that we rejected b ipartisa nship and that that was terrible that we did that, then
they have an opportunity to not do the same behaviour. Because I think the people are also tired of the
excuse, Well, you did it, too, the childish, pedantic
approach of, You did it, too, so I ’m going to do it, too,
not realising that perhaps that is the reason we lost.
And, Mr. Speaker, look. If the economy is
booming, right . . . if I have got money in my pocket,
everybody has got money in their pocket, it is better
for everyone. Okay? So let us drop this lie that the
Progressive Labour Party wants to see this economy
fail and this Government fail. We want to beat you at
your best. I want you to build hotels all up and down this Island. I want you to make the economy boom.
And then I want to come in there and kick your bac ksides out of Government, because our vision is better,
because our hearts are in the right place! And I believe that most of my colleagues, if not all of my colleagues, share that belief.
We are about what is good for the country.
And that is why this is a matter of importance. That is why we are standing here, as Dame Lois stood here,
asking the Government to change direction. Those
who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat
it!
There are clouds gathering around this cou ntry that we cannot form, nor can we stop. But what
can be done is for us to sit down, put our best and
brightest minds together and look at immigration in a
holistic fashion. If we need to bring in more people to
boost our economy, who are they? W here are they
from? What jobs will they fill? What jobs will they cr eate? If we need to look at our work permit policies,
what can we do to make it more efficient for business?
What can we do to make it more streamlined? But also, what can we do to eradicate and stamp out the
issues that lead to Bermudians being discriminated
against in favour of non- Bermudians? Because that is
the key. If our immigration is working, a lot of these
issues will not matter. You would not have somebody
sitting up [here for] 15 years and the shenanigans
played by certain members of the business comm unity, to keep some people here. You would not have
Bermudians having to train non- Bermudians to be
their boss and to be their supervisor and try to give
them the basic skills they should have had.
We need to have this immigration reform and
get it right. And it does not mean that the One Bermuda Alliance goes off into a smoke- filled room
somewhere and does some political calculus and does what they do. It is not appropriate on this i ssue, Mr. Speaker. The history says it is not appropriate on
this issue. And it is not about control, Mr. Speaker. It
is about making sure that we do this right. This Bill
that the Honourable Government has put in place . . .
when they lose, if they continue to go forward with this, we will reverse it. We will repeal it. And if that
cannot be done, then we will find other ways to undo
the damage that they have wrought. That will then be
our history, tit -for-tat immigration policies. That cannot
be the right way. That cannot be the right way forward
if we want to have stability.
If we could sit down and map out a future that
we can have some consensus on, some consensus
on, and take to the people. We can dial down the
temperature. We can give people confidence that both
sides of the aisle are interested in Bermudians first,
getting our people together. And let us talk about bringing our people home, the qualified, capable, intelligent, talented Bermudians who gained skills abroad.
Let us strategise. Let us get all these ideas together.
Let us look at the families who have been split up by
the injustices and by the loopholes and the problems with the laws. Let us address that. Let us address the
fact that there are some people who have been rolled
over repeatedly who, quite frankly, should not have
been. Let us address that. But let us take care of all of
it.
Mr. Speaker, the PRCs are working. They are
working. So there is no urgency to take care of them.
They are working. Now, you may say, Well, the real
estat e people will benefit because they may buy a few
houses here, which is fine; we accept that. But they
are working. Their job category is not shrinking in
terms of employment. Bermudian [jobs] are, Mr.
Speaker. And quite frankly, if we are not focused on
Bermudians, then why are we here? Why are we here
if we are not focused on Bermudians?
Mr. Speaker, part of the challenge that I have
seen is the . . . I spoke on this on Friday. And we are
not just facing the redefining of marriage in this cou ntry; we are facing the redefinition of what a Bermudian
is, Mr. Speaker. As we speak, who a Bermudian is
and what a Bermudian is —our very culture, our very
identity —is being subverted. We hear the people
online saying Bermudians have no culture, you know,
that there i s no such thing as a Bermudian except a
cahow and the skinks. But that is utter foolishness,
Mr. Speaker. We are a blending of the Caribbean, the
blending of Africa. We are the blending of Asia. We
are the blending of North America and Canada. And it
has produced something that is uniquely ours, even
something as simple as people who say Good mor ning to each other when we pass across the street.
Mr. Speaker, as a child I had many teachers
who came from the Caribbean, who came from the
UK, who came from dif ferent domiciles for work. But
the one difference that I remember is that they became a part of our community. They did not change
us. We helped embrace them. They became a part of


Bermuda House of Assembly us. There was no overwhelming desire that I saw too
often to make us like t hem, to make Bermuda a little
England, a little Toronto, a little Jamaica. There was
an embracing of our culture. There was a respect of our culture. You did not hear these folks running
around denigrating Bermuda. At least, they had
enough sense in that era not to do it publicly.
Mr. Speaker, when you go onto social media
and you see the venom and the racial hatred and the
slurs and the ignorance that come out of people who
declare themselves One Bermuda Alliance suppor ters, proudly sign their name to som e hateful la nguage, it is reminiscent of what went on when we
were doing this dance in the 1930s, in the 1950s, in
the 1970s. So we have a history that contextualises
this entire process. And it is because of that history,
Mr. Speaker, we have to, collecti vely, all 36 of us,
recognise that we are on the brink. This is a matter of
national importance. We are on the brink. And we can
together pull back from the brink, and we can together
address this.
You can still have your thousands of PRCs,
perhaps. You c an still have your new voters, perhaps.
But let us talk about the full picture, how this will be
managed, how this will be done, how we can create
something that all of us together can move forward
with, not just after next election, but after the election
after that, and continuing to constantly tweak and r eform and do things that will make it work for Bermudi-ans.
That is a very important conversation, Mr.
Speaker. We have to . . . and I do not think that the
Government appreciates this. You know, when the
Honourable Member talks about how they spent all this money and all this time on commercial immigr ation, they seem to forget that we told them it would not
work. They seem to forget that. We could have saved
them a lot of money if they had just listened to us. But
they were not listening. So the Honourable Member
who just took his seat admitted the Government wasted money, wasted time, on a project that pr oduced nothing. And we told them that. They won, but
they did not listen.
So you would think, by now , that the penny
would drop. You know, last Friday, not reflecting on a
previous debate, an Honourable Member said, You
know, you keep giving the same speech. Well, my
grandfather, who was a schoolteacher, said, For slow
learners, you need to repeat yourself. For the hard of
hearing, you need to repeat yourself, maybe even
raise your voice. For the remedial student, you have to repeat yourself.
Mr. Speaker, this is such an important issue. I
mean, this is something that I am terrified for my coun try. And I am concerned not just about the er osion of what a Bermudian is and who we are and our values and our standards and the things that make us
who we are. I am concerned that we are going down
the path we went down before. And it will be different. It will be like nothing we have ever seen before. And I
am terrified of that, because I have seen in other
countries how it goes. And we are cultivating, together
cultivating an environment that will not be pleasant
and will not be for the benefit of the economy. It will
not be for the benefit of business. It will not be for the
benefit of tourists. It will not be for the benefit of any of
us. So that is why we want to pull back from the brink.
This country, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable
Member thinks I jest. This count ry is on the brink of
war. And I say that with no hyperbole. There is a cloud
over our country that has been a direct result of lack
of trust, lack of corroboration, lack of communication,
and lack of a willingness to just sit down as Bermudians in the val ues that we claim to aspire to, working
together, working together, our best and brightest minds working together.
How can anyone object to that? How can
anybody object to that? What is wrong with a bipart isan approach to comprehensive immigration reform? I
have heard no real reason for the haste in rushing forward with this. And I have seen many reasons, both
political, economic and social, for us to take a breath
and pause.
I just think that we put this motion down as a
last-ditch effort to bring us all together. And we are
going to continue to hold our hand out. We are going to continue to strive for us to put our best and brightest minds together and tackle this thorny problem for
the first time in our history, Mr. Speaker. For the first
time in our hi story, we have an opportunity for the best
and the brightest to get together and make this work. How could anybody oppose that? What right -thinking
Bermudian who loves Bermuda could oppose that? It
makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important
that the people let their voices be heard. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I encouraged the members of the
public to reach out to the One Bermuda Alliance, to contact them by phone or by e- mail or by whatever
venue works for them , becaus e they need to hear
you. They need to hear you. It makes no sense you whispering to us about how upset you are. It makes no sense you sending us little e- mails, the little inbox
that you are upset. The Government needs to hear you.
The Honourable Minister, Mr. Fahy, was on
Facebook talking about a silent majority. And he was
talking about a silent majority. Now, taking away from
the origins of silent majority created by Richard Nixon,
which talked about the tapping into the racist elements
of the American South, we will put that to the side.
The Honourable Minister has it wrong. There is a very
strong silent majority. They do not march. They do not
come to town hall meetings. They might not even call the talk show. But this majority is growing. And they
are tired. And they just want to be listened to, and
they just want jobs, opportunities, a sense that Bermuda belongs to them, not just for anybody with a
1166 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly dollar and a dream who is going to come by here and
do their thing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the public to
reach out to the Honourable Member, Mr. Craig Ca nnonier, by e- mail at ccannonier@gov.bm , and the
Honourable Sha wn Crockwell at sgccrockwell@gov.bm . And we will go through the whole list.
We will place the whole list on social media. And we
want the public to reach out to them. (My eyes are
failing me in my old age, Mr. Speaker. I cannot read
on little devices.) But I think it is important that the public use the opportunity to go to the phonebook, call
the OBA. E -mail them. Write them letters. Send them
smoke signals, whatever you need to do to let them
know that the majority is not happy, that the majority
feels deceived, that the majority feels that this is not
what they paid for on December 17
th, 2012. It needs to
be heard. And if that is what it takes for them to pull
back from the brink, then so be it.
You know, Mr. Speaker, in college, I did a
paper on brinksmanship. And it is a fascinating study
in terms of, how many leaders have taken their cou ntry to the brink of war, to t he brink of collapse, to make
a point or to achieve an objective. And many have
been successful. But we are at a stage in our history
we cannot play chicken with the future of this country.
We cannot. So let us get together. Let us find a way to collaborat e. Let us find a way to share our minds. And
let us find a way to pull back from the brink. We are in an urgent situation, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you
again for recognising the urgency. I thank you again
for allowing us to bring this forward. And I hope t hat
the Honourable Members of the One Bermuda All iance will please do what their forefathers did not do. Listen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise with pride to support the effort by my
honourable colleague who sits in constituency 17 and
the motion which he has brought of which we on this
side feel is of urgent importance.
This has become the situation it has, Mr.
Speaker, because of actions, intentions (and in some cases) perceptions. If you allow, Mr. Speaker, I will
read something from the Throne Speech that was
made in November of 2015. And some of my honourable colleagues who have spoken already have
touched on very important issues that relate to this,
showing what we have seen over the past three years from One Bermuda Alliance around Home Affairs, around Immigration, which has created the climate
that has compelled this side to bring this motion. But I
will read what is in the Throne Speech. And, you
know, these are not my words; these are the words of
the Government expressed in their intentions for th e
upcoming calendar year, following the opening of Par-liament.
And it is on page 23, Mr. Speaker, of the
Throne Speech. And it says, “Government will continue to work on fixing inequities in the Bermuda I mmigration and Protection Act 1956 . . .” That is ce rtainly nothing anybody on this side would disagree
with. But here is the crucial component: “with public
consultation preceding amendments.” Public consult ation preceding amendments, Mr. Speaker, page 23 of
the last Throne Speech of the One Bermuda Alli ance.
So, where are we now, Mr. Speaker? We are
here experiencing a disregard for their own promise.
That is what we are experiencing. Because on Febr uary 4
th . . . (I am sorry. February 4th was the by -
election, where they lost quite handsomely and we
won quite proudly.) But on the next day, on the 5th, the
Minister who sits in another place (and as my honourable colleague says, from another place), presents to
the country an intention, an intention that is totally di sregarding their own promise to this country! Let us not
[forget] that they did not even promise to do this in the
first place. This was not a part of the mandate that
was given to the One Bermuda Alliance to do what
they have put in this Throne Speech that they were
going to do anyway.
The fact that they broke one promise, but then
they made another one and then broke it again— that
is what we have seen. And my colleagues have quite
eloquently outlined what we have seen as the beha viour of the One Bermuda Alliance when it comes to
immigration. It is not a behaviour, I would contend, Mr.
Speaker, that endears faith, trust, comfort, honesty, or
protection. Now, perhaps [it is that way] for a certain constituency. But I can tell you, I as a Bermudian do
not feel it. Thousands of Bermudians out there do not
feel it. And the people whom we represent do not feel
it. And it is with their feeling that we felt compelled to take these steps.
But this follows, Mr. Speaker, an outright di sregard for their own promises —repeatedly. But it also
follows, as the Honourable Member for constit uency 33 outlined, successive steps in immigration policy and intention, which seemed to be weighted not towards the protection of Bermudians, Mr. Speaker,
but to the enhancement of other interests, other than
Bermudians, as Bermudians were losing jobs, as our
youth employment rate was near 40 per cent, as i ndustries were continuing to let Bermudian workers go, as the economy continued to shrink. We saw succes-sive efforts right from virtually the very beginning of
the One Bermuda Alliance, under a Cabinet firstly led by the Honourable Member who sits in constit uency 12, now in a Cabinet led by the Honourable


Bermuda House of Assembly Member who sits in constituency 10, repeatedly make
steps .
As we were reminded earlier, Mr. Speaker, it
was the Honourable Member who sits in constit uency 12 who was the Leader when they made the
promises that they would not do this to us. And when I
say “us,” I mean Bermudians. They would not do the
very thing or one of the very things that has brought
fear, uncertainty, anger, frustration and mistrust into
the Bermudian psyche. I have to do this, you know. I
have to almost compare the One Bermuda Alliance to
a cockroach, a cockroach because cockroaches carry
certain diseases on their appendages.

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the word, but I will
describe the situations that many people are bringing
to my eyes. In a situation where despair, fear, uncertainty and great concern are spread rampant . . . I will
not attach it to any insect. But that is how people feel they are being tr eated by this Government. So I will
make this . . . I made the same description without
using the un- parliamentary word.

So I have done it, Mr. Speaker.
It is done. And I have obliged your request.
But I will move on because, Mr. Speaker, that
is the condition that we find ourselves in. But this journey, unfortunately, has not been pleasant for the peo-ple of Bermuda when it comes to the One Bermuda
Alliance and its handling of immigration policy. Why
have we constantly seen, Mr. Speaker, comments
from representatives of that side which would suggest an effort to devalue how Bermudians see themselves?
Why do we have people calling Bermudians accidents
of birth? Why do we have people questioning the concept of a birthright, things that are natural, Mr.
Speaker, to the psyche of any people in a sovereign community or identifiable community around the
globe? People believe in birthright. People believe that they are connected to the land, that that defines
them. That gives them a purpose. That gives them an
identity in the wider world.
We are only 22 square miles. So that is an
essential quality that many people will want to have.
The definition of a Bermudian may not be in law, but it is built over centuries of experience by thousands of
people. Now, perhaps in our history that particular
identity has been segregated or different in the eyes
of many people. But there are certain key tenets to it. So why would you, as a government, talk about almost devaluing t hat idea in the eyes of the people in
order to prop up a policy intention? Why would you
say a person is an accident of birth and you were here
by choice? This is coming from policymakers in the
One Bermuda Alliance. Why would you refer to people who are c oncerned about the security and welfare of
themselves and their families as xenophobes? Why would you do that?
It seems that there has been this tendency to
want to break down, destroy, in order to build up. Break down the psyche of Bermudians who have a
sense of identity and pride in themselves to build up
whatever you are looking to achieve for somebody
else! That is a part of what we have seen. And that is
why I talk about the despair, the uncertainty, the anger
and the fear being cultivated, because t hat, amongst
many people in this community, is what we have
seen, particularly around immigration policy.
My honourable colleague in constituency 33 in
particular, and the honourable colleague who sits in constituency 17, were very clear as to what the hi story
of immigration policy has been. We can go back, Mr.
Speaker, to just a mere handful of years after the
creation of the Immigration and Protection Act 1956. There was a committee convened of this House, prior
to having a Constitution and all those sor ts of things,
called the Plowman Committee, of which the issue of
Bermudians and their opportunities in the workplace
and training over that of non- Bermudians was a priority for the House in the joint select . . . clearly what
would have been a joint selec t committee format at
that time, Mr. Speaker.
So, this issue of immigration, Mr. Speaker, is
not foreign in its challenge to any government. These
are the facts. So no one is suggesting that the OBA is
perhaps not trying to meet a challenge in their own way. We contest that there is another way, and there
1168 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly is a way in which we can do it together, to perhaps, for
once in our history, or perhaps at another point in our
history, we can find a way to have a much more unified approach that can stand the test of an election,
that can stand the test of a change of a Minister, that can stand the test of a change of a Cabinet, that can
even stand the test of the changes in society.
We are different than we were, Mr. Speaker,
in 1956, the composition of the country, the economic
situation, the priorities. So this Act needs to have
some address. Governments have tinkered and done
things to try and deal with the challenges that they
face in certain periods. The former UBP, of which
many Members on that side sit, ended t he awarding of
discretionary grants for not dissimilar reasons upon
which we come here today, because it risks certain
social and economic disruption. People were angry.
They were mistrustful of immigration policy. They did
not feel that it was working for them as Bermudians.
They were seeing other things happen that they did
not like.
So the Government of that day responded to
that demand. Now, one might say it was done for po-litical reasons, to save a government that was sliding
into freefall. But certai nly, what we have seen, Mr.
Speaker, in some of these cases where the Gover nment does not respond to the cries of the community,
it feels it at some point. We are asking this Gover nment to sense what the community is crying out and
telling you , because if not, you may feel something
that you may find very uncomfortable.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would go back to this concern that there is a tendency, and there has been a tendency by the One Bermuda Alliance, to want to
forward an agenda, often without, as I said here, public consultation. We have seen a number of measures
that they have exercised in this way. We have seen
immigration policy handled in a way that has built up
continued mistrust among certain interest groups. I
mean, Mr. Speaker, even the business community
upon which they sort of would pride themselves as
being the custodians of and the representatives of in
this hallowed House, told them to pull back on one measure that they were pushing forward. And that
was in October of 2014. And that was the business
employment visa scheme that they put in place.
One of the business interest groups told them
they were pushing forward with it, steamrolling forward with it, announced it as a great, grand initiative
within their effort to shape immigration policy, Mr.
Speaker. And they told them, Hold up! No, no, no! No.
We see some problems with this. This is not going to
actually . . . This may help one interest group in the
business community over another. This could bring
the risk of opportunity to Bermudians a t the highest
level in business. So they told the Government to
pause. And they had to, because the Minister then, after having announced it, paused. Well, why can you not pause now? You have
a lot more people telling you that they are upset with
the way y ou are going now. But perhaps certain
voices are louder in the caucus of the OBA than ot hers. The voices of the defenceless, the jobless, the children are not as loud. We have children standing by
the roadside in this country, Mr. Speaker, crying to
have t heir school saved. Is the OBA listening? We
have people lining up for jobs, applying in the hu ndreds for jobs where there are only 10 places, in Government and outside of Government. Is the OBA li stening? We continue to see lists of people being let off
at some very wealthy and lucrative companies in this
country, Mr. Speaker. Is the OBA listening?
We saw people here on Friday, calling for a
pause, calling for a change, calling for a rewind on a
direction. Was the OBA listening? I do not know. So far, to al l the issues that I have raised, we have seen
no pause, no listening it appears, and no action to
respond to those cries, Mr. Speaker.
So, we see an argument from the OBA, Mr.
Speaker, as well, around this that seems to quote . . .
And it is unprecedented in my view, as my honourable
colleague from constituency 17 has tried to elucidate
here and other places, about their claim that all this is
connected to international human rights and civil and
political rights and the European Convention. Let me
just for the benefit of the public, Mr. Speaker . . . How
much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

Okay. It is enough time.
The European Convention on Human Rights
is a very interesting document. But it is rather disi ngenuous, because we all know what its purpose is for.
We all know what it does. It is an extension of the UN
Convention, as well, as to what it is supposed to do. If
you read that convention, Mr. Speaker, it is designed for a particular purpose. It is specifically designed for
persons who are stateless, people who are di stressed, and people who find themselves in the risk iest situation. And it guides the European Union or the European community on how you deal with those
people who are essential ly in crisis from the standpoint of those conditions, coming from war, coming
from pestilence, coming from some fractured situation.
And once they come into the region of the European
jurisdiction, this is how we should treat them and our
citizens.
And ev en when it comes to the rights of family
life, that is its purpose. It is supposed to deal with, if you find a situation where a family who has come in
from a distressed situation is separated, there is a
duty to ensure that the integrity of that family is secured. We are not talking about those . . . It is not d esigned, in principle, to deal with the most prosperous and most secure and most stable situations. Eur opean law generally can manage that. The European


Bermuda House of Assembly Convention is to deal with the riskiest situation, and
the guidance as to how the European Union will manage people under those who come to them under
those conditions, who find they have no passport, who find they have no home, who find they come from war.
They have come from pestilence. They have c ome
from stressful situations to the European Union. How
do we manage them? How do we manage the least
defensive, the people with the least defence, the least
support, the least protection? That convention is d esigned to guide them in that situation.
Not the most prosperous, not the most s ecure, not the most economically viable, not people
who have passports and can go from hither and
thither. That is the disingenuous application that the
OBA is seeking to apply here, Mr. Speaker. So, you
know, we need to . . . there has to be some honesty in
this whole question. And that is what Bermudians are
fearful of. They have not seen honesty for decades,
particularly when it comes to the One Bermuda All iance and its predecessors, around immigration. And
this proposa l has been brought forward to bring an
environment where we all can participate in an env ironment of honesty, guided by the House rules. Come
up with proposals that can guide many of the questions that the Honourable Member from constit uency 17 put to the table.
The PLP is committed to comprehensive i mmigration reform. And we are prepared to do it in a
bipartisan manner if the Government wishes, though
that has not been their record so far with us. It was
interesting to hear the Honourable Attorney General
speak about, we somehow hate bipartisanship. Well, I
remember Bermuda First. I remember the Joint Select Committee on Education. I remember the Joint Select
Committee on Crime, all under the PLP administr ation, all bipartisan efforts to deal with principal issues.
So again, rewriting history is a very disho nourable intention, Mr. Speaker. It does not aid what
we are trying to achieve here today. And what we are trying to achieve here today, Mr. Speaker, is som ething to help our country to not push it to t he brink, to
not push those who are out there, the silent people who are where the clouds are gathering.
As I spoke on Friday, I see clouds gathering
of a previous era, as my honourable colleague de-scribed, clouds based on the fact that we have ec onomic desperation, we have social inequities, ec onomic inequities growing and building. We have pe ople feeling desperate, not knowing what their options are. The clouds are gathering, and they are seeing a
government that they believed, just as in that previous
era, did not care. And they are seeing a government
that was not listening. Because in the previous era, a government did not listen to the crowd. And the cou ntry suffered.
We want to avoid the suffering. We want to
avoid the anxiety. We want to avoid going off the cliff.
And, Mr. Speaker, we are perhaps asking the Gov-ernment once again, after failing, unfortunately, at this
effort in the past. We have asked the Government to
work with us on things in the past, and it has failed.
We have asked the Government to fight some of the
fights that we wish to be fighting, like the land injus-tice. But we did not see the Government push the
Governor to make the right decision on that. You
know, this House approved that measure, but the
Government just did not help. So w e are asking the
Government again, in a parliamentary way, to walk with us on this on the issue that stands to influence our country for generations, just as in 1956, that Act
has shaped the country. This is what we are asking
the Government to do. This is what the motion tabled
by the honourable colleague from constituency 17 is
asking.
We are asking the Government to pause. We
are asking for this House to pause. We are asking for
the country to pause and to take a road that will be for
the benefit of all of us, where we can craft some genuine policy and law to the benefit of all of us, that will help Bermuda grow, that will help our economy be
stable, that will help our people feel hope, and that will
bring about partnership not only with those who have
come here to settle for economic reasons, but those
who see Bermuda as their home. And they should be
first. Because we all know who put us here. We must remember them in all that we do and all that we say,
first. Because if not, we lose their confidence, we lose
their trust and they will resort to other means to get
what they want.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable Members, the House is
adjourned to 2:00 pm.
[Gavel]

Proceedings suspended at 12:27 pm

Proceedings resumed at 2:01 pm

[Hon. K. H. Randolph Horton, Speaker, in the Chair]

MOTION

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE TO
EXAMINE WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

[Continuation of the debate thereon]

1170 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly The Speaker: All right, Honourable Members, we will
continue with the debate on the motion brought by the
Honourable Member from constituency 17, MP Walton
Brown.
Any other Member care to speak?
The Chair will recognise the Honourable
Learned Member from constituency 34, MP Kim Wi lson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this debate
by first spe aking a little bit about civics. My daughter is
at the age where they learn a lot about parliamentary procedure in their civics classes. How persons are
elected, the supremacy of Parliament, by -elections
and the like. And they are oftentimes quizzed on thi s
insofar as what happens in the Bermuda context, just to ensure that not only are they abiding by or studying
the syllabus for civics, but also to see what is going on
and to gauge a pulse of what is happening here in
Bermuda, particularly in the political realm.
And one of the things that we also note about
civics is that they speak about how elections are made and how parties are selected and how cand idates are selected. And by that they oftentimes di scuss a manifesto—a political manifesto—or a political platform so that it allows for persons who are going to be voting for various parties or individuals to gauge
the policies of that particular party, the aims of that
particular party, this document is oftentimes publicised
as it contains a declaration of the party’s ideology.
The manifesto or the platform contains a declaration
as to the intentions of the party, if elected, the views of the party, the politics of the party, as well as the pr ogrammes and initiatives that the party plans on deli vering if so elected.
Now, as they learn in civics and as we are
taught here, the manifesto is a very, very critical
document, Mr. Speaker. Because it outlines, as I have
spoken about just a few moments ago, the intentions
of what that party is. So, for example, if y ou have a
party that has a very, very bizarre and perhaps ou tdated manifesto, it is likely that they probably will not
be successful at the polls.
But we also have to look at the issues at hand
when we have a political party that was elected during the las t democratic election and we note that the
manifesto in which—the platform —on which the Go vernment party ran on failed to contain any substantial issues to which we speak about here as it relates to
immigration. In fact, the party manifesto or platform
specifically provides that there will be no grants of Bermudian status. The party platform also specifically
provided that we would not . . . that they would be
scrapping the term limits. Now we see with respect to
the latter, notwithstanding what the manifes to contained, that actually manifests itself insofar as we saw
that the Government party did abolish the term limits. However, back to that manifesto, Mr.
Speaker, there is no mention, as we have heard a lready today, with respect to the granting of status in
their platform, in their manifesto. We also heard from
the Member who took his seat a few moments ago prior to our lunch break that there was an indication in
the Government party, I believe he said, platform or,
alternatively, a statement that spoke to public consu ltation concerning immigration, and, of course, we
have not seen that here.
So, Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked
earlier today is what is the urgency? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the urgency can be defined in two
ways, twofold. One is that we have a Government
who is clearly attempting to go down a road with r espect to immigration that has proven to be divisive in our past; it has proven to be [rooted] in racial under-tones and is not a very good history of how we have
gotten here with r espect to immigration policies. No twithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, we have a Gover nment which has not indicated any of this in their election manifesto and is now proposing purportedly to table legislation that will no doubt serve to inflame already [disturbed] racial tensions based on immigration
policies.
So, it begs the question, how is it that a Go vernment can be elected on a platform that fails to a ddress such issues of critical importance as that of i mmigration? And what many modern democracies
would see with that, if circumstances like that do pr esent themselves, that the Government of the day
would exemplify true leadership and go back to the polls so that they could get the mandate of the people
with respect to such an important critical issue as t he
one that we are faced with during this motion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the issue concer ning civics, the manifesto also will . . . excuse me. E xcuse me, Mr. Speaker. The manifesto, as I said, also
carries two purposes: (1) it enables the voters to know
about the policies that are being proposed by the r espective parties; and (2) it allows, after the election,
people to sit there and hold the majority or the Go vernment to account in terms of whether or not they
abided by the things that were in their mandate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as has already been sp oken about quite eloquently by the author of this m otion, MP Walton Brown from constituency 17, that
there is a very divisive, inequitable history as it relates
to immigration policies and legislation here in B ermuda.
And, Mr. Speaker, the Government would like
to have us believe that one of the main criteria for
wanting to forge ahead with this particular legislation
is centred around the provisions in the European
Convention on Human Rights as well as the Intern ational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be
aware that Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights specifically speaks to the right of family


Bermuda House of Assembly life, and if I can just refer to it real quickly, Mr.
Speaker, Article 8, the “Right to respect for private
and family life.”
However, Mr. Speaker, you must also read
Article 8 in conjunction with a very critical provision in
the European Court of Human Rights, which is Article
56(3). And with your leave I would like to refer to that,
and that specifically provides for “Territorial applic ation” and subsection (3) says, “The provisions of this
Convention” (which I just read [article] 8 to you) “shall
be applied in such territories with due regard, ho wever, to l ocal requirements.”
Now, what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Let
me move back for a moment, the European Conven-tion on Human Rights, the Bermuda Constitution does
have many of those Convention Rights incorporated
within our legislation; however, Bermuda has not le gislated that all of the provisions of the European Co nvention shall apply. But the case law is such that as it
is an international treaty which the United Kingdom
has operated and extended to Bermuda, we have the
case law, and with your leave if I can read this case,
Mr. Speaker? With your leave I would like to read from
the excerpt from the case.
It speaks to the fact that the European Co nvention on Human Rights does bind Bermuda as a matter of international law and it will not directly affect
Berm uda unless its provisions are incorporated by
active legislation. And I am reading from the judgment
of the Court of Appeal , Bermuda Industrial Union v
BAS- Serco Ltd. 2003.
And then, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Justice Kawaley (as he is now) , in 2009, provided a
submission concerning the case of Marshall v Wak efield and Accardo 2009 in which he lays out the pri nciples of how the European Convention on Human Rights should be applicable to Bermuda. And he says:
“The ECHR has not been incorporated into
Bermuda law, so its legal status has two principal
elements to it. Firstly, local statutes must be inter-preted as far as possible so as to conform to Conve ntion rights, applying the presumption that Parliament
does not intend to legislate in a manner inconsistent
with Her Majesty's international obligations in respect of Bermuda. Secondly, there may in certain circumstances be a legitimate expectation in public law that
public authorities (including, potentially, the courts) will
not act in a manner inconsistent with an international
treaty applicable to Bermuda.”
So what does all of that say? In essence (and
I am paraphrasing), Mr. Speaker, it indicates that yes,
Bermuda does have an obligation to apply the princ iples of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Yes, our Constitution has incorporated in our Fundamental Rights section at the beginning of our Constit ution various rights that are covered in the European
Convention on Human Rights, in particular, Article 2
“Right to life”; “Prohibition of torture” . . . and inhuman
punishment; “Prohibition of slavery”; the “Right to li b-erty and security”; protection of “private and family life”
(which I have indicated) which equates to Article 8 of
the actual Convention.
However, Mr. Speaker, we need to bear in
mind the fact that the convention also has a provision
that says, Well, hang on a minute, notwithstanding
that we have these inalienable rights that we want our
member states and those jurisdictions to abide by, we
also recognise that there is something called “territ orial application.” You may have a jurisdiction who notwithstanding our desire of the European Convention, the signatories that we wish for everyone to apply
these articles to, but because of the certain particular
circumstances of that jurisdiction it may not be appl icable, it may not be suitable, it may not be convenient
for those jurisdictions to apply that. And that is, again,
section 56(3), which is really critical because it does provide this carve out.
I suspect, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that
when they speak to due regard, to the local requir ements, they are looking at things like size of jurisdi ction, larger nations, certainly it was not intended by
the European Convention of an Island country of 21
square miles to have as its adoption all of t hese rights
the same that would be for a country 10 times, 100
times, the size. That is why the local requirements
must be considered, that is why the local requir ements must be considered with respect to this section
8.
And I suspect that it also indicates another l ocal requirement that no doubt the European Conven-tion would consider applicable for our jurisdiction. Our
history —and particularly our history of the racial u ndertones that have been occurring with respect to i mmigration policies and the like s ince the moment of
our inception.
So, Mr. Speaker, I submit that notwithstanding
that we have the Articles of the Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and potential . . . sorry, protected rights to abide by, there still is the provision
that must be adhered to which is with respect to section 56(3) our local requirements.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a bipart isan consultation [on] the issue of immigration, which we have heard before by the previous speakers, that
our history is, with respect to immigration, rooted in
division, hostility, racism, and inequitable treatment,
we are concerned on this side of the aisle that a continuation down this road of tabling legislation, based
on our history and in the absence of consultation, in
the absence of a bipartisan commitment, will likely
cause further turmoil and unease within our comm unity.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the business
community is looking very hard at us right now because this is a very critical issue that we are debating.
And in order for the business community to have certainty and to feel comfortable with respect to being
here in Bermuda, they certainly want to know that the
1172 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly laws of the land are not necessarily going to change
from administration to administration. And I c an assure you, Mr. Speaker, as day follows night, if the
proposed amendments to the Immigration Act are
passed in this Honourable House by the OBA Government, a PLP Government will look to repeal them,
particularly the provisions that were enacted in the
absence of any type of consultation or bipartisan
agreement.
I have looked at the Acts just real briefly, Mr.
Speaker , and not wanting to pre- empt any type of debate, there are some provisions in there that are extremely offensive and that will be offensiv e to any
right-thinking individual. So we have a position here,
Mr. Speaker , where a law potentially can be passed
and then another g overnment will come into play and
repeal those laws. So we may have a situation where
we are going back and forth on a matt er that is particularly fundamental and critical to the well -being of
this country.
I am certain that the business community is
looking at this and they are wondering, Well, hang on
a minute. Do I continue to invest or look to seek to invest in a country that is passing potentially some
very, very divisive legislation that will no doubt be r epealed in another couple of years following the next
general election? That is certainly is causing uncertainty and confusion, not only in the minds of right -
thinking Bermudians, but also in the minds of bus iness leaders who are looking to, perhaps, remain in
Bermuda or domicile in Bermuda with respect to their
businesses.
Now, Mr. Speaker , the issue of matter of i mportance also came up this morning. As I spoke on that issue pursuant to [Standing Order] 9(4). I applaud
you, Mr. Speaker , for taking that decision and recognising that this is a matter of ultimate, utmost importance to us in a community and, notwithstanding the
Government ’s attempt to perhaps try to stifle debate
on this particular issue of national importance, I do admire the fact that the Speaker did take a stance in
exercising his sole jurisdiction and discretion under
[Standing Order] 9(4).
Mr. Speaker , let me move from civics to sc ience. I do not know if you have ever had an opport unity to . . . I am not sure if you are a cook. But if you see, perhaps, water boiling, and we know that water
boils normally at around 212 ˚F. And if you look at a
pot boiling it makes very little noise. You see a little bit
of steam starting to rise and vapours and then all of a
sudden you hear a little bit of pop, pop, pop from the
bubbles, and then you see the bubbles and in 8 to 10
minutes, or however long it takes, the pot has boiled.
The water that is in the pot has boil ed. And you do not
even need a thermometer to test it because you can
see visually that the pot and the water is boiling and that boiling is coming and if you have too much water
in the pot then, of course, the pot overflows and the water [overflows] and s pills into the kitchen, and so
forth.
Now, Mr. Speaker , in order for water to boil at
212 ˚F there are two things that you have to consider,
one is the purity of that water. Now, Mr. Speaker ,
when you look at purity of the water I would like to use the an alogy here as what we are speaking about concerning the immigration debate and, in particular, the
episodes that we have seen last week Friday, as well
as in previous demonstrations and previous voices
made by the public insofar as this whole issue and the
concerns with respect to immigration and the lack of
consultation, the lack of a bipartisan engagement to
decide an issue that is so fundamentally important to
Bermuda and her people.
So when you look at this pot getting ready to
boil over, you have to l ook at the purity of the water,
and if the water is not pure then it may not boil at 212
degrees, it may take more, it may take less. But, Mr.
Speaker , I ask you, can it be said that the Gover nment by its actions insofar as attempting to table legi slation that is potentially very, very divisive, that has as
its core immigration reform that has historically been a
very divisive, racially motivated programme, can that
be pure, can we say that this Government has pure
intentions to be tabling such legislation?
And the question that is asked repeatedly is:
What is the rush? Why not pause, have cause for
pause, so that we can have a bipartisan committee
discuss the issues concerning immigration reform and
look at issues concerning status grants, the policies,
the procedures, the application process and the like
when it relates to all matters of immigration —
bipartisan —so that we can together move forward on
an issue that has destabilised this country in days
gone by and in years gone by?
Mr. Speaker , the other th ing that you have to
look when you are looking at whether water will boil at
[212] degrees in addition to the purity of the water, is something called the changes according to the elev ation of the water, in other words, the atmosphere.
Now, Mr. Speaker , it is abundantly clear, and I
do not generally make a habit of looking at the blogs,
but, unfortunately, certain things were pointed out to
my attention this weekend and we are in a very, very seriously divided atmosphere right now over this particular issu e. So much so, Mr. Speaker , that . . . and I
do not want to say I am afraid, but there is an increasing concern in our community, Mr. Speaker , that they
are not being listened to. And there is an increasing concern in our community that laws are being pass ed—

[Gavel]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , as I was saying, the second
point, two points that make water boil at 212 degrees —one is the purity of the water, and the second
is the changes according to the elevation or the atmosphere.
Now, Mr. Speaker , one need not look too far
as to observe what was on television and the media
last week Friday, and they can see the atmosphere of Bermuda is about to boil over, Mr. Speaker . They can
see that the people in this community are concerned about the changes and the elevation of this water limit. They can see that the people are concerned
about the level of purity of the One Bermuda All iance’s motives with respect to this legislation, Mr.
Speaker .
And I would invite everyone to consider —

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Mr. Speaker , point of
order.

Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker .
I actually was using the word “purity” as it r elates to boiling. And I am using an analogy here. As
you look in the science books it speaks about water
will boil normally at a point of 212 ˚ F and it is conti ngent on two factors: (1) the purity of the water; and
(2) any changes according to elevation, namely the
atmosphere. So Government will—excuse me—water
will normally boil at 212 degrees based on the purity
and the atmosphere. And I am using that analogy, Mr.
Speaker , to invite the Government to consider the atmosphere that we find ourselves in right now. I am inviting the Government to consider the motives, Mr. Speaker , of the legislation that we find ourselves with
today.
I am inviting the Government to look to the
people and lead. And part of leadership, Mr. Speaker ,
means also listening. A leader that does not listen is
not a successful leader, and it will create potential
harm and unrest in a community that is already almost
reaching its boiling point.
So, Mr. Speaker , I would ask this Government
to please stop and pause and consider the implic ations of the legislation which they are proposing, the
implications that may affect our Bermudians, our res idents, our long- term residents, our business comm unity, and our international obligations.
Everyone is looking at us, notwithstanding the
size of our community. We are being looked at. And I would invite the Government , I would implore the
Government , to consider all of this and recognise that
Bermuda is about to boil over and that we need to
address this and move back by establishing a bipart isan joint select committee on immigration reform to look at all the issues that have already been di scussed previously wi th respect to immigration so that
we can try to pause this and look at it from an objec-tive point of view, an inclusive point of view, a bipart isan point of view, so that everyone is the beneficiary
of immigration reform.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Thank you, Honourable Member .
The Chair will recognise now the Honourable
Member Dr. Gibbons.
Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I think we have had a good debate so far. The Government has certainly put its case
and I think the Opposition and the Honourable Member who made the motion have had their say.
Mr. Speaker , you are well aware that we are
in the middle of the Budget Debate right now, we have a lot of business that we want to get forward today. So
at this po int I would like to move that the motion be
now put.

[Inaudible interjection]

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: I am citing [Standing
Order 19](10) of the . . . Rules of Debate, [Standing
Order] 19(10) that “A Minister, with the consent of the
Speaker, may conclude a debate on any motion which
is critical of the Government , or reflects adversely on,
or is calculated to bring discredit upon the Gover nment or a public officer.”
Mr. Speaker , I move that the motion be now
put.

Yes, Mr. Speaker , I would like to
refer the House to the 23rd Edition of [Erskine] May,
page 394, which speaks about superseding the question and that the only way that a Motion to Adjourn
with respect to a matter that is currently before the
House now can be ended, the only way that the d ebate can end, is if we move directly to a Motion to A djourn this whole House. That is at page 394 of May’s.

[Pause]

If I can refer you to the penult imate paragraph on that page, “A motion may not be
made for the adjournment of a debate, if a question
for the adjournment of the House is being debated;” —
which is the case here—“nor can a motion for the ad-journment of the House be made while a question for
the adjournment of the debate is under discussion.”
Again, that is at page 394. I invite the Speaker to look
at that please. I call your attention to the penultimate
paragraph.
Thank you.

Mr. Speaker , to your ruling
earlier, my honourable and learned friend, who is my
good friend, now wants to jump up with Erskine May. I
did that earlier and got shot down on the basis that we would look at our rules.
So here is what our rules say in that regard. I
commend to you, Mr. Speaker , what has been said
with regard to [Standing Order] 19 of our Rules of D ebate at [subparagraph] (10), “A Minister” —which has
occurred—“with the consent of the Speaker” —and I
emphasise that because with respect, Mr. Speaker ,
you have to take account of what I have to say next —
“may conclude a debate on any motion which is crit ical of the Government .”
Pause.
This is our immigration policy. We are bringing
legislation on it. It is certainly critical to us —we are the
Government . To quote former Premier Bro wn, We are the Government ! So we are bringing this. So with r espect, Mr. Speaker , you have to consider that.
Is it a motion that is critical to us? Yes.
“Or reflects adversely on” . . . Well, pause
there for a second. It clearly reflects adversely on us given the things that are said in the motion, on its
face.
“Or is calculated to bring discredit upon the
Government or a public officer.” Well, both of those
are the same instance in what is going on here. That
is exactly what the motion is doing.
As the Honourable Minister that just took his
seat just said, Opposition got to have its say —they
had it. You know, we have had our say —

[Inaudible interjections]

We have had our say. This is
going to go to vote at the end of the day. We need to get back to the business of running the country, as the
Government .
So I am imploring you, Mr. Speaker , at this
stage, that motion having been moved, that that is
somethin g that needs to be put. You ought to bring
the debate to an end now on the basis of the Rules of Debate, of our rules, [Standing Order] 19(10).

Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker .
Mr. Speaker , I rise to the point of order. The
first thing is that there was no motion laid, as the Ho nourable and Learned Member who took his seat
[said]. There was no motion laid. The reference in
[Standing Order] 19(10) speaks to the conclusion and
the speaking order of the debate, and it speaks to the fact that in [Standing Order] 19(10) the Member who
moves the motion speaks last and the only exception
to speaking last is if the motion itself is critical on the
Government . So—

Hon. Mark J. Pettingill: That is certainly wrong.

Okay. [Standing Order] 19(10)
must be read, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with [Standing Order] 19(9) which speaks to, “The mover of a motion may reply after all the other Members present
have had an opportunity of addressing the House and
before the question is put; and after such reply no
other Member may speak except as provided for in sub-paragraph (10).”
So, Mr. Speaker, with respect, [subpar agraphs] (9) and (10) must be read together and that if
the mover of this motion wishes to speak and nobody
else wishes to speak, then you may conclude the debate as per [subparagraph] (10).
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have this last comment, yes, Honourable Member. Mr. Mark J. Pettingill: My honourable and learned
friend just made complete support for my argument,
right? Paragraph (9) says “Member may speak except
as provided.” So it is an exception to that, a rule which
is contained in paragraph (10). I agree with her. With respect, the H onourable Member agrees with me. The
exception is if a Minister does it on the provisions that
I have laid out. That is when it can occur. That is what
is occurring now. The Minister stood up and moved it.

All right. Thank you, thank you.
Honourable Members, let me just say we are
going to . . . I am not listening to anybody else an ymore on this matter. We are going to take a fiveminute break while I sit and review this matter to come
back with a position.

[Gavel]

Proceedings suspended at 2:33 pm

Proceedings resumed at 2:47 pm

MOTION

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE TO
EXAMINE WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

[Continuation of the debate thereon]

Honourable Members, in our Standing
Orders to do with the Rules of Debate, which is Standing Order 19, [Standing Order] 19(9) reads as follows:
1176 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly “The mover of a motion may reply after all the
other Members present have had an opportunity of
addressing the House and before the question is put;
and after such reply” —that is, by the mover of the m otion—“no Member may speak except as provided for
in sub- paragraph (10).”
And if you linked subparagraph (10) to su bparagraph (9), the exception is that “A Minister, with
the consent of the Speaker, may conclude a debate
on any motion which is critical of the Government, or
reflects adversely on, or is calculated to bring discredit upon the Government or a public servant.”
Honourable Members, certainly this motion
does, in fact . . . it is critical of the Government and may indeed reflect adversely on the Government and as a result of that, therefore, I would certainly give a
Minister the opportunity to conclude the debate. But
that would be after Members present have had an opportunity of addressing the House and the mover of
the motion has had an opportunity to reply.
And that is my ruling.

[Desk thumping]

All right. Honourable Member, yes, yes.
Thank you.. I am sorry. I am sorry.
Dr. Gibbons, you have the floor.
Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the debate will continue I
would like to make a few comments on not only the motion but the broader subject as w ell.
Mr. Speaker, before lunch we were treated
repeatedly to the quote from George Santayana who
said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Carry on, please.

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Before lunch we were repeatedly asked to
consider the quote from George Santayana, a ph ilosopher who lived in the 19
th century. And the quote
that we had from an Honourable Member was, “Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.” Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.
And Honourable Members have consistently
taken us back into the 1930s and the 1940s and the 1950s. And, Mr. Speaker —

[Inaudible interjection]

Honourable Member, if I hear your
voice again, the next person is going to walk this
House! The next person is going to walk!
Carry on, Dr. Gibbons.

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the issue I think before us and
perhaps the issue before governments in the past is that governments need to consider both the times, the
circumstances, and the issues of the day. It is very
easy to reflect in hindsight on what may or may not have been done, whether it was right or wrong,
whether it was appropriate or not, but the fact of the
matter is, Mr. Speaker, this Government has to co nsider the circumstances today when we make dec isions. And we have said on this honourable floor be-fore, honourable colleagues have said, we have diff icult decisions to make as a consequence of both the
times and the circumstances we find ourselves in t oday.
And I think it is fair to say that if the quote
works for the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and what have you, it certainly works for a more recent period. And
what I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, very clearly is that
we understand very well what happened four years
ago. Those are the circumstances that we are in t oday. We had unprecedented recession in this country,
it has lasted into six years, and we are now coming
out of it. We had unprecedented and precipitous job
loss as a consequence of the policies of the former government. Those are the circumstances we find
ourselves in today, and those are the circumst ances
upon which this Government has to make some very
difficult decisions.
We have been accused of arrogance, but as
my honourable colleague the Attorney General said, there is nothing so arrogant as shouting down people


Bermuda House of Assembly in a public meeting which is inten ded to provide consultation, intended to provide disclosure, intended to
provide information. We have been accused of trying
to rearrange the immigration policy as a consequence of trying to . . . for political reasons. We have been
accused of all kinds of things, Mr. Speaker.
But the simple fact of the matter is, and we
have said this already, we are in still a very, very diff icult economic set of circumstances, and it is those
circumstances that are driving the situation we are in
now. It is almost as tho ugh, Mr. Speaker, I was sitting
here listening to the Opposition, it is almost as though they are trying to reach out of the electoral grave of
2012 and reintroduce their whole failed economic policy. Because we know, Mr. Speaker, that that recession was m uch longer than it had to be. It was much
longer in Bermuda than it was in other places. It took
us a long time to come out. And the reason for that,
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard repeatedly from the
international business community and others, was the
toxic immigration policies of the former government —
term limits,. . . I play it over in my mind from time to
time, the man/boy discussions that we heard, the xenophobia that we heard over and over again, it was
those policies which effectively this Government had
to change very quickly upon coming into office, that
were a consequence and a result of what happened
and why we are in the difficult economic circu mstances we are in today, Mr. Speaker.
It is very clear and there is no argument on
this, that trends i n population have a direct impact on
the economy. It is as clear here as it is clear anywhere
else. In fact there was a very interesting report, Mr.
Speaker, that by DPS Bank (which is a Singapore Bank) talking about the trend in population in China,
Singa pore, and a number of other countries partic ularly Japan, and they directly correlate with the slo wing growth of population having a direct consequence on the slowing Chinese, Japanese, and other economies. Japan has zero population growth, in fact, it has
negative population growth. There is an extremely
clear correlation between trends in population growth
and the direction that an economy goes.
But, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we have
been hearing from that side in that we are trying to flood this country with hundreds, thousands, whatever
of people coming in as a consequence of these imm igration policies, nothing is further from the truth. What these immigration policies are simply trying to do is to
retain those who have been here for 20, 25 years to
make sure we do not have any further haemorrhaging
of the number of people here.
Mr. Speaker, I gave some very simple calcul ations a little while ago and I said that if you look at that
5,000 job number that was lost as a consequence of
the policies and th e experience of the former gover nment, you are looking at something on the order of
$300 million a year every year which is lost from this economy on an annual basis. So to lose more people, and particularly people that are assimilated here, that
are contr ibuting to this economy, it simply would be
making the situation even worse.
Now, clearly, there are human rights issues
here and I am going to let others argue the European
thing on human rights. But what one of my honourable
colleagues has said is that Bermuda in terms of the
rights of long- term residents is I think the 170
th out of
185, in terms of those rights.
Mr. Speaker, we are way down the morality
curve in terms of what we are doing for people who
have families here, whose children know no other
place, and who simply for a lot of reasons have made
Bermuda their home. So there is a human rights issue
here as well and, frankly, those of us on this side think that is important as well in addition to the economic
issues that we are looking at.
So, th ere is a lot of misinformation out there.
There is a consistent throwing up of straw men, which
the Opposition then tries to essentially attack. But the
simple facts of the matter are (and we will have this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, and there will be
much more opportunity to get into the facts and what
is information and what is misinformation), is that we
are simply trying to do our best as a government that
got handed a very difficult set of circumstances to do,
not only what is right, but to do wha t makes sense
economically for this country.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, there was
a very interesting piece in the Cayman Compass
which, as you may know, is the Cayman Islands
newspaper. It was an editorial and I think it speaks
very much to what w e in Bermuda are looking at as
well. The editorial says, “The rhetoric of race and r acism, specifically the construct of ‘black versus white,’ plays an outsize and overt role in Bermuda politics,
compared to Cayman, where, thank goodness, such
toxic formul ations tend to be filtered, diluted and di ffused among our society’s variegated shades of
brown” —talking about Cayman.
It goes on to say, “Consider, for example, the
following statement from a news story in the Bermuda Royal Gazette attributed to one of t heir local lawmakers”—we know who this is, and the quote is — “They
say that we are too old, that we are too black, but we are old and black enough to remember what these type of racialised immigration policies did to our parents and to us.”
The editorial goes on to say, “However, it
seems that many of Bermuda’s leaders are exercising
admirable clarity of thought. Next to the print edition of
this column, we republished an editorial from The G azette that outlines Bermuda’s situation, pierces the fog
of misin formation and strikes the core principle: Ec onomic growth cannot occur without population growth,
which cannot occur without immigration reform.”
The editorial goes on to say, “That is as true
for Cayman as it is for Bermuda. The Gazette offers
1178 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly us a lesson; the overall scenario in Bermuda offers a
warning” to Cayman.
And it goes on to talk about “the introduction
of Cayman’s ‘rollover’ policy” —and for that you can
read the Bermuda’s equivalent term limits —“modelled
after Bermuda’s —was one of the most divi sive developments in the history of Cayman, cleaving our for-merly unified society into two distinct groups: ‘Caym anians’ and ‘expatriates’ . . . which evolved, almost i nstantly, into ‘us’ and ‘them.’”
I think the message there is very clear and
that is an observer who, frankly, for a lot of reasons
really does not care what happens to Bermuda. But they do care about Cayman and they are setting out
the message very, very clearly there.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue
for us. And I think the Opposition clearly understands
that this will be detrimental from a political perspective
for them, could be detrimental for us, Mr. Speaker,
from a political perspective, but that remains to be
seen. But it is important for us from an economic per-spectiv e.
And, Mr. Speaker, I have a theory here. I have
a theory as to why this is such a critical issue for the
Opposition. And I think it goes back . . . and why it is
so urgent . . . I think it is an issue, Mr. Speaker, of an
age-old principle in politics a nd that is, if you have a
common enemy you can very easily bring a divided
party or a divided country together. We know, Mr.
Speaker, through press reports and everything else,
the Opposition is clearly very divided right now. We
have senior members that are sitting in the bac kbench, senior members who can make a contribution.
We have a leader who is embattled, who I gather
people are desperately trying to get rid of because of
things that he has said, done, or otherwise. And I think
they have taken a page out of Maggie Thatcher’s
book. You remember, Mr. Speaker, when the poll tax
came up in the UK quite a few years ago, what did
Mrs. Thatcher do? She declared war on Argentina. It
was the Malvinas, it was the Falkland Islands, and all
of a sudden all of thos e issues for her disappeared.
Effectively, what is going on here, Mr. Speaker, is the
Opposition, because of their divided state, are desperately looking for something to unify themselves,
something where the Honourable Member who spoke to this (and we are not—

Thank you. Thank you, Honourable
Member.
Carry on, Dr. Gibbons.
Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I am not [imputing] any improper motives. I
am simply saying this is what everybody is aware of.
This is what we have been told, even by the AME
Church. We understand what the situation is. So the
simple fact of the matter is —

Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Point of order —

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: —they accuse us of
political expediency —

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Honourable Member.
Thank you.

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: I can leave this issue
in terms of what has been said or what has not been
said.
The simple fact of the matter is the Opposition
is accusing this Government of political expediency. It
is essentially a cynical argument. They are trying to go
back to a former time and a former place where there
were very different circumstances and one would say
there are clear issues about whether what was done was right or wrong, as the case may be.
But the fact of the matter is that the Oppos ition is desperately looking for an issue, having pr edicted the downfall of this Government repeatedly
over the last three years, desperately looking for an
issue not only to unify them but essentially to take our eye off the ball here. And the ball is to simply get this
community, this Island, back on an economic track.
We have had from my honourable colleague, Mr.
Richards, certainly an extremely good budget in terms
of where we need to go and this is simply part of that
overall issue.
Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of not
caring. We understand there are people out there who


Bermuda House of Assembly are suffering, but I mean, what is so . . . I guess the
word is maybe “hypocrisy.” What is so hypocritical
about this is the suffering— 5,000 people out of work —
was initiated by the former Government, Mr. Speaker.
We are simply trying to correct the issue. And some of
these things are going to be difficult decisions, but Mr.
Speaker, they have to be made. We are simply trying
to get those people who are now probably pretty much
at their wits’ end because they have been unemployed possibly since 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, what
have you, and are still unemployed— we are trying to
get them back to work. And that is, by and large, the basis of —

[Inaudible interjection]

Dr. Gibbons, carry on. You can have
an extra three minutes.

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you know what is good for the
goose is good for the gander. We were accused all morning of disrespect, and I think we know where that
actually lies right now.
So, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about here
is this is simply an effort on the part of the Opposition to reinstate failed immigration and failed economic
policies from the past. And I think that is the challenge
we have here. It is a way to sort of unify behind this,
but Mr. Speaker, they were Government then, they
had 14 years and what we saw was an unblemished
record of job losses by Bermudians over the 10- year
period from 2000 to 2010. We know —we know —what
happens wit h their immigration policies and with their
economic policies.
And, Mr. Speaker, I think we all know what the
definition of insanity is —if you try to do the same thing
again and expect a different result —that is the definition of insanity. That is what the Opposition is now
trying to impose upon this Government. They want to
go back to where they were before. And we know the
suffering, the job loss, the economic loss, that ha ppened as a consequence of that. That is why we are
trying to move in a very differ ent direction. We are not
trying to flood this country. We are simply trying to hang on to those who are here now, who have made
economic contributions, social contributions, and a lot
of other contributions to this particular country —that is
the purpose of trying to get the current Government’s immigration policy through.
I heard comments from the Honourable Member who just took her seat, What would the business
community think about these issues? And the simple
fact of the matter is we have been hearing f rom the
business community on this. They understand very clearly —John White, Chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce, said very clearly, We need to do som ething to essentially maintain the population and, if we
can, grow it. And I think the threats of repealing wha tever we may do, I think all that does is it increases
concern in the business community. And those kinds
of threats do nothing —do nothing —to help those who
are unemployed, those who are looking for jobs, st udents who are coming back now, and young B ermudians because it increases the lack of confidence that we have done a good job, I think, in overcoming in the last couple of years.
So, be very careful what you say, because
that is the message we are getting from that side, I will
send that right back again, Mr. Speaker, be very car eful what you say because, I think, all of our futures —
economic, social and otherwise —depend very much
on dealing with this in a respectful way, in a consult ative way, and in a way where we have good debate on
this. But to threaten civil disobedience, to say we are
trying to step you back from the precipice, when in
fact they are trying to push us over the precipice, Mr.
Speaker, all that begs disingenuousness and certainly not something that I think we need in this country r ight
now.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Desk thumping]

Thank you, Honourable Member.
The Chair will now recognise the Honourable
and Learned Member from constituency 36, MP M ichael Scott.
You have the floor.
Hon. Michael J. Scott: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am
grateful.
You know, Mr. Speaker, as this initiative led
by the Honourable Member from [constituency] 17,
Mr. Brown, holds the Government’s feet to the fire, it
has produced some interesting revelations. All in all, I
had understood the driving force behind the pathways to immigration to be the observance and holding up of
immigrants’ human rights. But now we hear it is a . . .
it has a bilateral objective, which is to keep immigrants
in this country in connection with suppor ting the eco nomy.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is a false and ridiculous
narrative, I say with the greatest of respect. No one is
1180 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly asking immigrants who are here to leave. And for
those who would jump up and say that they will leave
if they do not get status, that , too, is a false narrative.
We do not know that. They have not [left up] to this point.
People of this country are opposed, Mr.
Speaker, and I know and I am grateful that you have
allowed this debate because it is important. People in
the country are not prepared to accept as a rationale,
in fact it probably inflames our people, that the idea is to protect a class of immigrants to keep them here. What class? I mean, what the Honourable Member
from constituency 22, Dr. Gibbons, has said is that
they are try ing to preserve currently residing imm igrants. They make up a very diverse crowd and cat egory of people.
Under prior statements by this OBA Gover nment we all recognise . . . and this Opposition su bscribes, Mr. Speaker, to the principles of the Job
Makers A ct, that you try and attract high net worth
members of the immigration community to the cou ntry. But waiters and pot washers and nannies are not
the kind of category that the Job Makers Act refers to,
Mr. Speaker. And I pause there to say this raises one
of the more important aspects that drives the need for
a broadly discussed question on immigration reform.
Who do we wish to give immigration pathways to? And to whom do we wish to give status?
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister for
Economic Development has presided over a White
Paper for Energy. I recall that we have had White P apers leading to Green Papers on regulatory measures
for the information technology platform in this country. I began that process. Now, if you can have consult ation that takes the form of Green and White Papers for
Energy and reform of the IT industry and then this
OBA Government and the front bench of this OBA
Government purport to say that they cannot have
broad debate on something as vital as the vote, the
work permit provisions of our country, the land ownership provisions of this country, then what world are
they living in?
And indeed I have said the front bench, but
where is the backbench on this? Where is the bac kbench on this? Clearly, the question of work permits
and the movement of labour within this restricted terr itory, land ownership, and grant of status has to be
seen by Members of the Government to be worthy of
broad debate.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is why the debate is
important. This is why I believe that both rulings now
by you, Mr. Speaker, have been consistent with us having this debate, not these weak efforts to stifle debate or to misapply the rules of this place. This is why,
Mr. Speaker, your ruling . . . your first ruling was el oquent. It was plain that it spoke to the statement by
the Learned Attorney General that this was being
driven by the Member from [constituency] 17. No, Mr.
Speaker, you were satisfied that it had sufficient i m-portance. And I believe large members of our co mmunity share the view that I have and that you i ncluded in your rationale for allowing this debate to go forward. It has nothing to do with the whipping up of
tensions.
As a matter of fact, when the Honourable
Member, Dr. Gibbons (the Member who just took his
seat), says that we are seeking to whip up tensions, it
is not this side. It is the policy of Pathways to [Status]
that has whipped up and driven this debate this day
and the tensions in our community. I cannot under-stand how they seek to put the shoe on the other foot.
Mr. Speaker , I cited Energy and I cited Information Technology. The vote and the franchise in this country —in this Island—the vote and the franchise in
this Island is important to our democracy. There could be no more important a factor for people in this coun-try tha n the vote and franchise because of its connection to our democracy.
But, Mr. Speaker, I could list a litany of issues
that would drive and that does drive the requirement, almost the absolute requirement, and mandate for broader debate, for a White Paper or a Green Paper
or certainly, as the Member for constituency 17 has
crafted it, for broad debate on immigration reform. Human rights is one, which is the one that the Legal
Affairs Minister wishes to hang his hat upon. Birth
rates. Who should be granted s tatus in the 21
st century in the face, Mr. Speaker, of a recent downturn in
the economy? Who should be green- lighted for Bermuda status? The whole question of whether in a country with a population of 60,000- plus we can pursue game plans of reciprocity und erpinned by human
rights. Can we? But we are not going to answer this
by the placing on the Order Paper at point 01, the placing on the Order Paper of an Immigration
Amendment Bill and say that is it. It does not a debate
make or a consultation make.
Mr. S peaker, the Member and Minister for
Economic Development said that the quote from San-tayana was one that was finding much sway or play in
the House. But let me continue the other issues, so
that I make my point good, that the number of issues
affecting the good democracy of this country are . . .
and that are significant and that help to support the
reason why it is proper to confine this debate and this
matter as one that the public are interested in, the
public regard as important, and that we on this side
regard as important.
The history in our country of immigration is a
relevant matter. It is a local matter and there has been even the history of caution, by UBP administrations,
on the grant of status. We bounce between the grant
of status at certain num bers, as the Honourable
Member from constituency 17 has laid out in his presentation and history, and then there have been mor atoriums. Clearly, the ruling classes from prior administrations have treated this matter with caution and
wisdom. It has to be because of our size and the i mBermuda House of Assembly pacts that immigration —inward taking of people— will
have on the Island.
What numbers should we have? What are the
principles of whether this is a right or a privilege? That
is not debatable. It is a privilege, just like the priv ilege
of land ownership is regulated strictly in our country and the privilege of work permits is regulated in our
country, so must the privilege of the grant of citizenry
be regulated and treated as a privilege.
Land ownership, work permits, and the very
advice that I started to refer to, the very advice from
CURB by the noble lady, Ms. Lynne Winfield. I would
like to dedicate my remarks this afternoon, Mr.
Speaker, to the concerned citizenry of this Island pr imarily, but certainly to Ms. Winfield and anot her
woman, Ms. Diane Miller.
Ms. Winfield has said to this country, and I believe it has been cited by her, that our immigration
history has been both tragic and complex. And she
begins our history from the post -emancipation, where
there were efforts to re- deport —or, not deport, let me
get it right —yes, forced exportation of blacks in this
country. It has had that kind of response, post -
emancipation.
Mr. Speaker, she says it is complex and just ifiably because it has through the centuries, with your
permiss ion sir just taking . . . so that I get it right, e fforts by successive prior governments to increase the
white vote in this country. I do not think I can be gai nsaid by that, and that increase of white vote policy has
been engrained and hot -wired into bot h law and po licy, namely the Immigration Act, Mr. Speaker.
Continued attempts, historically, to disenfranchise a certain class of this people— poor people,
black people, primarily —efforts to control birth in the
country. Now, when the person whom I Shadow in this House made the case, or sought to make the case,
that we have a shrinking birth rate, I must remind m yself . . . perhaps you will remind me. I must come back to that point.
But these kinds of histories and the complexity of them remain in people’s minds. Now the other
person that I, the other woman that I wish to pay tri bute to or dedicate my remarks to is Ms. Diane Miller. She was a consultant. She owns her own consultancy
organisation. I recall the point when she was in this
country consulting to the Ministry of Telecommunic ations and E -Commerce and she said to me one day,
Michael, or Minister (probably Michael, we became
very warm friends and still are) in the information age there are no more secrets. It is because access to
information is so pr evalent, it is a commodity, it is as
commoditised as water is. And so when the other lady
to whom I dedicate my remarks today has pointed out
this complex and awfully tragic history, these kinds of
informational data points are in the minds daily of all
of us—every average Bermudian.
And so when Ministers of Immigration, wherever they may be, introduce policies to increase voting power in our country, people’s minds go immediately
to these most recently reminded histories of our country. And so no wonder, n ot the PLP or the Member
from constituency 17, no wonder the country is di squieted by these provisions —no wonder that they are.
And we have called, as the honourable mover
of this motion has called for, pausing, reflecting, clear
evidence- based reflecting upon this proposal. That is
the PLP’s policy, it is completely the polar opposite of
what the Government is doing, this rush to place on
the Order Paper today an Immigration Bill to undergird Pathways to [Status].
In a population, Mr. Speaker, a voting popul ation of 43,674, and with the margin of results that are so narrow in many of the constituencies and the most
recent election . . . this, too, I add to my litany and to
my series of lists of matters that deserve consider ation, debate, and deserve to be c onsidered in structuring a law. It has not happened.
When the Learned Attorney General says that
it is arrogant for people to stand up in a public meeting and close that meeting, I do know what the Honourable Minister expects, given the level of disquiet. It is
everyone’s constitutional right to stand and make it
clear to Ministers, whichever side of the divide that
you are on, that your proposal and/or your explanations cannot persuade us, they are without merit until you hear us and follow the proposal, t he normal best
practice proposal of consulting and having a good old-fashioned consultative discussion.
This allows me to move to another . . . this is
not a woman this time to whom I pay some tribute, but to a former Member of this House, on the point of consultation. The former Member, the Honourable
John Barritt (with your permission, Mr. Speaker) just
encapsulates just what is required by consultation,
and he writes, “absence is causing disquiet.”
And so when Members of the front bench say
that the dis quiet is being driven by this Honourable
Member, it is absolutely disingenuous poppycock. A
blind, deaf and dumb person could see that this matter is causing serious disquiet in our country. Here is
what Mr. Barritt’s view has been,
1 “Compromise, co llaboration, and consensus are not four -letter words,
as you well know, Mr Editor, but it sure seems like it
when it comes to modern- day politics, if you get my
drift.
“This can be one of the drawbacks to the
Westminster system and how the winning party gets
to take all, no matter how close the popular vote. The
party in power claims that it was elected to govern—
and so it should. Lead, that is. But that doesn’t necessarily mean dictate, and especially when the other half
of the electorate didn’t vote for you and sent represe ntatives of the other party to the Legislature.”
That would be us, Mr. Speaker. And it is the
reason we have stood and we stand on behalf of a

1 Royal Gazette , 4 March 2016
1182 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly number of people in our Island, presenting a narrative
that we believe is the one that is on their hearts and
minds. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to do
with representative politics.
The Government seeks to, as does the Opposition, seeks to strike what we often refer to in the law as the “balance of convenience.” The Government’s
main plank has been we wish to acknowledge the
human dignity and human rights of long- term res idents in this country. This is not foreign to the PLP.
We did just that whilst we had the Government, acknowledged long- term rights, but we took the position
that the granting of status . . . we certainly did not do
anything like present a Bill and say that there are go-ing to be Pathways to Status.
And let me deal with this point on birth rates.
Why are we not having more luck and joy on the whole question of birth rates? I began to make this
analysis, Mr. Speaker, and it continues to remain with
me, during the Budget Debate.
Mr. Speaker, the criminal justice policies of
this country on the front of criminal law, drug enforc ement, drug interdiction, has caused a number of excellent baby -makers (if I may put it in that way), baby -
makers in our prison system. Dumping of Class A
drugs into this community was done by somebody, and then comes the criminalisation of persons found to be using or misusing drugs or in possession of
drugs. That adds another disqualification of this cat egory of men in this country, by and large black men—
many white men, young men, but certainly black men.
I do not know [but] I have ideas about who
sponsored these evil campaigns to introduce drugs
into t his Island after the 1970s, compounded by ev eryone getting excited and saying criminalise these
people and put them in jail and so they become inc apable of becoming good breadwinners. Incapable, Mr. Speaker, because they cannot find work when they
applied for work when they come out of these instit utions.
And so I make the point. You cannot say that
the idea of this Immigration Pathways to Status is to
redress low birth rates when the critical, Mr. Speaker, birth-makers have been put in a most, most compr omised position by these awful, evil campaigns of the past. I mean, we have been battling with it, so we seek to decriminalise drugs. It has put us in a most
invidious position.
But the point I wish to drive home—we ca nnot—we cannot place on the altar of gr anting of status
and immigration Pathways to Status, on the altar of
that situation when the whole reason for birth rates has been driven by other significant, substantial factors. So I have gotten that piece out of the way.
So the Human Rights issue was l aid bare by
the Government front bench Justice Minister as one of
the elements to put in this scale. But you have to put
into the scale too, Mr. Speaker, what the criteria are
for granting status —whether the number should be capped, what kinds of immigrant s do we want, should
they be high net worth—that whole list that I gave you, not to repeat myself. All of this drives and engages,
Mr. Speaker, the need for discussion.
How can you suggest to people . . . no wonder there are upset people in this country. How can
you suggest that all of these considerations, the ones
driven by work permits, the one driven by placement
in school, the one driven by land use where there is a
scarcity of land, the one driven by assignment of jobs
and the holding on of jobs in an economic condition where jobs are scarce and unemployment is high?
How can a Government, how can a respons ible Government, suggest that a rush to Immigration laws and their amendments will in any way fly or be
wise? How can they? It is not the Opposition who are
asking this question, hundreds of people in the cou ntry are.
My colleague, the Honourable and Learned
Member, Ms. Wilson, talked about the purity of intent. That is what she was talking about. Not the purity of
the Government, but the purity of i ntent. When Ms.
Miller advised me that there are no more secrets in
this world thanks to access to information, when she
did that, Mr. Speaker, she was speaking to the capacity of every citizen in this country to quickly assess the
purity of intent of a Government that rushes an
agenda item on this Order Paper to pass laws in this country dealing with Pathways to Status.
When one reflects, or when anybody reflects
on what has been done in the past, and then when one sees the ungodly haste to which it appears . . . and this may be appearance, but you cannot question
a person raising questions in their mind. And if they
are not listened to, then it is a hundred times worse. It
is worsened a hundredfold if your concerns, once addressed to the Government, are n ot listened to. It
tends to confirm suspicions.
If you try and land an aircraft on the L. F.
Wade Airport at speeds which are contrary to all aeronautical principles, you risk crashing the airplane.
That is what is happening today. There is first the very
point that there is this concern about the vigour and
speed with which the Government is proceeding with
Immigration reform —not even Energy reform or r eform of the regulatory environment of Information
Technology, areas to which everybody sang from the
same song sheet —saying this requires broad consultation.
Mr. Speaker, if the consultation for the affec ting of commercial rights was seen to be a legitimate
driver of broad consultation, so you did not step on the
toes of people who had invested capital, bloo d and
energy into a commercial exercise, how much more
so is it important on this factor —this multipronged,
multifarious factor of land and work and vote?
If one thinks, Mr. Speaker, that another item
to add to the list and the litany that I listed is if voting
power is going to be impacted by the introduction of


Bermuda House of Assembly immigrants, an ordinary person would ask the question, Is my vote of the ordinarily resident -born Bermudian being diluted? Well, it is a question. It could
be hyped up into the most gross of hyper bole, but it is
a question that must be answered. It is not being answered, Mr. Speaker, by the seeking to table this
amendment of Pathways to [Status}. It is not, emphatically not. It is completely avoiding the consult ation that the honourable former Member of this House,
Mr. Barritt, has ascribed in his article.
And that is all we are doing in the Opposition.
We are pausing, insisting on there being process, i nsisting that there be an evidence- based collection of
data, so that we can be sure that even if one of the
most likely outcomes is some level of grant of status
to immigrants who have attracted these rights, you
cannot get dynamics of some level of regulation, checks and balances into the picture if all we have is
this Bill. I have not even read it, this proposed Bill. All
we have is a direct infusion of the achievement, or the execution of Minister Fahy’s (from the other place)
aim to give rights to a broad class of immigrants. You just cannot have it take place.
And so there are suspicions raised, Mr.
Speaker. Not only are there suspicions raised, there is the criticism —and yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a criticism —
that this is arbitrary —

[Timer beeps]

The Chair will recognise the Honourable Member from constituency 29, MP Zane De
Silva. You have the floor.

Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by asking
every MP in this House —every MP, on both sides —
Why do you not take this opportunity to show ever yone in Bermuda—PRCs, work permit holders, employed Bermudians, and unemployed Bermudians —
that we in this House, MPs from both sides, love
them, appreciate them, and want what is best for all of
them? Normally, Mr. Speaker, after making that
statement I would sit down. But because of some of
the things that have been said today it forces me to
continue on.
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Attorney Ge neral and the former Attorney General, MP Pettingill, both said they do not see the urgency of us having
this conversation today. They do not think it is a matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Speaker, we saw several hundred people
here on Friday. We saw some very concerned di sturbed individuals at our public meeting. We have
seen calls to the radio station almost unprecedented
dealing with this particular subject. There are many
people in this Island that are upset. And they are not
upset so much because of what the OBA are trying t o
do, you know. It is because of their lack of communi-cation, their apparent lack of care and thought for our people.
I do not think there is anybody in Bermuda,
Mr. Speaker, who does not appreciate our PRC popu-lation, our work permit population, or our s tatus hol ders that were not born in Bermuda. I do not think there
is anybody that does not appreciate them, Mr.
Speaker, at all. But I think what the OBA are doing or
trying to do, Mr. Speaker, without the proper consult ation . . . they are ticking our peo ple off.
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Attorney Ge neral also talked about . . . and it seems to be the
OBA’s narrative over the past couple of months, spe-cifically, the last few weeks. More and more of the
OBA MP’s and supporters are latching onto the narr ative—ageing population, declining birth rate. It is not
untrue. We do have an ageing population, Mr. Speaker, and we do have a declining birth rate, and
we need people in Bermuda. We know that. We know
that. But, Mr. Speaker, where our priority should be is
on creating jobs. That is where our priority should be,
Mr. Speaker. It needs to be on creating jobs. That is
what will get people here. And we want people to
come to Bermuda to work, Mr. Speaker. We want them to come here and use our restaurants. We want
them to support our local businesses in any which
way they can —whether it is grocery stores, retail
shops, the list can go on and on.
But where the OBA is failing is that they are
not creating jobs, Mr. Speaker. And granting of status is not going to c reate our population. It is not going to
1184 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly create a growing number of people, Mr. Speaker. The
people we are talking about granting status to are a lready here. So I ask, as many Members on this side
have asked already, what is the hurry?
Anyone that has a P RC, Mr. Speaker, is not
going to get up and leave Bermuda tomorrow if they cannot get status. They knew that when they signed
the papers. When they signed the papers for PRC,
they had no guarantee . . . I do not even think they
had a little wish that they may have status one day.
And they are quite happy.
Mr. Speaker, I will put my hand up. I have a
few people that work for me that when they received
their PRC it was like manna from heaven. They were
so happy and still are today. And if they get status, fine. If they do not get status, Mr. Speaker, I could tell
you they are happy to be here. And we are happy to have them, Mr. Speaker.
Now the Honourable Attorney General also
talked about my colleague, Mr. Walton Brown and —

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Z ane J. S. De Silva: Yes, I do not know his exact words when he talked about civil disobedience,
Mr. Speaker. But I will tell you what. The Honourable
Attorney General said that he is inciting violence. And as for violence, I do not think he has ever . . . and he
is here, he can do a point of order on me. I do not think the Honourable Member Walton Brown has
ever—ever—suggested to anyone in Bermuda, Look,
let’s go out and start some violence. Never! And the
Attorney General, Mr. Trevor Moniz, when he gets
back in the Chamber, or if he has an opportunity,
should withdraw that and apologise to Walton Brown,
Mr. Speaker.
Now, the Honourable Dr. Gibbons when he
took to his feet used the words “times and circum-stances today” that had forced the OBA to take this
action. The times and circumstances of today. Mr.
Speaker. The PLP did not promise 2,000 jobs in 2012.
The OBA promised 2,000 jobs in 2012. And you will
know very well, Mr. Speaker, since that time we have lost another 2,000. And yet you will hear many from . .
. if they speak, Mr. Speaker, you will hear from the other side that the circumstances that we and Ber-muda are in today are forcing the OBA to take this
position.
To use the words of my colleague, Michael
Scott, that is poppycock! That is poppycock. Darn
right it is, Mr. Speaker.
That is not causing them to take this position,
because in March last year the Honourable MP, Walton Brown, brought proposed legislation to this
House for comprehensive immigration reform, and the
OBA shut it down. I think w e took a vote that night.
They shut it down, Mr. Speaker.
Now, if they really cared for the people of this
country back then, and they certainly had a whole year to rethink, and they have another opportunity
today to take the Honourable Walton Brown up on his
offer, to take the Progressive Labour Party up on their
offer, to take the people that stood on these grounds
just a couple of days ago up on their offer, Mr. Speaker. And that is to have a rethink. And people are
angry, Mr. Speaker, people are very angry.
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Dr. Gibbons
also talked about trends in population, growth and direction. That is where the economy needs to go. Mr.
Speaker. He talked about 5,000 job losses because of PLP policies, and it was initiated by the PLP, that is
why we lost 5,000 people who left Bermuda.
Mr. Speaker, you know, in certain circles in
Bermuda when someone talks like way off base, people ask the question, Are you on crack? (When som eone is way off base.) Now, I am not going to use that
term today, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell you what, to
make a statement like the PLP’s policies cost 5,000
jobs in Bermuda is, I will say, poppycock. Let us use
that word that we can use in this place, Mr. Speaker.
Five thousand jobs because of the PLP pol icies . . . are they crazy, Mr. Speaker, to make a
statement like that?
So I guess the PLP was responsible for all the
job losses in Greece, France, Portugal, Ireland, the
USA, every other country that was affected by the f inancial crash in 2008. But no, it was not the financial
crash; it was the PLP’s policies that caused countries to go bankrupt. That is what they would have you believe, Mr. Speaker, that is what they would have you
believe.
And the Honourable Dr. Gibbons said we are
trying to hang onto those that are here. As I said earlier: Hang onto those that are here, Mr. Speaker? I
have not heard of one PRC holder that is talking about
their leaving Bermuda. In fact, just the opposite. We have more of them that are applying to stay, Mr.
Speaker. So to say that our policies have cost Ber-muda 5,000 jobs is a joke, Mr. Speaker, it is nothing to
me but a joke.
Mr. Speaker, in 2012 the OBA ran an election
campaign and in that election campaign, Mr. Speaker, they said very clearly to the people of this country they
would not, they will not be giving status grants to PRC
holders in this country —they will not.
Mr. Speaker, I may have mentioned this on
Friday and I will say it again today. Do you think that the people of Bermuda would have voted the OBA in
to govern t his country had they said and made it clear
that this is what they would be doing right now? Do
you think they would be the Government of today? I
say no. I say no way, uh -uh. Because we know how
the voting patterns go in this country. And for one
segment of our society it does not make any difference what you do. But there is another segment of our society that does care what you do.


Bermuda House of Assembly I can assure you, had this been on their
agenda in 2012, Mr. Speaker, the OBA would not be
Government today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank MP Brown for bringing
this action to the House today. I do thank him be-cause, Mr. Speaker, the OBA may want to deny it all
they want, but there is an undercurrent of anger, there
is an undercurrent of serious concern. When you have
people of having no fear of going down to East
Broadway, first thing in the morning, to make their
point, Mr. Speaker, and risk, risk whatever . . . getting
arrested, of course, having their name out there, and you know what happens when you make a stand in
this country, you show your face, you know there are
some people I swear take those pictures and put them
up in certain places in Bermuda and they make you
pay for the rest of your life.
But when you have people that are willing to
take that risk and bring East Broadwa y to a halt, and
you have people that are willing to stand up in a public
meeting and risk having their faces put out there, and
you have other people— our civil servants included—
that take the risk of coming out to this House after being . . . I am going t o use the word “threatened” to participate . . . or cautioned, Mr. Speaker, but when they
are willing to do that, to stand up on this issue, Mr.
Speaker, the OBA better sit up and pay attention.
Mr. Speaker, I think when Walton Brown
brought that proposal here last March, I think that we
would have been well on our way, well on our way to
resolving some of the challenges that we now face
because, Mr. Speaker, in comprehensive immigration
reform you can sort out processes, you can sort out
criteria, you can sort out how many passports should
be issued per year, how many status grants should be
issued, you could sort out how many PRCs could be
issued, you could have a nice cross -section commi ttee that you would get a very diverse, I am sure, opi nion from and then make some very valid decisions,
Mr. Speaker. But the balance would have to be struck.
Balance will not be struck by passing legisl ation here tomorrow. If you just say, Look, let the Mini ster, let the OBA go ahead and issue those 1,500,
2,000 status to people, [balance] is not going to happen. But I think if you formed a joint select committee you have a very good chance of striking a very good
balance. You could strike a very good balance with
regard to what decisions are made and how they are
made, Mr . Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we do have a country that is divided. Right now with the stance that the OBA are
taking, they are driving the wedge deeper in this country. Mr. Speaker, if the OBA presses ahead with this
proposed legislation without first forming a joint select
committee, a committee that is going to look into
comprehensive immigration reform, you know what?
We may go down a road from which we never return .
. . from which we never return. And, Mr. Speaker, I know some PRC holders
that have been in Bermuda for a very long time. I know some families that have one child who has
status and one child who does not. We need to fix
that. But I do not think we can take one big broad brush and just paint everything. We cannot do it, Mr.
Speaker, we cannot do it.
So, we need to fix those things. We need to
fix families that have all these challenges within the families. I heard a CEO of a very large international
company in Bermuda who I know has PRC, one child
does not, the other one does. And he says, Now,
Zane, what do I do? What do I do with my other child?
What do I do? And that particular person is someone
we want in Bermuda—has wealth, is a job creator —
but we can fix that very quickly. Can we not, MP
Brown? We could fix that very quickly. And there are many cases like this that we could fix very quickly.
You get your committee formed, you line out
the policies, and you know what? This committee is not just one that would get together, make some sug-gestions and proposals, and come back to this House,
you kn ow. I think that we would have to need a committee of some kind that would need to be working on
a regular basis from year to year, long after we are
gone. Because you know what? You are going to
have these types of situations that come up, unless that joi nt select committee comes up with something
very crafty and ingenuous . . . and you are probably
the person to do that, MP Brown, that could fix this
thing once and for all. But to keep doing little piec emeal bits of legislation every couple of years makes
no sense. It makes no sense.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one thing that is very i mportant and one thing that concerns me very, very
much . . . and I have talked about it before, long before we talked about this stuff. I am worrying about our
land in Bermuda. I am w orried about our land. Why
am I worried about our land, Mr. Speaker? Why? It
has been reported, Mr. Speaker, that we have over
2,000 of 6,000 acres of residential property in Bermuda that is already owned by non- Bermudians —
already. They are creeping up to 50 per cent of the
residential land in this country that is owned by nonBermudians.
Now, like I said, I love our PRC people to
death and I love all our work permit holders, love them
to death, Mr. Speaker. But let me say this, I worry
about our children and our grandchildren when it
comes to land because let us think about it for a m oment. If I am a PRC holder and I have been in Ber-muda 25 years and I have not been able to buy prop-erty, what have I been doing with my money? Only
two things: I am either goi ng to spend it or I am going
to save it.
Now all of a sudden if I can spend it and buy
property, what am I going to do? Because what are
our [important] goals when we are younger? What do we want to do? We want to get a piece of the rock, do
1186 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly we not? We want a piece of the rock. So what is going
to happen now, all of a sudden, if the floodgates have
opened and all of our PRC holders and all of these
folks that are granted status can now buy property?
Now when you get status, you can not only buy pro perty, yo u can buy several, numerous pieces of property.
Now, let us say, I just happen to be a well -off
individual and all of a sudden I am granted status.
Well, I could say, Look. I’ll buy 10, 15, 20, 30 acres. I’ll
buy five houses and rent them out. I’ll buy 10 houses.
What is going to happen to our property, Mr. Speaker,
for our children, grandchildren and great -
grandchildren? By the time they get to an age where
they start thinking about property, will there be any left? Will there be any left for our children and grandchildren?
I will tell you what, joint select committee (if
you are formed); I would like to see that at the top of
the heap. That is very important, because you know
what? If all the property is gone and our great -great -
grandchildren cannot buy pr operty, what is going to
happen? We are going to build councils like they have in the UK, these big, big, all these . . . like when I go
down to Cuba, Mr. Speaker, they have all these
homes. It is a big square block, hundreds, hundreds
and thousands [of people] in some of them. That is where they stay. Is that where we want [to put] our
people? Is that what we are going to do for our people? Is that going to be the only option they have, is to
rent? Mr. Speaker, that is what concerns me. That is
what concer ns me in this, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the OBA also passed a law
where exempt companies can also buy houses. Okay? So you have the exempt companies that can
buy houses and you have PRCs that can now buy
houses. And if you give status to folks, then ther e is
no limit as to what and where they can buy. That concerns me, and it should concern everyone in this
House, Mr. Speaker —everyone in this House.
So, I will ask all the OBA MPs that are in this
House today, Mr. Speaker, what about your children? What about your grandchildren? Do you have four or five houses that you can leave to your children and,
therefore, they can leave to their grandchildren? Have
you got your first home yet? Do your families have their first home yet? Do your cousins, do your friends
have their first home yet? Do they have two or three?
Because I tell you what, if you are talking about 6,000
acres of Bermuda land and 2,174 have been bought
up already, there is not a lot left after that for our chi ldren going hundreds of years down the road, long
after everybody in this Chamber is gone.
So I ask the OBA MPs, What about your chi ldren and your grandchildren?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish on this note
(and it is where I started). Why do not all of the MPs in
this House take this opportunity? Look at MP Brown’s
urgent public importance matter that he has brought to this House— look at it. Think about your children, your
grandchildren, your families, your friends. Think about them. And I loved the way MP Walton Brown said earlier, and s how everyone that we love them, Mr.
Speaker. Show them that we love them, show them
that we care enough to pull back that legislation that
they are thinking about, that proposed legislation. Pull
it out, Mr. Speaker, pull it back and let us . . . and you
know what? I would encourage all of our Members on
this side, if the OBA pulls it back, let us not beat our chests and say, Oh, look, we got you, because that is
not what it is about. And I do not think we will, Mr.
Speaker, because you know what? The fight here and
that nonsense that Dr. Gibbons talked about, Oh,
we’re doing this because we need something to unify this group on this side. Mr. Speaker, is he crazy to
make a statement like that?

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: Yes, sorry, sorry.
But, Mr. Speaker, to say that we are looking
for something, to say that MP Brown is inciting vi olence . . . let me . . . he might have suggested that it
might take civil disobedience, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Point of order, Mr.
Speaker.

Honourable Member, you should be
. . . first of all, you should be speaking to me, and
not—

Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: Yes. Yes.
So, Mr. Speaker, for that . . . but the Honourable Member, Mr. Speaker, should stay in the House
a little often because I can tell you, I will not ask the
question, I am going to say it, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what he said —Hansard will show that.
And, you know, I like a little bet, Mr. Speaker.
I will bet some heavy money that that is exactly what
he said, because I was shocked.


Bermuda House of Assembly So, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell you what,
Walton Brown or Lovitta Foggo—

Do not put the Speaker into all of this.

Hon. Zane J. S. De Silva: But if he was to say, I think
everybody should go down to Front Street and jump
overboard tomorrow, Mr. Speaker . . . What? Is ev erybody going to do that?
I mean, what we have seen from our people in
the last several weeks, Mr. Speaker, is their discon-tent, their anger, and they are hurt. They are hurt. A
lot of those people that were up here have family
members and friends that have been out of work for
some time, Mr. Speaker, and that is where the OBA
needs to direct their energy. If they want to talk about
granting of status and all that, what is the hurry? You
have people out of work. It is obvious that the Honourable Member Bob Richards, the Finance Minister, his policies have not worked for three years. They promised 2,000 jobs, they are not working.
Read the Honourable David Burt’s Reply to
the Budget . . . diversify, create some jobs, that is
where your priority should be, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat, and before I
do I would just like to emphasise one more time my thanks to MP Brown for bringing this to the House t oday. My hope is that the OBA will listen, and they can
ease some o f the tensions in our country by letting the
people know that they are going to step back a little
bit, they are going . . . and they are always saying . . .
Premier Dunkley is always saying in this House, Mr.
Speaker, Let’s work together. Let’s work toget her.
Well, you have an opportunity.
You have an opportunity, Premier, to show
the people of this country that you are going to step back a little bit, let’s work together , let us do som ething that is good for all of our people— PRCs, work
permit holders, our unemployed Bermudians, and our employed Bermudians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, like the rest of my colleagues I
would like to thank MP Brown for bringing this motion.
It is something that has been talked about ever since
2013 that, you know, this is the way to go. But for
whatever reason the One Bermuda Alliance has continued on the path that they have decided to go down.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying
that when you make a commitment you build hope. When you keep it you build trust. What the One Bermuda Alliance has consistently done since 2012 is
issue hope, but never keep the commitment. So what
we have . . . and for some reason MPs are getting up
and trying to explain how their constituents feel, ho w
the general [public] feels, that they have of the vibe of
Bermuda. And the One Bermuda Alliance is essentially saying, I don’t believe that, or as my friend said,
Poppycock .
When we talk about immigration, it has always
been a thorny topic. It has alway s been a thorny topic.
It is one of those things, Mr. Speaker, that you have
people still alive in Bermuda (people a little bit older
than me) who remember, who have vivid memories of
the racist immigration policies of yesteryear. All right?
So when you st and up and say, We know that happened, and I think I want to say the Honourable Dr.
Gibbons said, It may or may not have been right ,
when he spoke (I am paraphrasing, of course). But
you know I find that interesting that he would make
such a statement because it is a known fact that it
was wrong.
So when we have an MP that stands up and
talks about these racial policies of the 1960s and the 1950s and the 1970s and the like and says, Well, it
may have been wrong— and we have all now acknowledged that it was incorrect and it did do som ething to Bermuda that we just do not want to go back to. And what we are seeing now is something that
seems to be motor -boating us back towards that era.
Mr. Speaker, since 2013 there have been four
amendments to the Bermuda Im migration Act —four
attempted amendments. One was turned back by the
Government because it was an Opposition Bill. And
the interesting thing about that is three of those four
amendments all dealt with PRCs and nonBermudians, and all of them, sans the one t hat MP
Brown had brought, were about strengthening their
position in Bermuda. And, of course, when I am tal king about these amendments I am talking about the
one that we have here.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think what we are trying to
get the One Bermuda Alliance to recognise is that there are some facts here. And you know, some of
1188 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly this is emotional, and it will be an emotional topic, but
let us talk about some facts.
You have a Government that promised 2,000
jobs. We have a country that has not only not seen
the 2,000 jobs, we have seen over 2,000 jobs disappear—2,000 jobs for Bermudians. We have a Go vernment that when looking at the Labour Force Survey of 2015 show that 307 jobs were created for nonBermudians last year, 413 Bermudians disappeared
from the work force. These are facts.
And they wonder why when they stand up and
say, we need to make things stronger so PRCs and
non-Bermudians have more security in Bermuda . . .
where is the concern about the security for Bermudians in all of these conversations and in all of these Bills that come forward?
We have this narrative of . . . and I am reading
from one of their posters, They are the faces of our neighbours, friends, and co- workers . They made a
commitment to Bermuda years ago; let’s make a commitment to them now. What about the Bermudians that have made a commitment by being born
here? And being Bermudian by virtue of birth, they do
not see a future in Bermuda. Where is the commi tment to them?
We want to make a commitment to someone
who came to Bermuda on a w ork permit 25 years ago,
their employer manipulated the work permit policy and
they ended up staying here, and we want to now r eward that bad behaviour by saying become a citizen.
That is what we are looking at here. And I think MP
Brown mentioned that (an d no one has spoken to it)
our work permit policy is broken. It is absolutely br oken because that is what is creating the problem we have now. And we heard Dr. Gibbons talk about
xenophobic —

—the Honourable Member
Dr. Gibbons, talk about xenophobia.
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you this. Som eone who does not live in your neighbourhood comes
and borrows something from you. Twenty years later
they do not bring it back, but they come to borrow
something else and you say no. And they say to you,
You’re not letting me use that because I don’t live in
your neighbourhood. No one wants to look at the fact
that they took something, managed to keep it for 20
years and never brought it back. That is not p art of the
conversation because it is more politically expedient
to say, You just don’t want to let him have that because he doesn’t live next to you. And you call it xenophobic.
That is our problem, Mr. Speaker. We need to
fix the Immigration policy. Nothing in this Bill that is attempted to be tabled today addresses that fact. This
is why we need comprehensive immigration reform.
We need to look at that entire Bill from top to bottom and come up with something that is a happy medium.
We are not going to m ake everyone happy. We are
not going to make everyone, you know, ecstatic over
whatever we come up with. I know that. We all know
that. But we owe the Bermuda public, the Bermudi-ans, the ability to consult and give their feedback.
Now, when the Honourable Attorney General
stood up and talked about, When you were over this side you didn’t want to collaborate, and he spoke
about Dr. Brown and the like. And you know, som etimes . . . and what do you hear when you walk out of
these Chambers? You hear people say, You guys
sound like children. Because you did it, I’m gonna do
it. Because you did it, I’m gonna do it this way.
Now, the PRC legislation was created under
the Progressive Labour Party. We found time to consult. We found time to do Green Papers and the li ke
and come up with documents and have town hall
meetings and talk to the people. We came up with a
policy. It was not agreeable to everybody, but not . . . I
dare you to go out there and find anyone to say that
consultation did not take place. We did not show up with an already scripted and written idea and say,
Well, now I’m gonna to tell you what I’m gonna do,
and see what feedback I get from you. It was not done
that way. We had the Attorney General on that telev ision programme. When he was asked, Why not do a
Green Paper? He said, We just don’t have the time
. . . the urgency . All right? But today he is saying,
Well, what’s the urgency? You know, it is kind of this
flip-flopping. When it is urgent on that side, it is okay.
When we say something is urgent, it is not okay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the One Bermuda Alliance,
is attempting to force this through. And I am not going
to go into the scripting of the voter landscape and the
like because no one here knows . . . not one person
here knows how anyone is going to vote. But again, I will just quote facts. The facts are that 95 per cent of
the whites on this Island have voted UBP or OBA. The
facts are 67 per cent of the current PRCs are of white
or European descent. So we do not know how they
are going to vote, but we can have a pretty good idea.
We can think, based on facts, that that is the most
probable occurrence.
So the question then becomes, Why the rush?
Why the rush? You know, some of my colleagues have talked about this particular topic and said it was
not a mandate the people gave you. The people did
give you a mandate when you held up that pretty chart
and said, Can you afford five more years of rising
debt? You gave them more debt. When you . . . excuse me, Mr. Speaker, when you said, I promise you
2,000 jobs. You have not given them that. When you
said you promised to fixed- term elections . . . there
does not seem to be any movement there.
You promised them that you would suspend
term limits, you cancelled them. You promised the
right of recall of MPs . . . no movement there, no expediency there. You promised to widen the voter base


Bermuda House of Assembly by absentee voting . . . no movement there. But we
now have something that you explicitly said you would
not do and all of a sudden it is a sprint. Right?
And when you look at the facts, if it walks like
a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And that is the problem that people have. What we are
seeing is yet another attempt to make everything
sweeter for the non- Bermudian while all the promises
you made to B ermudians have been just pushed by
the wayside. How are the people supposed to feel?
How are the people supposed to feel?
You know, last summer when the Minister of
Home Affairs who sits in another place brought yet
another Immigration amendment, Mr. Speak er . . . and
what was that amendment? That amendment was it
allowed PRCs to purchase any property they want on
the Island—any property. It reduced the ARV to zero for any property. If I look at the Labour Force Survey
of 2015, the median income for non- Bermudians,
which includes PRCs, is $20,000 more than Bermudi-ans—$20,000 more. You look at the unemployment
rate, Bermudians stand at 8 per cent, PRCs or nonBermudians stand at 3 per cent. As I said last summer
and I am saying now, what is the urgency to giv e an
already advantaged group an even bigger advantage
over Bermudians? Why? What is the urgency to do
that? No one has even begun to talk about why it is so
urgent to do that.
We have got ads. We have got these adverts,
and we have got these people giving testimonies. One
of them says, I’m a PRC . . . and if you do not mind, I
would like to actually read it, Mr. Speaker. And this
one says [that] despite having a permanent resident
certificate she is unable to obtain full Bermuda status, which she says cont inues to present concerns to her.
I’m constantly asking myself, should I stay or should I
go? What does giving this person status give them
beyond what they have now? Not one single thing
except the right to vote —except the right to vote. This
person can buy homes, they can buy up to two
homes, which is probably more than the average
Bermudian can even dream of, can even dream of.
Like I said, with her $20,000 more per year that they
are earning, that they have been stockpiling.
You know, and again, speaking to facts, last
year home sales slightly went up and the One Ber-muda Alliance made this grand announcement, 36 per
cent of them were cash sales. Who has got cash? Who has got cash to buy homes? Ironically, these
sales all came after the One Bermuda Alliance a llowed PRCs to buy any home they want.

So who is this Government really looking out
for? This is what the people feel. This is what the people say. You cannot dispute the facts. You cannot
dispute that this [class] of people in Bermuda make
more money than them. You cannot dispute that they
are better employed than them. You cannot dispute
those facts. You cannot dispute the facts that 95 per cent of whites in Bermuda will vote for the OBA/UBP.
You cannot dispute that. I will wait for the point of order.

[Laughter]

Now, I do take exception to
the Honourable Attorney General saying that my
friend MP Brown is trying to incite violence or encourage people to break the law. You cannot tell people
what to do. And for some reason the blame keeps getting pushed over here that it is the PLP that is encouraging people to protest, it is the PLP that is e ncouraging people to rise up. No, it is the OBA policies
that are encouraging people to do that. And the more
they continue with these p olicies that give the appearance that they are attacking Bermudians and making
things more comfortable for non- Bermudians, the
more they are going to expect the type of disturbances that we have seen. And it is going to get
worse. And what we are standing over here doing is
we are trying to say, Please, put the brakes on and
understand what you are doing.
We are out here trying to say we have talked
to people where we see it. We see where this is go-ing, we see the anger bubbling below the surface and
we are trying to say, pause, let us sit down and talk,
let us come up with something that we can move forward with.
You know, I just want to get back to this br oken work permit policy that we are talking about. You know, as an employer myself, I have admittedly filed
work permits. I have gotten employees that I could not find. I found it quite frustrating. And when I have these
discussions with my peer group, one thing that we do
note is that it is really the responsibility of the employer. You cannot blame a nanny who has come
here looking for a better life. They are not coming here
to become a part of our community, initially. They see a job advertised halfway around the world about a
place where it is sunny and has a beach, and they are
like, You know, that’s s omething I think I would like to
try. I would challenge anybody to say that the majority
of people pick up sticks and say, You know something? I want to move to Bermuda for the rest of my
life. I challenge anybody to come up with that. It is a
ludicrous comment.
You know, but they come here . . . and most
of them, I want to say through no fault of their own, are pawns in this failed work permit policy we have
and their work permits and their policies just keep getting renewed and renewed and renewed. You k now,
then they start having children and, of course, after
you have been somewhere for 20 years, 25 years,
you are going to want to say, Hey, you know, that is
my home. I would like for that to be my home.
But what we are asking us to do is to reward
bad behaviour, reward employees who manipulate the work permit policy. That is what we are asking us to
1190 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly do today, without addressing the bad behaviour. We
are stuck. We are stuck now. We have a cadre of
people who fall into this category. But what are we
doing to prevent that from ever happening again?
What does this Bill do to address that? Nothing.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable A ttorney General said some poignant words when he
spoke, I am assuming, to his colleagues. And he said
one thing that stood out, and I have it here circled, I
wrote it down. He said, Do you want Bermuda to be
successful or do you want just to be the Government
again?
I encourage those Members to hold up a mi rror to themselves and repeat that because that is what
it looks like to not only the Members on this side, but
to the general public who are upset at the policies that
they are trying to bring. And let me repeat that, do you
want Bermuda to be successful, or do you just want to
be Government again? That is what people are ask ing
of them. It is ironic he asked it of us, but that is what he is asking of them.
You know, this particular topic has been quite
divisive. I do not know if anyone . . . if you, Mr. Speaker, have been actually following any of the di scussions that have be en going on. I mean, it is really
on the tip of everyone’s tongue. You cannot go an ywhere without hearing someone having an opinion on this. It has reached, or should I say it has sunk, to le vels that I do not even want to begin to discuss. I have seen you ngsters —I say youngsters —using certain
language with elders, and I am sure people of your
age as well. I am sure you would not like for someone
in their 20s to call you the types of things that I have seen anyone opposed to this route say.
But one thing I want to get clear, and a One
Bermuda Alliance narrative I want to dispel. No one
over here is saying that we cannot give status. No one
over here is saying that these people do not need
some sort of level of security at some point. No one
over here is sayi ng that, Kick them out and get them
cracking just because they are here on a work permit.
No one here is saying that.
What we are saying is we need to sit down
together and not even . . . when I envision the joint
committee, I am not just envisioning MPs. I am env isioning people out there, outside of these walls as
well, if we can, because this is something that is going
to take . . . this is something that is going to require us
to go and talk to the people and get them to bring their
ideas and then form a policy —not create a policy and
then talk to the people. It just does not work that way. That is not collaboration, in any way, shape or form.
The One Bermuda Alliance has this odd way
of saying, We talked to the people . They have a town
hall meeting in a place that sits a hundred people, you
know, at 5:30 when people are, you know, trying to get home from work. I am just saying they seem to
make these meetings very inconvenient for people to
attend. And that is something that just needs to stop. They need to show that they have more respect for
the people of Bermuda than what they are showing,
Mr. Speaker.
And, Mr. Speaker, you have heard me talk
about the propensity of white voters in Bermuda. You have heard me talk about Bermudians versus nonBermudians. But this is a topic that crosses racial
lines. If you go and look at the people who are protes ting, they are from all walks of life—black, white, non -
Bermudian, Bermudian. They see it. They see what is
happening. They see what the One Bermuda Alliance
is trying to do and they are saying, you know, This just
might not be the right way to go, not at this time.
So on that note, Mr. Speaker, I urge the One
Bermuda Alliance . . . I see very few of them in their
seats right now listening. So Mr. Speaker, I urge them
to slow down, take stock really of what they are doing
and the potential that they have to damage this Island
that they say they care so much about. And when I
say damage this Island, Mr. Speaker, I do not even
want to begin to think of the types of things that this
bull-headed version of governance can drive people to
do. Because, you know, I listen to people. I talk to
people. And they are vexed. They feel disrespected,
they feel unappreciated, they feel like they are just
being taken for granted.
You know, during my maiden speech I spoke
about the writing being on the wall. And when I spoke about the writing being on the wall . . . and this comes
from talking to constituents. There is a narrative out
there that people believe the One Bermuda Alliance
realised that the chances of them winning another election is relatively slim, and because of that they are
just throwing everything in. They are just throwing the
kitchen sink in; they are trying to do everything they
can before they are relegated to t he Opposition again.
But as I told the Premier a few weeks ago,
you do not govern based on general election times.
You govern correctly every single chance that you get. You have to be a Government that is for the people
because you are elected by the people.
And, Mr. Speaker, I will finish with this, again,
and I ask the One Bermuda Alliance, the same way
that the Honourable Attorney General spoke, Do you
really want Bermuda to be successful or are you just
wanting to be Government again?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Honourable Member.
Any other Honourable Member care to speak?
The Chair will recognise the Honourable Mi nister Patricia Gordon- Pamplin.
You have the floor.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me contribute to this debate
today to perhaps try to convey to Members opposite
that there is no sinister motive on our behalf, notwit hBermuda House of Assembly standing the message that Members opposite might
try to portray to the people of Bermuda in their interpretation of the purposes for the Immigration Amendment Act that has been proposed to be tabled.
Mr. Speaker, we heard the comments —the
provocative comments —when it was first indicated to
the public what the Government was trying to do. And
in those comments w here it was said, Now is the time
for civil disobedience. And you got responses on
Facebook asking, When and where? You tell me
when and I’ll be willing to show up. That is the kind of
thing that if Members opposite and the Honourable Member bringing this [motion] had a concern about as
opposed to taking that approach, Mr. Speaker, would have come and said, Can we discuss this before—

All right, thank you, Honourable Member.
Minister?

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Let me just say that when Members opposite
say they, we’re calling for dialogue, we’re calling for
comprehensive reform, we’re calling for collabor ation,
in the one breath, that was what was being asked for.
In the other breath, from the very leadership of the
Opposition party, they said, there will be no collabor ation with this Government.
So, Mr. Speaker, what this Government has
had to do is to effectively look at the things that were
necessary in order to keep the head of the country
above water.
Mr. Speaker, we hear about what might be
deemed to be some kind of cynical or sinister approach that we have taken towards immigration r eform. Mr. Spe aker, there is a song by Bob Marley that
effectively says, A hungry man is an angry man. And,
Mr. Speaker, we can look at this from two perspec-tives—one, a person who is unemployed, a Bermudian who is unemployed, has every right to be an-gry if they feel that they cannot find a job in their own
country.
Mr. Speaker, I would be equally as angry. But
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that for the people who have been able to be here for the length of time that might give them the opportunity or the ability to be
eligible to apply . . . let me just say the 15- year period
of time that was being referred to, Mr. Speaker, this Government has been in office for three years, in service to the people of this country, which would sug-gest that if somebody has been able to be here for 15
years the other 12 years would have had to have
been based on lax immigration policies by the prev ious administration in order for them to get to the 15year mark.
So, Mr. Speaker, while Members opposite are
looking at us saying that we ought not to be going
down this path, Members opposite have yet . . . I have
yet to hear anybody say, We screwed it up during our
term of administration in not ensuring that there were
robust immigration policies in place in order to ensure that people do not have their work permits rolled over
and over and over, because that is what happened.
Honourable Members would know that their policy,
their legislation called for term limits, but none of
those term limits seem to have had any impact, Mr. Speaker, because otherwise you would not have had
people who were here for six years now being here for
15 years and in the position of being eligible to apply.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at those who
have been here even for a far longer term. A gentl eman I spoke to the other day —43 years. Mr. Speaker,
there were some testimonials that were given at the
time that the Ministers . . . the Attorney General and
the Immigration Minister had some. I guess they were
attempting to have town hall meetings. They were
shut down. But in their desire to get the information
out to the public they did a CITV presentation. And as part of that presentation they were running some testimonials, one of which was from a gentleman who
has been here for 20- some years who has a company
which employs 20 people —a significant number of
Bermudians.
Mr. Speaker, if we take away the capacity of
somebody who has created those jobs and say, Sorry,
we’re not going to give you what you are looking for in
terms of permanency, at that point in time, Mr.
Speaker, I have no doubt that that individual has perhaps made tons of money, could conceivably jump up
and leave the country, could very well do that, and
take with him the positions where the jobs are that we need to continue to have. And then what w ill we hear
from the other side, Mr. Speaker? Oh, you all have
lost more jobs!
Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to make
sure that we provide an environment in which em-ployment is available to Bermudians. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, every single program me, every single co ncept, every single project that has been advanced by this side has met tremendous opposition from the other side. Hence, the question that my honourable
colleague had is, Are you really interested in Bermudians as you would profess to be? Because it belies the action and the rhetoric that we hear that would
1192 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly suggest for a second that there is a level of concern
for our Bermudian people.
Mr. Speaker, if you are willing to watch a nother employer walk out the door because there is no
securit y, there is no permanency . . . if you are willing
to do that, then I have to question your sincerity in
showing that you have concern for Bermudians.
What we have heard a lot of today, Mr.
Speaker, is about all these white people who histor ically have vot ed for the United Bermuda Party and will
now vote for the OBA. Mr. Speaker, that is a presum ption that any and everybody who is eligible to apply is somebody white. That is the insinuation coming from
the opposite side, Mr. Speaker, and that is not true.
Members opposite know it. We know it, Mr. Speaker.
But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if for one second there
was some attitude coming from anybody on this side
that would say, My concern is because how many
votes can we get, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be
a part of that.
Mr. Speaker, I am the Minister responsible for
Financial Assistance, and I have seen people walking
through the doors of the Financial Assistance D epartment in dire straits. And I am not going to sit back
knowing if I have the opportunit y to support something
that would allow people to be employed . . . I am not
going to sit back and refuse to help to put that struc-ture in place to allow those people to become employed, Mr. Speaker. That is my concern. My concern
is not, Mr. Speaker, as Members opposite would have
you believe, that all we want to do is to make sure that
we have got some white people whose names are
going to go on the electoral roll and, therefore, we could maybe eke out a couple more votes.
Mr. Speaker, that would be so short -sighted.
But we have a bigger responsibility as the Gover nment, Mr. Speaker, to look at how we can feed those people who are falling through those cracks of the
increasing age rate versus the decreasing birth rate
and the people in between.
And, Mr. Sp eaker, we hear Members opposite
say, Why doesn’t the Government consider first of all
repatriating Bermudians? Let’s have some wonderful plan to bring back our Bermudians who have left the Island because of their frustrations and their inability
to find employment.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there are
some other reasons. We have heard Members oppo-site almost to a person, and not that I want to reflect
on a debate, Mr. Speaker, but almost to a person decry the ability of, or the rights of LGBT people to take
up their rightful place in their country. And let me say,
Mr. Speaker, other than the Member opposite who
brought this Bill . . . and I have to give him credit for
that, Mr. Speaker. When we are hearing people say,
Let’s repatriate . . . Mr. Speaker, do you know how
many professionals we have, Bermudians, who have
emigrated because of their inability to feel comfortable
in their own country because their lifestyle happens to be different from a certain segment of our community
who do not want them here?
What have we then done? We have had to
bring people in to fill those positions, Mr. Speaker, that
our Bermudians in their rightful country have been denied the opportunity because they have been made
to feel ostracised. That is a challenge, Mr. Speaker.
But we have said, Oh, no, we don’t want “them” here.
We don’t want “them” to have any rights. And “they,”
Mr. Speaker, have been effectively deported from
their own country, deported from the prospect of being able to come, live, have the right to famil y life and to
have some kind of degree of permanence in their own
home.
That would help, Mr. Speaker, to plug the gap
of some of those people who we have had to bring in
on work permits. So that is a very real situation. You cannot have it both ways. You c annot on the one
hand say, I do not wish to provide an environment in
which our Bermudians can come home and have a right to family life, but yet on the other hand say, Let’s
repatriate our Bermudians. Make up your minds, Mr.
Speaker, they have to determine what it is that they
would want.
Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges that we
have is the level of disinformation and misinformation that permeates throughout the community. I was on
my way back to work today, Mr. Speaker, somewhere around two o’clock, and I happened to listen to a certain radio talk show which I very rarely listen to b ecause it rarely is of any value. However, today it just happened that my radio station which is normally on 105.1, I obviously had clicked it and it had moved to
another station. And I heard a gentleman asking some
questions about this proposal in terms of the Immigr ation Amendment. And the host of that programme
said, I want you to understand what the Government
is not telling you is that anybody coming to the Island on a work permit from today will be eligible for PRC or
status —coming in today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that would presuppose . . .
you know, I really come unstuck when half a story is
told, Mr. Speaker. And when half a story is told with
the aim of misinforming, I thi nk that is just as dangerous as not telling the story at all. Because the reality is
that should one have robust immigration policies and
controls, we would not be in the situation that we were
in that for 14 years we have people who have now
been here so long that they would be eligible for applications under this particular new amendment that
was being proposed, Mr. Speaker.
That is, you know, disingenuous. It is dishonest, Mr. Speaker. And that is the level of disinform ation that the public is being fed. Most of them are not
going to sit and listen to this debate, Mr. Speaker, and
I am sure that the Member bringing this particular m otion today would abhor misinformation. I am certain of
that, Mr. Speaker. But I think that we have an oblig ation not just to say, How can we work together on


Bermuda House of Assembly this?, because Members opposite have already said
they do not want to. And you know what, Mr.
Speaker? I still think that there is opportunity on certain things to be able to work together. However, Mr. Speaker, when you have an urgency . . . and what is
the urgency as we keep hearing the question being asked, what is the urgency? The urgency is when you
see hungry people, you want to make sure that they
are not left hungrier by having people who might ot herwise be permanent decide that it is their time now to
pack up and move out and leave the country, Mr.
Speaker. That is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, we heard an Honourable Member opposite laud one or two people in the public who
have led this charge, not least of whom one is a status
holder. So, Mr. Speaker, when you hear people say,
I’m okay Jack, let me pull up the ladder because you
all cannot get it. I’ve got it. I’m okay Jack, that is pretty
dangerous, Mr. Speaker. It is not only selfish, it is sel fishly motivated, and nobo dy ever will tell me that I
could listen to that particular individual and garner from that any degree of concern for anybody Ber-mudian. Mr. Speaker, that person is Bermudian by
status. So you know what, I’m okay, Jack . . . pull up
the ladder.
Mr. Speaker , I mentioned the other day that I
am a first generation Bermudian, and but for the situation into which my parent found himself in coming to this Island, Mr. Speaker, if he were made to leave after two or three years he would have been gone in the
’40s lo ng before I was even thought of. However, that
was not the case. And being a first generation Bermudian, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here
and say to somebody else, You don’t have any rights.
I do because I was here before this matter came up,
but you don’t have any rights. I have, but you don’t. Is
that right? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important also when
we heard the Honourable Member from one of the
constituencies indicating that according the European Convention on Human Rights that there must be “due
regard . . . to local requirements” in speaking of the
territorial application relating to right of residence.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, “due regard to
local requirements,” well, if the local requirement is
not d eemed to be sufficiently important that we are
looking out to try to find a way to feed our people by
stabilising those people who would give them jobs,
Mr. Speaker, then I think that we are missing the
point —we are missing the point.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that as we continue
to look at Pathways what does this Opposition decide
that they want to do? They bring a motion today to
say, We want to tell the Government don’t table anything relating to this. This motion was brought prob ably before they even saw the legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Many of the people who have spoken, which is what I
find, many of the people who have spoken out about
what they would prefer not to see in Bermuda, do not know the content of the legislation. So going by a Mi nister’s Statement, going by a Minister’s attempt to put
information out to the public, it was the determination
that they do not want to have this and, therefore, we
saw some people deciding that they wanted to dem-onstrate on such a point.
Mr. Speaker, we have no issue on this side of
the Government excepting the fact that people have varying degrees of agreement with us or lack thereof.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we are responsible to the entire
community, then I think we would be derelict in our duty if we fail to at least l ook at the basics of Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs, which are food, clothing and shelter. And we are not going to put ourselves in the situ ation where people providing or assisting in providing
food, clothing and shelter for our Bermudian people—
that they ar e not going to be allowed that level of st ability. That to my mind, Mr. Speaker, would make absolutely no sense.
Now, I am not for one second saying that ev erybody who falls into that category of being able to
apply based on their tenure are all job makers , because that is not true, Mr. Speaker. There are people who have been here by virtue of length of time, as I
said, Members opposite have made sure that they
stayed, they did not bother to put any policies or any
robust restrictions in place to make sure that they left
at the end of their term limit, Mr. Speaker, or at the
end of their work permit. Their work permits were
rolled over and over and over again.
And I do think at some point in time we do
have an obligation to people who have lived here. We also have an obligation which was mentioned in our
platform as we were going towards the election, Mr.
Speaker, to indicate that there was going to be an adjustment with respect to the situation regarding chi ldren, to whom the last Member who spoke, I believe,
mentioned, about the inequity that you can have fam ilies with one child having one position—

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: I am sorry, not
platform, in our Throne Speech. In our Throne
Speech.
—with one child having the ability to stay and
another child not having the ability because there was
a dichotomy with respect to their status or their ability
to be Bermudian.
Mr. Speaker, we have to correct that. That is
not something that has just come out overnight, it is
somet hing that was broadcast that this would be
done. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that is part of what
we are seeing in the Immigration and Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that some of the
ideas that the Honourable Member is recommending
that could be collaborated upon are good ideas that
are probably ripe for collaboration. But to sit and attempt to dictate to the Government to say, Don’t you
1194 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly bring any legislation until we talk. You do things my
way. You know, Let’s sit down and chat, let me tell
you what we want, and you do it that way, or it’s no
way or we will encourage civil disobedience, Mr.
Speaker. I do not believe that that is the way to go.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any Go vernment should be emasculated based on the whims
of the Opposition. And, Mr. Speaker, I say that I am
sensitive to . . . I got a couple of e- mails even today,
and I am sensitive to constituents, whether mine or not is of no consequence, I am sensitive to people
sending me an e- mail to say, I’m concerned about thi s
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that there are
some areas that would create disquiet. But the most
difficult thing about governing is to have to recognise
that you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
You cannot do it, Mr. Speaker. It i s virtually imposs ible. What we have to look at, Mr. Speaker, is how we
can most ensure that the majority of the people who
are being negatively impacted by a circumstance or a situation are being adequately looked out for. And
whether that is as a result of this amendment or any
other that we might bring, Mr. Speaker, it is important
that we look out and listen to and embrace challenges
that we have.
But, Mr. Speaker, to be bullied into taking a
position because Members opposite decided that you
won’t do it our way, therefore, it will be no way —I just
do not think that is a good way to run a railroad, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we heard people talk about the
creation of jobs and the loss of jobs and that there
were more foreign jobs created and more Bermudian
jobs lost. Mr. Speaker, that is a challenge. Why is it a
challenge? Not that this Government is looking out for
foreign people, Mr. Speaker. It is that when applic ations are made, and under a reasonably robust imm igration work permit policy there have been applicants
who have fallen short of the requirements of the person, the employer, putting the advertisement.
Mr. Speaker, that means that we as a people
have to put ourselves on a pathway to ensure that we
equip ourselves with the necessary skills that enable
us to have such positions. And, Mr. Speaker, that is
important. And not only is it important, it is critical that that becomes part of the very robust immigration pol icies that decide who gets to come and who does not
get to come.
Mr. Speaker, I hear people in the streets saying, Why should we have foreign pot washers? I had a
neighbour of mine stop me the other day and say a
particular restaurant that he frequents has three managers and all three of the managers are foreign. Mr.
Speaker, that is a problem because it would appear
that is the kind of job that Bermudians ought to be
able to do. Why are we falling short, Mr. Speaker? We
cannot start blaming somebody else [who is] blaming
an employer who wants to be able to run an effective business f or his entire Bermudian staff, but for those
managers. Are we going to say that you should not bring in a manager to make sure that your business is
run in such a manner that the rest of your Bermudian
staff are taken care of?
Mr. Speaker, we are all goi ng to have stories.
We are all going to hear, perhaps about the issues
that Members would have in terms of, you know, you
might see a job description that does not appear to be
an appropriate one. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that
that is something that our I mmigration Department,
that the Immigration Board will be looking into so that
we are not seeing people coming and being exploited
and being taken mean advantage of in order to be
able to fill a position because, ideally, we want Bermudians to be employed, Mr. Speaker. We do not
want to have to go through the bother (and this is as
an employer I would imagine) of filling out the applic ations and work permits in order to bring people to this
country. Would the preference not be that there is a
pool of Bermudians that we can tap into so we can be
sure that when jobs are made available, Mr. Speaker, that they would be eligible to apply?
And, Mr. Speaker, that is the one thing that is
happening in the Workforce Development Depar tment. They are not only ensuring that people are
made aware, they are posting when work permits are coming up for renewal. This is the sort of exposure that we have as Bermudians, Mr. Speaker, that would
ensure that we are able to apply for such positions,
such that there will be no necessity to bring somebody
in and to have them stay and renew and renew and renew.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking now, in particular,
to the blue- collar jobs. There are some white- collar
jobs in which we are going to require that there are
going to be foreign people to come and fill those jobs.
And I am never going to say that Bermuda will never
be able to provide enough manpower to deal with those people in the international business arena.
Mr. Speaker, I work in that area and I can tell
you that there are jobs that . . . you know, we just
comparatively very recently hired an actuary. And
when you stop to think, you know, O god, actuaries. It
is such a specialised position.
Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful Bermudian
woman in our Actuarial Department in Bermuda. That
is the commitment that my company has to ensure that we Bermudianise to every extent possible. I am
the Chief Accountant and Vice President in that organisation, Mr. Speaker. That is the commitment that my company has to ensure that we can Bermudiani se.
Our underwriters, Mr. Speaker, we have two lead underwriters who are foreign, who have been here for a
while, one who probably at some point in time will
consider that it is time to retire. But, Mr. Speaker, who
are the understudies? The understudies are Be rmudian, Mr. Speaker. And that is what we want for our
companies to have as a mindset so that we do not


Bermuda House of Assembly have this problem to have to think that we have got
long-term residents who are here so long that they
have to apply for status for apply for long- term res idency.
We want to know, Mr. Speaker, that new pe ople coming in. If they walk through the door today, we
want to ensure that when their three- year tenure is up
that there is somebody trained and equipped to take
that position, so that we do not find ourselves going
down into the muck and mire of a dysfunctional sy stem and country that was created under the previous administration. Mr. Speaker, 14 years is an awful long
time for somebody to have their work permits rolled
over. But once you get to that state, Mr. Speaker, is
there not some kind of human . . . you know, it is hard
to say as the Minister responsible for Human Rights . .
. I do not like to use the Human Rights Act loosely. I believe that there are certain things in the Human
Rights Act —well, everything in that Act —we have to
take very, very seriously, Mr. Speaker. So I am not going to say that it is a human right to do that.
Mr. Speaker, we remember seeing not too
many years ago that we brought in under cover of darkness four people becaus e we were so humanitarian as a Bermudian people. Those four people who
came in, Mr. Speaker . . . as of today, I think those
four have actually multiplied to something like 15 or 16
with wives and now children. And before you know it, there are more and more and more of them. We did
not stop to have that level of discourse to say Wow,
should we have taken the necessary steps at that
point in time to ensure that they were cut off at the knees? Should they not even have been brought in in
the first place? It was done, Mr. Speaker, and we now
have to live with the outcome of that. And many of those people, Mr. Speaker, have jobs. If we want to
talk about somebody having jobs that Bermudians can
have, that is a classic example, not of our making, Mr.
Speaker.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Honourable Member.

Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking of jobs for Bermudians, irrespective of how
they are being meted out. And if it is a refugee status,
we have had to deal with it; we have had to deal with
the multiplication of the four that came initially. So, Mr. Speaker, when we hear about those concerns, let us
embrace all of the concerns relating to that.
Now, we have heard that previously Members
found time to consult on issues, and they probably
did, Mr. Speaker, when they brought the PRC legisl ation in they talked about —Mr. Speaker, how much
time do I have?

About 49 seconds.
Hon. Patricia J. Gordon -Pamplin: Okay.
Time to consult, Mr. Speaker. But let me just
say that that timing was during years of plenty when they had the opportunity to be able to take time and
consult. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with hungry people, people who have fallen through the
cracks, and people for whom I am not prepared to stand here and tak e out from underneath them their
safety cushion by not giving some degree of perm anence to their employers where it is appropriate to make sure that they continue to eat.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member that
just took her seat very, very easily (I guess would be
the word) reminds me of or makes me think of
Giuseppe Marcalli. And for those who do not know
who Giuseppe Marcalli is, he was an Italian volc anologist and he is best remembered, Mr. Speaker, for
the Marc alli intensity scale for measuring eart hquakes.
Now, t he Marcalli scale goes from 1 to 12, 1
being something that you could only feel or only be
able to register by seismographs, 6 is something that
is felt by all and is actually considered to be som ething that is very frightening, and then 10 to 12 are
different levels of extreme. Just to give you some context on that one, the 2004 earthquake in the Indian Ocean which created a tsunami was a 9.1 and the Haitian earthquake was considered to be or was
measured to be a 7.0.
Now, I bring that up, Mr. Speaker, bec ause
since 2004 the international community has had a
very strong and very interest driven . . . in developing
an early warning system. And if you go and you look up the definition of “early warning system” it says, and
I quote, Mr. Speaker, with your indu lgence:
“Early warning is a major element of disaster
risk reduction. It prevents loss of life and reduces the
economic and material impact of disasters. To be effective, an early warning system needs to actively i nvolve the communities at risk, facilitat e public educ a1196 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly tion and awareness of risks, effectively disseminate
alerts, and warnings and ensure there is constant
state of preparedness.”
So now with that, Mr. Speaker, let us stick a
pin in that. And if I was to emulate a former Honour-able Member and, actually, I would say an iconic
Member of these Honourable Chambers, I would
probably rise to my feet, put my hand on my hip, and
emulate the late Dame Lois Browne- Evans, and she
said, that rights given cannot easily be taken away.
And I will repeat that for effect, Mr. Speaker, Rights
given cannot easily be taken away.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the OBA is currently in the process of watering down our birthright
with this ill- thought and ill -gotten policy and legislation.
And let me show you what . . . let me break that down
a little bit further because, Mr. Speaker, this whole
situation when it comes to immigration reform, from
our point of view, from my understanding of it, it bas ically boils down to a privilege versus rights.
As Bermudians we enjoy numerous numbers
of privileges, multiple benefits from those privileges. But we only enjoy one right, Mr. Speaker. And the
thing is that when it comes to privileges versus rights,
and it comes to your PRCs and those members of the
public that may not be Be rmudian but have resided
here for a long time, the PLP has acknowledged that,
Mr. Speaker, has acknowledged their contribution to
this country, has acknowledged the fact that they have
in a way laid roots down, Mr. Speaker, and in acknowledging that contri bution we have extended every
privilege imaginable to anybody.
It is a privilege and not a right to be allowed
into our country. It is a privilege and not a right to live
here in Bermuda, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege and not
a right to work here, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege and
not a right to own land, drive cars or own cars, Mr.
Speaker. These are all privileges, Mr. Speaker.
And, Mr. Speaker, it says that . . . and I will
refer back to the Honourable Attorney General that
said that he did not see what the national importance
was with us bringing this motion right now. And the
national importance, Mr. Speaker, is that the OBA is planning on . . . and the Honourable Member that took
her seat alluded to it as well, is planning on bringing legislation th at will effectively water down and/or give
away our one birthright, the one right that we do have,
Mr. Speaker, the OBA is willing to give that away.
So when it comes to this birthright, Mr.
Speaker, it is the protection of this birthright, it is to
ensure that this birthright has the maximum impact in
this society, which is why there was a moratorium placed on status, Mr. Speaker. It was to protect thi s
birthright and to protect Bermudians, which is why we
went and we did the PRCs instead of . . . because
remember, going back to what Dame Lois BrowneEvans said, Rights that are given are hard to take
away, Mr. Speaker. So, therefore, we do not even enjoy citizenship in this country, Mr. Speaker, because we are not a country, we are a dependent territory.
So, therefore, in order for us to enjoy citizenship we
cannot even say that that is something that we enjoy
as Bermudians. All right? We would have to go ind ependent to enjoy that.
So, Mr. Speaker, the way and manner in
which the OBA is tinkering with our immigration policy
has the potential to have significant negative impacts
on this country on multiple levels, Mr. Speaker. It has
the impact on the dem ographics, or demographically it
could have a negative impact. Culturally it could have
a negative impact. And economically it could have a
negative impact.
And, Mr. Speaker, going back to that pin that I
stuck about early warning systems, and remember what I said, that the early warning systems have four
parts in which for them to be effective. And the first
part is to actively involve the communities that are at
risk, Mr. Speaker. And that is what the PLP is trying to
do right now. We are trying to get the Government to
actively involve the communities at risk, which are the
Bermudians, because it is the Bermudian birthright which is at risk right now, Mr. Speaker, of being w atered down. It is the Bermudian birthright of voting
which is at risk of being given away, Mr. Speaker. So
what the PLP is doing is saying that when it comes to
immigration and immigration reform and this Immigr ation amendment, it needs to be a comprehensive i mmigration reform, a robust immigration policy that is put in place.
We hav e no problem, Mr. Speaker, extending
the privilege of living, working and residing in this I sland. But what we do have an issue with is watering down our birthright, and that is our voting right, b ecause that is what this seemingly comes down to, the almig hty vote. And so that is step one, Mr. Speaker,
and step one is to actively involve the communities at risk. So that is what the PLP is doing right now. We
are trying to get the Government to actively involve the community that is at risk, and that is the Bermudian, by [having] a joint select committee. It does
not seem so hard; it does not seem so controversial.
The second part to ensuring that an early
warning system is effective is to facilitate public education and awareness of the risks. And, Mr. Speak er,
part of that . . . and the main word is “risks,” because I
understand that and we all know that the OBA has
tried to facilitate public education, but it was not necessarily on the risks of their new immigration policy,
which they want to amend They wer e just trying to
educate people on the skittles and unicorns version of
their policy, where they talk about the economy and
they talk about all these different things and these
people bring jobs, and so on and so forth.
But it is the risks, not the . . . the OBA has yet
. . . I have not heard a Member yet say, You know
what? What is at risk is the birthright; what is at risk is
your voting right; what is the risk is watering down that Bermudian birthright, the only right that we actually


Bermuda House of Assembly are entitled to under this context. Everything else, Mr.
Speaker, is a privilege. So we have not heard an ything of that. We have not heard any mention of the
risks involved with the implementation of the immigr ation policy as is, without including, once again, without
includ ing the community that is at risk to let them
know what the risks are.
So that is step one . . . that is part one, part
two, and now let us go on to part three of an effective early warning system, [which] is to effectively dissem inate alerts and warnings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what this exercise
today is. This exercise today is to provide an early
warning to the OBA Government that if you continue
down this path, if you continue down this path with
ignoring the average Bermudian when they show up
on your doorstep, if ignoring the protests that are out there, or if you are talking about, since I was talking
about early warning systems and the earthquake
measuring guide, if we were to ignore the foreshock . .
. and a foreshock is known as basically an eart hquake before the real seismic event. So if you ignore
this, Mr. Speaker . . . all we are trying to do is warn
you, inform you of what is being told to us, what is
being conveyed to us while we are on the doorsteps,
while we are canvassing our neighbourh oods, while
we are walking in public and what we are hearing from the average Bermudian, Mr. Speaker.
This is what this exercise is that, please, you
need to listen, you need to understand that this is not
just an isolated group, Mr. Speaker, this is not just one
or two people with spoiled grape mentality . Mr.
Speaker, these are warnings, these are foreshocks, and that is what we are here for. This is part of the, I will say, PLP early warning system because we can
see what is coming down the pipeline if y ou continue
to ignore the Bermudians and the average Bermudian.
Mr. Speaker, the fourth part of an early war ning system is to ensure that there is a constant state
of preparedness. And, Mr. Speaker, if the current Government is not willing to listen to us —the PLP as
the Opposition— if the current OBA Government is not
willing to listen to the average person when they show up outside Parliament for two hours, if the current OBA Government is not willing to take heed to the
protest down on East Broadway, then . . . just trying to
figure out how I can succinctly put it.
If they are not willing to listen to the foreshock,
which is the earthquake before the seismic activity . . .
and you know, Mr. Speaker . . . okay, here we go. Let us see if I can pull this one off.
So if we are not listening to the foreshocks,
and as an Island we are surrounded by water and if
an earthquake happens under water, Mr. Speaker, it
creates a tsunami. All right? Therefore, if the current
Government is not willing to listen or take heed of the
early warning system that says Government, there
have been foreshocks noted, there have been for eshocks observed, and what is possibly coming your way is a tsunami of emotion, is a tsunami of anger, is a tsunami of discourse, you need to beware. You
need to put yourself in that constant state of preparedness for what is coming your way. If you do not
need these warnings, Mr. Speaker, the Government will not be ready to deal with the seismic event that
could be on its way, which could be just below the
surface ready to erupt.
If they do not heed the warning of, not just us .
. . and I keep repeating that it is not just us. All we are
asking, all we are trying to tell you, all we are trying to convey is that when it comes to immigration reform it
has to be a robust policy. It cannot be one amendment. When it comes to immigration reform, it cannot
just be the Government that is saying this is the way
we have to go.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard stories about times
in a Parliament past, a Parliament that I was not a part of, a Parliament that seemingly, when under the PLP
control, was the Opposition advises, the Government
decides. If we do not learn from our past . . . because
the OBA Government has said that that is not the right
way to do it. So if that is not the way that we should be
going about doing things, if the Government should be
listening to the Opposition and working with the O pposition, let us provide leadership by example now.
Let us not just give out rhetoric because it sounds good, because the media is here, and there are sound
bites that can be played.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one right in this
context. And when I talk about one right —not one
right way —one right, and that is the voting right, and
that is what the PLP . . . that is what the early warning
system, that is what the general public is up in arms
about because they just want to make sure that their
birthright, their one right that they can enjoy, ever ything else is a privilege and everything else we share,
Mr. Speaker, but this is something that we are not wil ling to share willy -nilly. This is not something that we
feel should just be given away, Mr. Speaker. This is
not the door prize when you come to Bermuda. Oh, here, welcome to Bermuda, you can go cast a vote.
This is not som e raffle prize, Mr. Speaker, to be won if
you are just the lucky contestant.
Mr. Speaker, this is something that we need
to take seriously. This is something that needs to have
collaborative efforts on. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not see
why the Government is s o hard- pressed against wor king together, because we only work best when we
work together. Bermuda only works best when it
works together.
And if you have not noticed, Mr. Speaker, because I know I noticed, there is not one demographic
that is out there. There is not one culture that is repr esented in these protests. There is not one economic
circle that is represented when we talk about immigr ation. It is all of us. So then why can we not all be i ncluded in the way forward?
1198 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Mr. Speaker, I understand that y ou see the
importance of this. You see that this is the future of
Bermuda, which, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the
future of Bermuda the future of Bermuda is determined by one thing.
The future of Bermuda is shaped by one right
and that is the right to v ote, Mr. Speaker. Because if
you notice that when voting was able to be done by
whoever held land, that Bermuda worked to the benefit of those that owned land. But as we have intr oduced one man, one vote of equal value, Mr. Speaker,
we have noticed that it has consistently gotten better
and better for the average Bermudian because it is that one right on which the foundation for tomorrow is
built on today. So, for those that have come to this Island . . . and my understanding is, they have signed
a document , have signed a contract saying, I am not
going to look for the right to vote. I understand that that is outside of my jurisdiction, that is outside of
what I am able to ask for, all I ask for is the privilege to
live, the privilege to be able to be allowed into your country, to work in your country and to freely move
about your country. And that is a privilege that we all
enjoy and that is a privilege that we do not mind sharing.
But going back to the core of this, Mr.
Speaker, is that we are trying . . . this the last, this is
number four out of the four levels of an early warning
system, we are on the last level, the last option, the
last amenity that has been afforded to us as Honourable Members of this House, this is the last . . . Mr.
Speaker, you coul d say this is the last straw if the
Government is not willing to take heed of the early
warnings that we are providing right now, in highligh ting the multiple protests that have happened on this
one topic, Mr. Speaker. That all we are doing is telling
you what is to come if you are not paying attention to
the foreshocks, that what is to come will be a tsunami
that will rock this foundation. You know what? It will be
a tsunami or a seismic event that will rock this country
to the core of its foundation.
And all that it takes to avoid this is to pay a ttention to the warnings, to heed the advice, and to
take the olive branch that is being extended from this
side to theirs in wanting to work together to ensure
that all privileges can be shared, but our voting ri ght,
our one birthright is protected, is not watered down,
and continues to be as effective at charting or laying
the foundation for Bermuda’s future from now moving
forward as it has in the past.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

HOUSE VISITOR

The Chair will now recognise the Honourable Member from constituency 7, the Junior Mi nister for Home Affairs, Sylvan Richards.
You have the floor.

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, I must say, I did not expect this diversion
of our order of business today, so it has been rather
interesting for me. But we are dealing with the Pat hways to Status, and as the Junior Minister, I will be the
one who will be tabling this legislation later today and
ushering it through Parliament in due course.
It is interesting, I was asked earlier today in
passing, you know, people listening by radio and people who follow politics, it is interesting that when we are on the floor of Parliament, we converse in parli amentary speak, but earlier today I was in the bat hroom with a Member of the Opposition and he asked me if I supported this legislation. And I told him that I did. A nd he made a little derogatory comment about
me carrying somebody’s water, but I have a pretty thick skin now, so I just let that stuff roll off my back.
But I told him that I do support this legislation and that
I will be smiling when I usher this legislation through
Parliament; that it will be debated and it will pass. And
I will sleep good at night after that occurs.
I also want to thank the Honourable Member
from constituency 33, MP Jamahl Simmons, because
I heard him say he was going to put up MP’s e- mail
addresses on a website somewhere so people can
contact us and express their views. I want to thank
him for that because right now the e- mails in favour of
Pathways are running 5 to 1 in favour of Pathways. I
have had e- mails from people relating to me their personal experiences, their personal dilemmas, families
being split up, children being threatened to be sent
back to a country that they have no knowledge of. So
this just reinforced in my mind that we are on the right path, the Pathways to Status.
There has been a lot of talk here today about
we do not listen and the Government sending us warnings. We just had an allegory about earthquakes
and early warning systems and whatnot. But I am going to tell you something, I am going to speak truth today. I am not going to sit here and speak about why


Bermuda House of Assembly this is the right thing to do. We are going to have
some hard- core facts put out there today.
Every poll that I have seen in favour of granting status to long- term residents, every poll, every
survey that I have seen since this came on the radar
has shown that the majority of Bermudians are in f avour of this legislation. I have not seen one poll that
says don’t do it by the majority of Bermudians. So I
am confident that this silent majority that has been
ment ioned a few times in this House, this silent majority that does not march, this silent majority that does not write letters to the editors, maybe they do not blog,
they are in favour of granting PRC status to folks who
have been here after 15 years and ful l status after 20
years. So let us just put that out there.
Somebody show me a survey where the m ajority say, No, don’t do it. Then maybe I will give a li sten and pay some attention to the noise coming from
the other side. I have not seen one poll, one survey, I
cannot stress it enough, that is against this.
Now, let us talk about the Progressive Labour
Party and how they governed when they were the
Government. I have spoken about this in the past, that
I got involved in politics on a personal level because I
was upset with the previous Government’s immigr ation policy. It is the main reason why I stand here t oday. The previous Government under a prior Immigr ation Minister was sending all the wrong messages. We
don’t care what you think. We’re gonna do this regar dless of what you think. All sorts of barriers were put up
through the Department of Immigration. They go verned with impunity, they governed without consult ation.
[Mrs. Suzann Roberts -Holshouser, in the Chair]

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the [the Junior Minister].
Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Moving on, I stated last week on the floor of
this House when someone shows me who they are, I
believe them. The Honourable Leader of the Oppos ition, Marc Bean, on December 12, 2014, in this very
place stood on his feet and said, (and I quote),
2“There will be no collaboration with that unscrupulous
Government!” There will be no collaboration with that
unscrupulous Government. So when I hear the noise
coming from the other side about joint select commi ttee and we need consultation, I flash back every si ngle time to their Leader, who on December 12, 2014
made it clear in no uncertain terms that “There will be
no collaboration with that unscrupulous Government.”
I heard it and I believe you.
Now, let us get real. I was at a BIU [Bermuda
Industrial Union] banquet a couple of years ago, front
row centre, when an ex -Premier, the Honourable Dr.
Ewart Brown, stood to his feet and in no uncertain
terms challenged the Opposition to get rid of the current OBA Government before the next election. He
said, You can’t wait three more years; there’ll be not hing left for you. You have to get rid of them now. I
heard it. It has been recorded, it has been replayed
over the radio, it is online. So what does that tell me? Then in a letter that was posted online that the
same Pr emier, Dr. Ewart Brown, in response to a le tter written by an OBA Senator who sits in another
place, Dr. Ewart Brown stated in his response, that a
sustained programme of information, disinformation
and criticism must be considered acceptable. His
words, not mine.
So when I hear all this talk surrounding this
particular issue, Pathways to Status, it is just more of
the same. There is nothing that this Government can
do to satisfy the Opposition—nothing. I am convinced
of it. They showed me who they are and I believe
them.
There is a particular lady who shows up at
every demonstration. She shows up at every march.
She has an affinity for signs. She likes signs, she
holds up signs, she flashes signs. I cannot even look
at the woman and she is putting a sign i n my face.
She has said, I don’t care what you do. I just want my
PLP Government back. That is what we are dealing
with.
So, I could stand here all day until the cows
come home, until the sun rises tomorrow, stating all of the benefits of implementing Pat hways to Status . . . I

2 Official Hansard Report , 12 December 2014, page
596
1200 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly could be a Nobel Laureate with the wisdom of Einstein
and that Opposition would not accept it because that
is not what it is about.
The reality is they want the OBA Government
gone. They said it repeatedly and it galls them —the
bile must rise in their throat to know that we are here,
they are over there, and we will be here at least until
the next election.
And I have always felt that as a Government if
we do not deliver on our promises, vote us out. It is a
democracy and I will live by that. But I am not going to be bullied, because that is what this is about, bullying
tactics, veiled threats. Come on, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I understand code speak. You are not going
to tell somebody to go burn something down before they go burn s omething down.

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Minister.

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
The Honourable MP who just took his seat
from constituency 17— his tactic is simple and it is
this, Agree to what I say or else. We talked about
brinkmanship, there is no greater example of brinkmanship than that gentleman’s recent actions. Do
what I say, agree to what we say, agree to a joint s elect committee, or else.
Let us talk about some inconvenient truths.
There has been a lot of toing and froing about who did
what and what was the result of this policy or this le gislation as it comes to immigration. But I want to give
three, because these three points have been raised on blogs, in opinion pieces, and in this House.
Term limits. Before we became the Gover nment we said that we would re- evaluate the term limit
policy over a two- year period before we would do an ything. Fine. We become the Government. The Minister
of Immigration pulls the files and starts to see as his
starting point, Let’s see what the prior Government did in terms of term limits. And guess what he found,
Madam Deputy Speaker? The PLP Government —and
these are facts. You are not going to hear any points
of order on this because it is fact. The PLP Gover nment when they were Government sought legal opi nions which were submitted to the then- Ministers of
Immigration in 2006, 2007, and 2008. And the legal
opinions all said the same thing, term limits are har mful to the economy and they led to job losses.

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 7.

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
The second point —term limits. More than
70 per cent of applications to waive term limits were
granted by the PLP Government —70 per cent. So


Bermuda House of Assembly they had a term limit policy in place and it was not adhered to. So 70 per cent of applications for waivers —

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Ho nourable Member is misleading the House. He cannot come here and say that the term limit policy was not
adhered to when the things were considered within
the policy. That was the very policy, that there were
[situations] where term limits were extended. So we cannot say that we were not adhering to the policy,
the policy was written. If we were not adhering to the
policy, they would not have taken out a permit.

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 7.

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
It is a policy that was in place that was i neffective. Why are you going to have a policy and then
grant 70 per cent of waivers? And it led to people b eing here—residents being here— 15, 20 years or
longer. That is why we have the situation that we, as a Government, have to deal with now. That is th e inconvenient truth. They can stand up and object all they
want; it is the reality of the situation, Madam Deputy
Speaker. They know it and I know it.
Now, another Honourable Member on that
side started talking about land and how if we grant
status there is not going to be any more land and no
more houses for Bermudians. This is a fact; the PLP when they were Government increased the amount of
land that could be held by non- Bermudians from 2,000
acres to 2,500 acres. And the Progressive Labour Party when they were Government allowed exempted
companies to invest in residential properties. It is a fact. They do not like it, but it is a fact.

The Chair recognises the
Member from constit uency 18.

POINT OF ORDER
[Misleading]
1202 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Mr. E. David Burt: Once again, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the Honourable Member is misleading the
House. He is stating that the former Government gave
the exempted companies the right to own residential
property. That did not take place until 2014. He is mi sleading the House. He either has to prove what he is
saying or he has to withdraw it. It is not correct for him
to say that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking for a
ruling in that regard.

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 7.
Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Thank you, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
You know at this point, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I do not think there is too much more that I
can say other than I am going to use a phrase that the
Opposition used to use when they were Government.
The Opposition will have its say and this Government will have its way on this issue.
And I look forward to ushering Pathways to
Status through this House and doing the right thing for
Berm udians and long- term residents of this country.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Good evening, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had, wit hout question, a relatively long debate on this matter of
what is, without question, of urgent public importance.
But it is interesting that the Members of the Gover nment bench seem to be at war with themselves and
seemingly at war with their own minds because in
every single argument which they are trying to make, they argue on both sides of the argument.
Now, I think that it is very interesting that the
Honourable Member who just took his seat —the Junior Minister for Home Affairs —spoke about how he
looks forward to ushering Pathways to Status through
this very Legislature. This is the same Minister who
just stood up on his feet and referenced a quote from
a former Minister of Immigration saying, We don’t care
what you think. That is exactly what the Honourable
Junior Minister just told the people of this country —
We don’t care what you think. That is exactly it.
Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Point of order, Madam
Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker, he cannot even remember what he said. That is the joke
here; he cannot even remember what he said. For some reason, this very important debate, this important situation, is levelled to the fact of a joke for some
Members of the Government. They happen to think
that the opinions of the people of this country do not
matter. That the pact which they gave to the voters that the things which they said they were not going to
do, it is okay to do, and then they can just say, We
don’t care what you think. We’re going to do it anyways. We’re the Government. We have the mandate to do whatever it is we want. No, no, no. That is the
not the way that it works.
And I will say one thing. I will say one thing,
that maybe the Honourable Junior Minister will say, I
didn’t say that, because he seems to have selective
amnesia. Here is one thing that he did say. He said,
There is nothing that you can do to pl ease the Oppos ition. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say one
thing that that Honourable Member can do to please
the Opposition and that is to vote yes on this very i mportant motion. Because today we find ourselves at-tempting to give the OBA an olive branch, to the people of this country.
That is precisely why we find ourselves here
today because it is telling that out of all the contributions that we have heard from the front bench and the
backbench of the One Bermuda Alliance, none of
them defended thei r refusal to consult. No defence of
their refusal to consult whatsoever on such an important issue which goes against their platform pledges,
which goes against their Throne Speech pledges,
which goes against the pledge they gave to the electorate before w e came to this place, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Not one Member got up to defend that lack of
consultation. Not one Member got up to defend the
reason why they have reversed 27 years of policy,
and going back on their election promises and betrayal of their mandate . . . no one defended that. We
get to hear history lessons on what the PLP did and
how the things were so bad and how this was here— I
will get to some of that stuff later —but no one defen dBermuda House of Assembly ing their refusal to consult on what can only be termed
as a major, major issue.
For 30 minutes I sat here and listened to the
Minister for Community and Culture contradict herself.
It was insane. And the only defence that she could
give against the consultation argument was that the
Government would not be bullied. R eally? The Go vernment would not be bullied. Once, again, We’re not
going to listen to the people because the people don’t
matter in what we’re going to decide. Bullied? Government? That is ridiculous, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Governments must listen to the people whom
they govern. It is that simple. All of the arguments that
were given by the Honourable Minister, and also the
arguments that were given by the Junior Minister
speak to the very need for this motion and compr ehensive immigration reform. Because th e issue with
immigration is not that of status grants, the issue of immigration is not that of removing people from work
permit controls (which is what long- term residency
does), that is the not the only issue. We have the i ssues of a very old piece of leg islation, we have the
issues of we cannot have a one- size-fits-all immigr ation policy —there are many different issues.
So to boil down the immigration argument to
the issue of status and PRCs is foolish. That is not the
issue here. And that is the problem when proceeding
at a piecemeal level. Because if you admit there are
problems in other places, but you are not looking to fix
the problems in the other places, you are only looking
at one place, that is why everyone is like, Oh, maybe
there is an ulterior motive. And at the end of the
statement by the Honourable Minister of Community,
Culture and Sports where she said, People are hungry
and I’m not going to be the one who does not give
their employers permanence so they cannot eat .
What type of foolishness is that? Really,
Madam Deputy Speaker? The Honourable Minister’s excuse for this thing is to say that she is not going to
not give job makers permanence? Job makers already have permanence in this country. They are already
there. It is called Incentives f or Job Makers, which we
saw numerous things that were approved by this
Government —many, many of them in answer to parliamentary questions, hundreds. So we know that that
is there. And to be very clear, Job Makers is not just
for the job maker. Job Makers i s for the wife and Job
Makers is for the children as well . . . sorry, not for the wife, for the spouse (because it can be the other way
around), for the spouse and for the children as well.
So that is what we have. So the nonsense
that we are hearing in defence about things that a lready exist, we are going further than what we have
right now and that is the key point. And when we talk
about the issue of “further” that is why the call has
been for a collaborative approach for immigration policy that can earn the support of both sides. Because
when you are making such fundamental changes at
the very fabric of what it is to be Bermudian and to exist inside of today’s Bermuda, nothing else should
matter.
I would give the Government a pass to say
that they had this on their platform and they won the
election so they could put it forward, but it was not on
their platform. They said exactly the opposite. So they
cannot come to this House and claim in any way,
shape or form they have a mandate to do this. And I
speak to the Members of the backbench of whom
none of them are here, they are probably in the back eating, but I hope they are listening, that this is d irected towards you, that is who it is directed for —the
backbenchers —

Mr. Sylvan D. Richards, Jr.: Point of order, Madam
Deputy Speaker.

And the very fact that a Junior
Minister does not realise that he is a part of the bac kbench shows everything that is wrong with the One Bermuda Alliance Government and the person that is
going to be leading Pathways to Status through this
House, as he so claims —as he so claims.
That is precisely what it is. It is the dishonesty
of the One Bermuda Alliance. It is their willingness to
bend the truth. It is their willingness to put charts i nside the newspaper talking about 17,000 work permits
under the PLP when that was never, ever the case.
But the Royal Gazette does not check it. I remember
when we used to submit op- eds and the Royal G azette would furiousl y check every single fact and fi gure in there. But this Government can just put things
inside there and, poof, it is good to go. Good to go;
that is fine.
So, let me go back to what I will say because
it seems as though at some point in time the One Bermu da Alliance’s rhetoric needs to give way to reality. And the rhetoric which they are stating insofar as
this is going to create jobs in Bermuda, you are r emoving people from work permit control. They are
people that are already here. That is the fact. Nothing
of what you can say about your policy can change that very instance. They are already here. And the only
1204 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly thing that giving them permanent residency status will
do is to remove them from work permit controls. So
that means that when their job may come up again for
work permits, they no longer have to check to see if
there is a Bermudian that can fill that job. That is all you are doing right now —removing persons from work
permit control.
Amazing. In a time when Bermuda has lost
more than 2,000 jobs underneath your watch, at a
time when Bermudians were promised that, Oh, scrap
term limits, it’s a great job killer, scrap it. And what
happened after the scr ap, 2,000 more jobs gone.
What is their excuse now? Oh, grant status and it will
increase jobs. Really? You think the people are going
to believe you this time around? It is not going to ha ppen.
And as I say, the One Bermuda Alliance is
confused because w e heard the Honourable Minister
of Economic Development say that the PLP policy
was too strict and it hurt business, and then we come
around and listen to the former Minister, sorry, the actual Minister of Community, Culture and Home A ffairs say, Oh, the P LP were too loose, people were
staying here for too long. And we hear the same thing
from Sylvan Richards, the Honourable Junior Minister
of Home Affairs. Which one is it? Well, could it be the
case that the PLP got the balance right? Could it be the case that, yes, there were term limits in place for
inhibiting long -term residency, but for the critical sectors of our economy, such as international business,
by and large they got the exemptions which they
needed? Because that is the fact and that is why we
talk about the fact that a one- size-fits-all immigration
policy cannot work.
You cannot have the same immigration policy
for local business as you do for international business.
It is very simple. These are things which this party has
been saying since 201 3. That is what we said, but
here we go. And then there was this silly thing from the Honourable Minister of Community, Culture and
Sports where she went into going LGBT and saying
that, You know, if you want to get people back . . .
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government’s
position is the exact same as that of the Opposition.
So here we go. Once again, here we go. It is this false
narrative from a Government that cannot in any way, shape or form defend their lack of consultation, d efend themselves going bac k on the promises they
made before the election, and going to, in some way shape or form, claim a mandate for something for
which they have no mandate.
And then to hear the Honourable Minister
criticising a bold lady from CURB who has stood up
for the rights of Bermudians by saying she does not
have the right because she got her Bermudian by
status —what type of ridiculousness is this? Really? I
mean, that is shameful, shameful for the very Minister
who says, I’m the Minister for Human Rights, but I’m
going to tell this person that she has no rights to comment. I should remind the Minister who has r esponsibility for Human Rights, after her story of her father, to remind her that she also had a Bermudian
mother. So this whole first generation Bermudian thing
does not wash. Let us be very clear.
Now, today’s debate is an important debate.
And I want to bring us back to where we started because it is very important. And members who may be
listening may not have heard the motion from the
Honourable Member Walton B rown. But if you will, will
you allow me to read it one more time, Madam Deputy
Speaker?

Thank you very much.
It says:
WHEREAS the public welfare is now challenged by proposed amendments to the Immigration
law, and the likelihood for growing and sustained u nrest increases daily; and
WHEREAS there was a need for an inclusive
approach for the betterment of Bermuda on such law,
accompanied by the movement away from brinkmanship dispositions;
BE IT R ESOLVED that, pursuant to Part IV of
the Parliament Act 1957, a Parliamentary Joint Select
Committee be appointed:
1) to examine the wide range of issues i nvolved in comprehensive immigration reform;
2) to propose for the consideration of Parli ament a set of comprehensive immigration reform measures; and
3) to submit its report within six months;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this report
be consulted by Members of the Legislature prior to
any Bill being tabled dealing with the subject matter.

That is the motion which we are debating.
That is the motion that Members of the Government
should get up and speak against. They should get up
and speak against the reason why we should not have
. . . or the reason against this motion. They should
come up with a coherent reason why both parties should not be involved in the changing of immigration policy that was not in any way, shape or form put before the voters of this country in an election.
I remind Members we have had two recent
changes to immigration reform, r emember 1989 and
after the last election. Understand there is a reason
why these things are done. In 1998 when the Pr ogressive Labour Party ran their platform they said that
they will identify and look at the needs of long- term
residents. They could have c ome into office and made
unilateral changes with an extremely ordinary parli amentary majority of 26 to 14 at that time. But what did
the Progressive Labour Party do? They commissioned a Green Paper to consult widely on the various options. They then commis sioned a White Paper to have


Bermuda House of Assembly more town hall meetings and brought it here for a
vote. And then finally there was a Bill passed. That is
how you consult. That is what a Green Paper is for.
You do not consult by saying, This is what
we’re going to do. Hold a second, let me rewind that,
you do not consult by the day after you lose a by -
election by a substantially increased margin than the
last time around, the day after you do not go in front of
the cameras tell the people, This is what we’re going
to do, and t hen claim afterwards, Oh, and we’re going
to hold a few meetings to consult on what we already
know we’re going to do. That is not the way it works.
And if there is any surprise at the reaction
from the people in this country, I cannot understand why the O ne Bermuda Alliance is surprised. I cannot
for one second. But we hear these bogeymen, we hear the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs belittling someone who stands up for her democratic right to
protest. That is what it is. And once again it goes back
to the very narrative of the words of the Honourable
Minister of Home Affairs who uttered, We don’t care
what you think. That is the attitude from this Gover nment —We don’t care what you think.
Today, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very
simple. To vote yes on thi s motion is to vote yes to a
bipartisan approach to immigration reform. It is simple.
One that looks at all of the options, not just residency,
not just grants of status, it is one that looks how we deal with work permits, how we deal with the difference b etween the local economy and international
economy, what are the other items that we might need
to change, what are the things that we might need to
look at? It is all the measures that exist, that is why.
Now, the Members of the backbench have to
ask them selves this, is betraying your word to the voters of this country worth more to you than it is to give
the Honourable Attorney General a victory on his
long-term political aim? That is what the Members of
the OBA backbench have to ask each other.
They have to ask if the Honourable Attorney
General, who has been campaigning for status for
long-term residents for as long as we can remember—he kicked out UBP for it —in 2002 when the PLP
gave rights to long- term status and he was at war with
his own party over i t, he said, People should be ent itled to status outright.
We know in 2007 how he managed to insert
the granting of status to long- term residents into the
UBP’s 2007 manifesto, which caused a big uproar.
And we noticed how it was remarkably absent from
the 2012 OBA manifesto. No comment whatsoever on
anything to do with immigration reform. But yet we find ourselves after two by -election losses, after the
change of a Premier, with a Minister of Home Affairs and an Attorney General who seemingly are able to
do whatever they want.
The question is will the One Bermuda Alliance
backbench support them? Will they put the whims and wants and long- term desires of the Attorney General and the Minister of Home Affairs over the pledge
which they were elected to do when they came to this
House? That is what we have to remember. And what
Members of the backbench should also remember
was inside of their platform, because it seems we have to spend a lot of time reminding the One Bermuda Alliance of what they said before the election,
let me read from their platform document, to improve
democracy the OBA will: “Strengthen parliamentary
committees and draw on parliamentarians from all
parties to work on major policy issues of the day.”
What, Madam Deputy Speaker, could be
more than a major policy issue on what it very well
means to be Bermudian? What is that? That is their platform. But today we may see OBA backbenchers
vote no to set up a parliamentary committee that they
called for inside of their own platform. How does that rest with the people of this country who elected them
there? How does that make sense?
Now, I have heard some things about human
rights issues. And this is something that we hear back and forth and how we have to confer citizenship and
all the rest. Madam D eputy Speaker, we do not have
the ability to confer citizenship to anybody at anytime
because we are not an independent country. Only
independent countries can confer citizenship. You
cannot be a citizen of Bermuda. There is no such thing as a citizen of B ermuda.
We are citizens of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is who we
are citizens of. British Overseas Territories, British
whatever, however you want to call it . . . we are not
citizens of Bermuda. So when we talk about fit ting into
human rights obligations, the human rights obligations
are covered under the British Nationality Act, which
many people who do not have Bermuda Status have
British passports which say “Government of Bermuda.” That is a fact. So this nonsense about this
human rights argument needs to stop.
But it has already stopped, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because now, as opposed to being a human
rights argument, we have to make sure that we comply with international human rights obligations. We have this silly econ omic argument, which we already
got rid of during the Budget Reply in the Budget D ebate. There was not a single person on the Gover nment side who came to rebut the falsehood that
somehow we will have more people in the country if
we exempt people that are already here from work
permit controls. Pure foolishness! However, once
again the One Bermuda Alliance changes where they
are going and all the rest.
To be clear, citizenship can only be granted
by the United Kingdom. We here in this Parliament determine who gets Bermuda status. And under Bermuda status there are two fundamental things that are
enabled—the right to work in Bermuda without work
permit control, and the right to hold land in Bermuda without restriction. Those are the only things . . . and
1206 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly to vote, sorry. Those are the three things that Bermuda status means and requires. That is it. So that is
all we are arguing over. That is all we are discussing.
But the immigration picture when dealing with ec onomics, when dealing with labour, when dealing w ith
economic growth, is far more important and expansive than that one particular issue. And that is why these
things cannot be considered in isolation and need to
be considered overall.
Now, I heard the Honourable Minister of Ec onomic Development speak earlier. He wants to men-tion the Fiscal Responsibility Plan, talking about net
emigration. There is nothing in the Government’s plan
in Pathways to Status, which the Honourable Minister
of Home Affairs said he is going to be happy to push through this Parli ament, there is nothing in there that
addresses what was stated inside the Fiscal Respo nsibility Panel. The Fiscal Responsibility Panel spoke to
the fact that there are more jobs needed in the country, and when it comes to the fact of people, that we
need to lessen the Bermudians leaving, and we need
to make sure that more people stay here and increase
the amount of people that are here. But they also
mentioned that the way to increase the people that
are here on- Island is to create jobs.
Now, here is where we will go, because the
Minister of Economic Development has, once again,
selective memory. What he said was that we require
this measure of Pathways to Status to increase our
population.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask you a
question? You don’t have to answer. What happened between 1998 and 2008? I will tell you what hap-pened. We had, by and large, the same immigration
policy that we have right now —by and large —except
for the fact that we had term limits between 1998 and
2008. And what happened? There wer e 5,000 jobs
created in Bermuda. That is what happened under our
existing immigration policy.
To then turn the fact that jobs left the economy and call it on PLP immigration policy is a fallacy.
Because we all know what happened in 2008. And I
do not have to repeat what I said, because we did not,
the PLP immigration policy did not cause Butterfield
Bank, XL, AIG, and all those other companies that
had all those challenges. The PLP immigration policy did not cause that. The PLP immigration policy did not
cause consolidation. The PLP immigration policy did
not cause re- domestication of companies. We know
the reasons why those happened. The reason why XL
is back here or reconsidering its headquarters is because of Solvency II, which is the same reason why
we s tarted the drive in the first place and why some
companies changed their domicile to other places.
So let us be clear. Let us stick with where we
are in the facts. So, again, if term limits was a job ki ller, as the Honourable Minister of Finance says, then
why is it two years after term . . . well, three years after term limits are gone, we have lost 2,000 more jobs? Shouldn’t we have just —zoom —all of a sudden
had these jobs if term limits was such a killer? Shouldn’t we? I guess.
But what happened? Once again, we say that
this will happen because of this and, no, the only thing that removal of term limits did was, in some cases
where persons who were in completely unskilled jobs,
who did not have to leave, were just somehow given a
way to stay. That is wh at happened.
Now again, nothing in the Government’s plan
addresses the concern of economic growth in this country. Nothing. The immigration reform which they
are planning to move now does not deal with the issue
of economic growth. It does not deal with the issue of
jobs. It only deals with the removal of persons from
work permit control. And if the transient population
has a clear impact on the economy, then why are we not focused on immigration policies that will actually
increase the population of this c ountry? This does not
do it. It gives certainty to those people that are here and confers voting and property rights to long- term
residents who have basically every other right in this
country except for the right to vote or hold unlimited
pieces of proper ty. That is the only thing that changes.
Changing this is not going to increase Bermuda’s
population. So, once again, your arguments fall flat.
Then we hear this argument about misinformation. The Minister of Home Affairs said more e mployees mean more payr oll taxes, more residents
mean more customs duties. But the fact is that this will
not create more employees. They are here already.
What is it that you are doing? That is why we
need to look at comprehensive immigration reform.
The piecemeal approach does not work.
In 2003, well before Carne and Correia, well
before the loopholes in [section] 20B(2)(b) were exposed, we called for a joint select committee on imm igration reform because we know how important the
issue is and we know how vexing it is, and we know
how it gives absolutely no confidence to the business
community of this country or any investor to have us
get up here and say that we will change this law after
the election. But guess what? That is what we will do
because we will commit to a comprehensive policy of
immigration reform, which is what we stated in our Throne Speeches.
So if the One Bermuda Alliance really cares
about investors, really cares about economic strength, really cares about presenting a united front to the i nvestment communi ty about, we are serious about this
process and we are going to work together to come to something that you know that will not change after we lose the next election, then they will come together
right now. But if they do not it will be for the one re ason that just about everyone knows that this is for,
and it is not about economics, it is not about jobs, it is
not about hungry people, it is about votes.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will close on
this regard because what we are considering here


Bermuda House of Assembly today is very simple. We are not considering immigr ation reform, we are considering whether or not we
should work together to solve this issue. And to vote
“no” today will be a vote to proceed on the unilateral path that we are currently on. A “no” vote is a vote to
the protesters to tell them we do not care what you
think. A vote “no” is, to those [protest] persons who
are tired, to say continue blocking the streets and doing whatever you like. That is what a vote “no” today
is. A vote “no” is to go back on the word of the very
people who voted to put you here in this place when you told them before the election you will not confer
status grants to anyone. A vote “no” today, Madam
Deputy Speaker, will confirm to the people of the
country that you do not care what they have to say on
this matter and you are controlled by Ministers Mi-chael Fahy and Trevor Moniz who seem to get their way at all times in this One Bermuda Alliance Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I implore the back
bench— the few that are listening, and those that may
be there —do the right thing and vote “yes” and let us
work together on a plan that will make Bermuda stronger, because the current path of this Government
in regards to immigration reform will only make Bermuda weaker, and that is a miscalculat ion that the
country cannot afford.
Thank you.

[Desk thumping]

Thank you, Member.
Are there any other Members that would like
to speak to the motion?
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 6, the Hon. W. L. Furbert.
You have the floor.
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Let me just say, first of all, that I am . . . I
came back. I am not feeling well, but I thought it was
important [to speak] on this issue.

I hope you are not going to
share what [caused your illness].

[Inaudible interjections and laughter]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Well, it is a . . . I went to my
doctor and he told me I had food poisoning, so right
now I am in serious pain. So I am not going to be
long. I am not going to be long because, at the end of
the day I want to make sure that this day is recorded.
Then my grandchildren wil l say that granddad was in
the audience, as sick as he was, to speak up for them.
My grandchildren will be able to say that, My gran ddad was there to vote no. My grandchildren will be able to say that, My granddad warned the OBA not to
move in this directi on.
Let me just say also to the Speaker that this is
unprecedented. It is probably the first time in my hi story being here that this type of motion was brought
forward. And, as a matter of fact, there are so many
motions that are being laid right now that the Speaker
and the staff have to look at, so we appreciate the
hard work that he has done to try and find a balance
on this particular issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there was a quote
by Johann Wolfgang [Goethe] that said, “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” There
is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Arrogance, too.
I also looked at the part about saying that
where the OBA had mentioned strengthening parli amentary com mittees to draw on parliamentarians from
all parties to work on major policy issues of the day.
The OBA, Madam Deputy Speaker, promised
inclusiveness. As a matter of fact they ran on that. As a matter of fact they said they were not going to be
the United Bermuda Party. They promised accountability and they promised so many things. But is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have gone back, particularly on the major issues that are impacting our
people.
Immigration is something that can blow up
very easily. You will be aware, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that I laid down a motion looking at how to create jobs. Well, I know how the OBA works, and I do
not expect them . . . I expect that they will be under
the Whip not to support such an issue. And the reason
why is because of the arrogance in the whole group.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I sat in another
place, and I recall there was discussion just before
1998, 1996, 1997, talking about immigration reform
and giving long- term residents status. Well, I reme mber an individual, one of my white colleagues at the
time, saying, We shouldn’t be giving them status, because they were concerned about the new white
power that came into Bermuda at that time. All right?
Remember, for so long there has been a group that has been control ling the Island. So they were concerned about this whole thing about allowing individuals to come in, particularly in the white community, to lose their economic power base.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on Sunday, Oct ober 12, 2014, Bermudians woke up to the widespread
destruction of Hurricane Fay with damage to thousands of trees, hundreds of roofs, and vehicles. Lik ewise, Bermudians are now quickly waking up to Mini ster Fahy’s widespread destruction of our own rights to
our own country. I have never met a Senator who has
as much power [as] Michael Fahy —a Minister who sits
1208 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly in another place. I have never seen that type of
power.
I would have thought that the Premier would
have said, Okay, Michael, you’ve done your duty. I’m
gonna get rid of you because I need to w in my next
election. That is something that normally happens.
You do your part and go in, kick a few people out, and then at the end of the day you are going to bring some
more moderate person in to try to win.
It is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the
path that the OBA Government has been going on for
the last three years tells me that they really do not
care about Bermudians. They really do not care. And
it puzzles me. It puzzles me. Most politicians at least
try to listen. Do you know why? Because they want to,
at the end of the day, retain power and get voted in.
I am of the belief that there are several people
on the OBA side who will not be running in the next
election and; hence, [feel they] do not have to answer
to anyone. [They say] I do not have to answer to anyone. I have done my part. I have become Minister , or
whatever, and I do not have to listen now. When a
party gets to that state we are heading into a serious
ramification that none us pretty well can stop.
I am sure that at the end of the day that the
Governor has a Government Council that is meeting to discuss possibilities if something may happen. You have to [since it is possible] that something will ha ppen. But why do we want to take that road when we ask the Government to pause? That i s all. Many of us
on this side support . . . As I said, my doctor said I had
food poisoning. I asked him how long he has been here. Eighteen years. He is one of them and he is a good doctor. I figured at the end of the day he should
be given the rights. But once we get around the table
and discuss the . . . (what is the word I am looking
for?) I am looking for the—

Consensus.
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: A consensus. But what we
have . . . who benefits?
As a matter of fact, the OBA Government
benefits. The Progressive Labour Party benefits and,
above all, the people benefit. We have to always be
mindful on what we are doing that is going to have an impact on the people.
Now, I have heard many of them talk about
we need this because . . . why? It is going to create
economic stimulus. Well, I am confused. Being a
mathematician. And I am not going to use some Algebra equation, but if the same people as my Honour-able Deputy Leader said, are here and are working
and given the same . . . okay, look, ma ke them all
Governors tomorrow. It does not change anything you
know. It does not.
So I do not understand. The population does
not grow because Bermudians are having probably one child per family and likewise most of them are having one or none. So what are we doing? Why do
we want to head in this direction? It logically, politically
does not make sense. Besides that, you have a Mini ster who does not care about the average Bermudian and he is willing to do whatever it takes. I know the Honourable Member, t he Attorney General, I know
how he thinks. He has been thinking that way for a
long time, as far as giving people status. He was one
of them that did. Well, if we want to head in that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am hoping that as
my honourable c olleague said the backbenchers will
just say, Well hold on. Come on you guys. Is this the
way that we want to head?
Should politicians follow public opinion? In
some cases I think so. If not . . . unless you can explain clearly why you are heading in the direction. But
the Government has not made that point. If the Go vernment was to say tomorrow that giving these people
status will increase the population so much that we
will be able to collect more social insurance, we will be
able to collect more, the insurance companies can
collect more health premiums, but no. We have 4,000 -
plus Bermudians unemployed. If they were trained
and put in those positions, you know it would be the
same? And that I accept that we do not have all Bermudians in a certain place, l ike I said about the doctor, as time goes one sometimes doctors are specia lists.
So we accept that we need actuaries. I am an
accountant, we know we need accountants. We know
that we need . . . perhaps some underwriting individ uals with a higher degree or skill level —

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: I said “we may.”
Well, the Honourable Member, Dr. Grant Gi bbons, just walked in (for Economic Development). My
daughter is an underwriter. But the person above her, what do you think she is?

[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Right.

Honourable Member, just
speak to the Chair.
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: The Honourable Member . . .
and I do not want to miss . . . because I am sure
somebody will be listening in th e insurance world and
I do not want to get my daughter in trouble, you know.
But I will say “individuals.”
There are individuals out there who sit in a
certain place and there are non- Bermudians who are
above them. Once that person has been given the
rights based on the OBA [policy], do you think that
individual will be able to get that position in [upward]
mobility?


Bermuda House of Assembly [Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Well, the Honourable Member Grant Gibbons says, It happens all the time. Do
you know why? Because they do not care. They do
not care. Michael Jackson says, They don’t care
about us. They do not care. They do not really care
about us. So the policies are there to really benefit
themselves in a lot of degrees because, at the end of the day, they are the ones who maintain or hold the
capital —large jobs —in Bermuda.
Now let me say this, Madam Deputy Speaker,
based on those numbers, I believe it was about 75 per
cent of those individuals who are European will get
status —75 per cent. Madam Deputy Speaker, if
75 per cent were from the Caribbean, do you think the
Government would be coming here and talking about status? No.
Let us face reality. They realise that is 10 per
cent, all right? We will deal with those 10 per cent, but
the average based on pol itical things that happened in
the past, the majority of Europeans vote 95 or 98 . . . some parishes vote 99 per cent for the OBA. So they
can do everything right now. They can buy houses,
they can shop, they can do everything. They can work
without even c ompeting against a Bermudian, right
now. The only thing they cannot do, Madam Deputy Speaker, is vote.
So what do you think is the mindset? What is
the motive behind what they are doing? It has nothing
to do with increasing the population; it has been already proved that that is wrong, that is not going to
happen. It is about voting and they have to do it by, you know, within a short time to make sure . . . by
2017.
So is that the way we want to put our policies?
The Honourable Member Walton Brown has talked about how in the past [there were] immigration pol icies put to ensure at the end of the day that individu-als got status for voting purposes. I was in the United Bermuda Party over there and I benefitted from that
policy. But I am a really fair person and I believe that
the road the OBA is heading down right now is the
wrong road. They cannot deny that they . . . as a matter of fact, they have an interest, they have a self -
interest. They should declare their interest when they put this Pathway to Status on the table, that by doing
what they want to do, they are going to benefit from it. By doing what they want to do, the PLP will not benefit
from that policy going forward, or the legislation going
forward.
But there is one man . . . as a matter of fact,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we did a poll and
asked which politician . . . and I do not want to use the
word “hated.” I do not want to use the word “arrogant.”
I do not want to use the word . . . give us another —

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Wayne L. F urbert: I do not want to use those
words (as Donald Trump says, somebody else said it).
But if we asked and took a poll, I believe 85 per cent
of Bermudians would say, particularly the black co mmunity, that Michael Fahy is that politician, the Mini ster Mic hael Fahy. He really does not care about the
direction we are headed.
And I said I was not going to talk long b ecause I am really in pain, but I am staying for the vote
because I want my vote to be counted. And let me just
say what else will be counted. Y es, you are going to
proceed. You are under the Whip. You are going to
vote against us tonight. You are under the Whip. It is
simple; I understand how those things work. You are
going to vote for the Pathways to Status because you
are under the Whip; Gover nment is not going to lose
that Bill. And we will have this done.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, that means that
those Bermudians, particularly in the black comm unity, will have to come out significantly in 2017 or
whenever the Premier calls the election (201 8 is the
last he can call it) —and we are going to send a message to every constituent. As a matter of fact, I want to go after the Honourable Member Grant Gibbons in
Paget. Now normally we do not win that seat. We
normally do not win that seat. We normally do not win
that seat based on what the Honourable Member
Grant . . . the Minister, because of the racial breakdown in Paget. You know that. I keep being reminded
about that chart that you carry in your pocket.
Can you take it out so we can see it and la y it
on the table? As a matter of fact, I have a copy at home that we can lay before Parliament one of these days. I remember you giving me a copy. The racial
breakdown has a serious implication on political . . .
whether you win or lose in Bermuda.
But is that the way that we want to go? Is that
the Bermuda we really want? Or do we want to do
something different so that our children and grand-children and great -grandchildren will not have to always come up here looking for policies that impact,
based and motivated on a racial basis? Is that what
we really want?
I promised myself that before I left this earth I
would try to do something, and I have been here for quite a while and have not been able to accomplish that. Although I said the other night when I w as on the
other side as Leader, in my first speech to the United
Bermuda Party, I said to them, if you want to make Bermuda a better place (and I can give a copy to the
press if they want it) we need to ensure that at least
50 per cent of the white communi ty would go and
support the Progressive Labour Party.
They are looking at me like I am strange,
probably that is why I did not last too long because Grant came after me on that one. He did not like that
policy —

Honourable Member.
1210 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: The Honourable Member
Grant Gibbons.
Where do we want . . . what do we want after
they . . . live on and be their legacy as politicians?
That we increase the vote for the PLP . . . UBP . . .
OBA to win? Is that the legacy that we want to live by?
Or do we want a legacy based on my honourable
friend, Walton Brown, that says, Let’s have a chat.
Let’s have a discussion. Let’s have some consultation
as you promised. Every major promise that you have
made you have broken. Every major promise you have broken.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, the
rationale that the Government puts forward of why we are making Pathways to Status is false. And I am hop-ing that there is at least something somewhere in
somebody’s heart, or are you going to be the li on that
has no heart? Or are you going to be— bravery,
sorry —or are you going to be the Tin Man who has no
heart?

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Wayne L. Furbert: Alice in Wonderland.
Is that the way that we want to live? Is that the
way that we want to le ave this House? And say what
we did impacted Bermudians for the rest of their lives
in a negative way?
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to
get some ginger ale and I am glad I will be here for
the vote and I am voting “yes” in behalf of my . . .
where the PLP wants to push the Government in that
direction.
Thank you.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

HOUSE VISITOR

The Chair recognises the
Member from constituency 11, the Honourable E. T.
Richards.
You have the floor.

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion and the
debate and the initiative by the Honourable Member
Mr. Brown for a bipartisan consultative approach to immigration reminds me of, of all things, Sarah Palin,
when she starts talking about putting lipstick on a pig.
And what happens when you put lipstick on a pig? It is
still a pig after you p ut lipstick on it.
And there is a lot of talk we have heard here,
but Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know that actions
speak louder than words. We all know that. And the thought occurred to me that if one is going to take a
bipartisan approach, the first thi ng you would have
done is to at least give prior notice to the other side
before you brought this motion to the House. Actions
speak louder than words. If you really wanted to embrace the spirit of bipartisanship, certainly, some sort
of prior notice to th is side would have been in order.

For the Honourable Finance Mi nister’s ed ification we have attempted for three years to
engage in a bipartisan approach. This last minute urgent appeal was a direct consequence of the Immigr ation Bill being listed on the Order Paper which we r eceived, I believe, Saturday morning.

The Deputy Spea ker: Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 11.
Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: That is a joke.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister in
charge of this has been talking about this for weeks. It
has been very clear that this was going to come to the
House. You know, the Honourable Member had up a
second before you laid this motion, you could have
come over here and given prior notice. But even up to the last second you did not. So, let us talk about, you
know, actions speak louder than words.
So, this is all a smokescreen, that is what it is,
it is a smokescreen because, you know, if there was real intent to be inclusive, there would have been i nclusion. There has been exclusion. Well, you know,
when we put motions and bills down, the other side
gets notice of it through the Whips. They get notice that we are going to lay this and that and the other.
But this one here, Madam Deputy Speaker, was not hing but an attempted ambush—nothing but an attempted ambush. An ambush with the objectiv e of
getting two bites of the cherry , to have a discussion
about it today, and then when the Bill comes up for


Bermuda House of Assembly debate, to have another discussion about it. That is
what this is. Actions speak louder than words.
And speaking of actions, Madam Deputy
Speaker, when my colleagues went to have a town
hall meeting on this matter at the Cathedral Hall, what
happened? We had the people that I refer to as the
Honourable Member’s “storm troopers” —the storm
troopers —

Thank you, have a seat.
The Chair recognises the Opposition Leader.

POINT OF ORDER

Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Madam Deputy Speaker, my
honourable colleague just stood to his feet and asked
for a ruling and for a retraction of a statement by the
Honourable Minister and Deputy Premier. And you
have seen fit to just allow him to continue. We are
asking for a ruling for him to retract the statement that
associates the Progressive Labour Party and/or cit izens of this country with events and behaviours of WWII or WWI which represents, not democracy.
We ask you to ask the Minister to retract that
statement.

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 11, if you would like to confirm your position.

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: Madam Deputy Speaker,
when people behave in a disruptive way in a milieu
that is an orderly process as we witnessed here a
couple of weeks ago, everybody knows that people in the Gallery are not allowed to say anything audible,
yet we had a demonstration here in this Chamber, and when Ministers of the Government have public meetings and those meetings are disrupted deliberately,
loudly, and they prevent the people that came there
from hearing the information that the Government Ministers had, and they were prevented from asking
questions to those Ministers, and engaging in a di scourse and an exchange of information, they were
prevented from doing that, and these are the people
that I am ta lking about.
So, they came there to listen and they could
not listen. They came there to participate and they could not participate. They came to try to understand
and get a level of understanding and they could not do
that. So if the Honourable Member wants to get, you know, bent out of shape by the phrase “storm troopers” he can get bent of shape. But what I am talking
about here is folks that he has encouraged to deliber-ately prevent people from hearing information and
participating in a dialogue with t he Government on this
issue. That is what I am talking about. Their objective
just seemed to be to disrupt, that is it —disrupt —
period.
And the Honourable Member who brought this
motion has been pretty clear that, you know, he has
encouraged them to do so. Now he comes here and
he is making these veiled threats —thinly veiled
threats —about what will happen if we do not do what
he says. And he is the one who is saying that we are
escalating the situation? It is this disruption, this cam-paign— it is clearly a c ampaign that is going on here,
1212 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly and I will come back to this later, but he has complained about brinkmanship, that he does not want
brinkmanship, but this brinkmanship has been caused
by the Honourable Member. It has been caused by
him and his instigation of these people and his con-stant encouragement of these people , , , this brin kmanship has been caused by him, so it is very disi ngenuous to say he is coming here somehow to step back from the brink, because we are at the brink because of the Honourable Mem ber.
What we have been doing here as a Gover nment is to try to fix a problem that has existed. And these problems have existed because of , , , in many
ways, and I would not say exclusively, but it has certainly been aided and abetted by the policies and the
practices of the former Government. As I think one of
my colleagues said, when you start adding up the 15
years and that sort of stuff, it has got everybody’s fi ngerprints on it. There is no question about that.
You cannot have it both ways, Madam Deputy
Speaker. You come here and say you are trying to step back from the brink when you put us on the brink
in the first place.
I have heard that, you know, we should not
rush this matter through. But Madam Deputy Speaker, I am looking at this , , , this motion and this motion
should be renamed “slow motion” because you look at
the last clause and it says, “BE IT FURTHER R ESOLVED that this report” —the report by this joint s elect committee—“this report be consulted by Members
of the Legislature prior to any Bill being tabled dealing
with the subject matter.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, Lord knows, if that
joint select committee were formed, Lord knows when
that committee’s report would come to pass.

Thank you.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 11.
Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: Madam Deputy Speaker,
that can always be changed, changed on the fly, as
they say.
Joint select committees, in this history of this
Honourable House have history of going on for years without resolution— years. So you have got this six
month thing here and in six m onths’ time you say,
well, you know, we need another six months and we need another six months. So this is the antithesis of
trying to get the job done. Because it seems to me
that the Honourable Member and his colleagues want to keep talking about this is sue forever. And what we
are trying to do as a Government is to actually get
things done.
And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I find also the
call for bipartisanship to be somewhat hollow, again,
actions speak louder than words. I sat over there for five years and never once was there an offer made by
the then- PLP Government for bipartisanship— never
once.

Hon. Dennis P. Lister: Point of order, point of order.

Your point of order?

POINT OF ORDER
[Misleading]

Hon. Dennis P. Lister: The Honourable Minister is
misleading the House. The Speaker has just walked back into the House. When the Speaker sat as a
Member of the Government when we were Gover nment, he himself called for a Joint Select Committee
on Crime, I believe it was, was it not, Mr. Speaker?
And that Committee sat and deliberated their bus iness.

Thank you, Member.
The Chair recognises the Member from constituency 11.

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you are
taking the Chair?

[Hon. K. H. Ra ndolph Horton, Speaker, in the Chair]

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: I wonder if the Honourable Member can tell us if there was a bipartisan a pproach to the bringing to Bermuda of the Uighurs in
the dark of night.

[Inaudible interjections]

[Gavel]

The Spe aker: Now, you know, when I left here there
was no talking across the floor. I come back now and
, , , do not be pointing. When I left here I said I did not


Bermuda House of Assembly want any talking across the House, I come back here
now, it is the same thing I expect.
Carry on.
Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Was there any bipartisanship, was there any
consultation on that particular occasion? Was bringing the Uighurs here part of their election platform? Was
there a mandate for them to do that? I think not.
When the now -Opposition was the Gover nment, they made quite a few changes to immigration
policy and laws and they, in fact, established the
whole PRC structure. Was there a bipartisan joint s elect committee for that? No. There was lots of talk and there w ere lots of meetings, but nobody, Mr. Speaker,
nobody reached across the aisle—nobody.

The Honourable Minister is mi sleading the House. As I said in my remarks, during
that there were Green Paper consultations, there were
town hall meetings, there was a White Paper and then there was the final Bill. There were three stages before that change went. And during the Green Paper
there was wide consultation from Members inside of
this House and externally.

Thank you.
Carry on.

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: That Honourable Member, for a young man, he is quite hard of hearing. I
said was there any bipartisan joint select committ ee
set up for that. That is what I said. I did not say was
there any consultation, you are not listening. All right?
That is what I said. There was none. As a matter of
fact, a number of us were getting quite tired of being
lectured to by the gentleman who sat in this seat next
to me, the then- Premier. [We] got lectured to about
who the heck was in charge—We are the Gover nment, he said. And you are there to just sit there and,
you know, you can talk, you can have your say, but we’re gonna do what we want. We were told that um pteen times in a lot of different ways. Not only was there no bipartisanship, there was not even a spirit of
bipartisanship.
So, they are telling us now that we should be
great guys, be all inclusive —and they were not! Is that
not a bi t of a double standard, Mr. Speaker? I think so.
I do not think they had any joint select committees or bipartisanship on the term limit policy either
and that was a very destructive policy. And even though 70 per cent of the applications for waivers of the term limit policy took place, it was the uncertainty
of whether or not you were going to be given that
waiver that chased people out of here. And those of
us in business know that. We know people who left
because of it. We do not have amnesia on this, Mr. Speaker.
They want us to have amnesia, they want
Bermudians to have amnesia, we do not have amne-sia and the people of Bermuda do not have amnesia
either. Actions speak louder than words. And what we
have had here tonight, Mr. Speaker, started out with
inaction, the appropriate action that should have been
taken place to demonstrate a spirit, it was not done,
and it has been downhill ever since on that. It is all
smoke and mirrors. Just words.
When the PLP Government was in power,
they made sure that we knew that there was an E xecutive branch of the Government and that Executive
branch made decisions and they presented those decisions to this Honourable House. And that they had
the votes to make those decisions legislation, and we were told that in no uncertain terms. Now all of a sudden we have a change of heart, or an apparent change of heart, perhaps this change of heart really
has more to do with political expediency than a real
change of heart.
The PLP brought forward the Job Makers Act
and they c onsulted with business on that. They co nsulted with business. They never consulted with the
Opposition. You know, they never consulted with the
Opposition, but they consulted with business. The
problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that after having
consulted with business the then- Government came
and brought an Act that was very different from what
they had indicated to business that they were going to
do. They unilaterally changed what they said they
were going to do and what was laid in this House was
not like what they had agreed to do with business. So
I do not know what kind of consultation that is when
you consult with people, you think you have got a
consensus with the Government, and they go their
caucus, decisions are made, changes are made and it
comes to the House and it is very different from what
the people out there who were really affected by it
[expected]. What they thought they were going to get,
they did not get. So that particular piece of legislation went over like a lead balloon.
You know, Mr. Speaker, you can kind of fake
consultation too. That is why I am bringing that up b ecause it would have been good, I mean, you know,
the fact that Opposition was not consulted in this particular case is neither here nor there. Quite frankly, we did not expect to be consulted on that. But the people
who were supposed to be consulted on it, they got a
different . . . they got a 6 for a 9.
And Mr. Speaker, while I am thinking about
that, you know, what about the infamous tax i ncrease? There was this sort of unwritten law, there
was a sort unwritten rule, it was not a law —laws are
1214 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly all written —it was an unwritten rule insofar as tax was
concerned with international business that they would
not do anything about that without consultation, wit hout prior consultation. One day the Minister of Finance walked in here, announced a 2 per cent tax rise wit hout any consultation.
So, I will not be lectured by that side about
consultation! They talk about it when it pleases them; they do not do it when it pleases them. And that was
an example of a very damaging incident of lack of consultation.
As I said, they want to convince people that
they have changed from the Ewart Brown era. He had
a particular style. I must say that his successor did not
have that style and his predecessor did not have that style, but he sure as heck had that style. But they
want Bermudians to have amnesia.
They want collaboration, Mr. Speaker, but
their Leader said there would be no collaboration with
this Government.
Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Point of order.

Minister, carry on.
Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: I will just repeat. He s aid
there would be no collaboration.
And now we have a motion for collaboration.
Well, one wonders who is leading over there. Is there
one faction in the backbench that says he wants collaboration? And the front bench says they do not want
collaboration.
The thing is, Mr. Speaker, since I have been
Minister of Finance my experience has been, with one
exception . . . and that was the first one, when we tried to get a reduction in the cost of the civil service,
we got a Furlough Day agreed. It astonished a lot of
people, including me. We got that. But every other
initiative that I can tell you, from my Ministry’s con-cern, every other initiative has been met with implac able resistance. I got up in front of a bunch of people down at
Pier 6 to outline ways we c ould restructure Gover nment, mainly just to point out the problem that we
were having with the structure of Government and the
expense and the deficit and all those sorts of things. I was met with a fusillade of noise, disruption, marches.
The people who c ame to listen had a really hard time
listening and hearing because of the unbelievable di sruption that took place on that occasion.
The Cathedral hall incident with my colleagues is another example of that with, you know,
our airport initiative— implacable opposition. Yet they
say they want to collaborate. This is like the Roman
god, Janus, Mr. Speaker, the two- faced god. We do
not know which face we are going to see from one
moment to the next. Well, I know, Mr. Speaker, because this face of collaboration i s not real. It is not
real. It is a complete facade. It is not real.
The thing is, Mr. Speaker, I think that certain
Members of the Opposition still do not get it. I am going to give them a taste of Ewart Brown. They lost the
election and even if they just lost by one vote, they still
lost the election. They still think they are the Gover nment. They are not the Government. We have the r esponsibility to do what we think is best for Bermuda and we are doing that.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

Three minutes.

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: Three minutes, okay.
So, what we have here is an attempt to, I do
not know, to get in on the action. But that is not the
way this system works. This system works that the
governing party makes decisions, brings them to the
legislature, and the legislature debates them. That is
how this system works. We have legislation that was tabled today on Immigration. Now, you know, the O pposition has gotten two bites at this cherry, which I do
not think is right, but what I am saying here, Mr.
Speaker, in my last two minutes, is that what we have
had here is a soft sell. "We want to cooperate, we
want to collaborate", but that face of the Janus god,
the other side of that face are the threats —the
threats —that if we do not do what they say bad things
will happen.
Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not fooled
by the soft sell and I do not react well to ultimatums,
and nobody in this Government reacts well to ultim atums. And that is what we have here. This is Oppos ition by threat. If it does not work out in Parliament,
they do not have the votes in Parliament, they take to
street politics. The Honourable Member said so. If it
does not work . . . he calls it extra- parliamentary pol itics. That is what he calls it. It is a fancy word for
street politics. And they are using it as a threat, as an
ultimatum, that if we do not do what they say bad things are going to happen.



Bermuda House of Assembly Mr. Walton Brown: Point of order.

All right. Thank you, Honourable Member.

Hon. E. T. (Bob) Richards: If something does not
happen, if we do not do what they say, something is
going to happen. That is not a fact; that is a threat.
That is a threat, Mr. Speaker, and we do not react well
to threats.
We have got a policy. It is well thought out. I
do not have time to sort of lay out the arguments, but
my colleagues have done that wonderfully so far. But
what I really wanted to say here is that we do not r eact well to threats and, you know, if they want to test
us, go right ahead, because we ar e not flinching.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Bermuda has been an operating
polity for almost 400 years, since 1620. And throug hout the decades and centuries, Mr. Speaker, if one
takes the time to look, and I am sure I am not speaking to Members who do not already know this, but throughout that duration, Mr. Speaker, we have seen
acts of what is now coined as “social engineering.”
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning when one
could vote, you had to own land, and we saw
throughout that long duration different changes to the
law, different age changes, different monetary
amounts being changed so that people could vote.
And oft -times, Mr. Speaker, more changes were made
when the Government of the day recognised that
some of those changes were harmful to themselves.
Bring that all the way forwar d to present day
and here we are looking at a situation, Mr. Speaker,
that I, for one, know first -hand has caused a great
deal of alarm in the public domain. It would seem that some think it is okay to minimise the impact, but I
cannot walk two seconds in the street without almost
being accosted by members of the public who have
charged me with being their voice and saying, Do ev e-rything that you possibly can do to stop, what they see
as a tool that is disenfranchising Bermudians.
Mr. Speaker, when you ha ve a large number
of Bermudians who have lost their jobs, when, last year for instance I think it was about 300 and som ething that lost their jobs while 400 and something foreign workers got jobs, Bermudians are upset by that.
Mr. Speaker, when you read t hrough the legislation that the Government intends to lay and the
rights that will be bestowed on some members of our
community, it is cause for concern because we have heard other Members speak here today, Mr. Speaker,
of the fact that if you are PRC hold er that is not going
to change the population count. Many of them, not all,
are employed. So, when we look at those types of
indicators, Mr. Speaker, one, to me, is right to conclude that what does change, Mr. Speaker, one thing that definitely changes is the ability of those individuals and their children when the time comes, to vote.
Mr. Speaker, you look in other countries, let
us take Great Britain. You know, you have political scientists and many of those political scientists are
employed by political parties to go and study the var ious riders and the populace within those riders and
how to manipulate things within those areas to try and
secure votes. This is not something that is unique to
Bermuda. This is not something that has just begun. This happe ns everywhere. And so those of us who sit
on this side of the House are not fooled by what obv iously is an attempt to change the voting base, Mr.
Speaker.
And should we be alarmed by that? Yes. B ecause when you have any party or organisation that
engages in social engineering, which for the most
part, creates a public outcry and alarm because of the impact of what will happen should that be impl emented, we have every right to be upset. And when
you see close to a thousand people gathered here,
because that is what it was, it was not a mere 200
people, Mr. Speaker, who gathered outside of our A ssembly to make their presence known, a smart Government would pay attention. Because we have heard
here, Mr. Speaker, from Members and had Members on our side admit t o the fact that when you are in
Government and you do not listen to the people, the very ones who really should have a major impact on how you draw up your policies and your laws (because it is supposed to be for their benefit and it is
supposed to be for the benefit of the country and the
people that live within that country) and you choose to
ignore what they have to say, then you may have to
face their wrath.
I think my Honourable Member for Finance
gets it wrong when he tries to suggest that my col-league, who sits to my immediate right, has this great
ability and power to be able to tell people that they
ought to be doing this and that when I know for a fact,
I can think of several people who do not even like this Honourable Member, will not even listen to him, but
1216 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly they are upset and angry because they see, Mr.
Speaker, what this legislation will be doing. He has no
influence over them taking to the street, voicing their
concerns on the radio airwaves and the like—none
whatsoever —and nor do I, Mr. Speak er.
But I do say this: When the large majority . . .
and I do canvass. And the large majority of the people
who are in my constituency and even people in the
broader community (who I do not even know) stop me
on the street and charge me with being their vo ice,
then I am here speaking. I am going to be their voice,
Mr. Speaker. Because when I see so many Bermudians who are disenfranchised, unemployed in their
own country, who have the qualifications to be able to
assume so many of those jobs that are out there that others occupy, I am upset. But for the grace of god,
there go I, you know. You know the expression. I think
you are more religious than I am, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you know, the other thing that I
feel I took great exception to is when my honourable friend on another occasion, not so very long ago, the Honourable Attorney General, suggested that we
ought to sit over here, keep quiet and be patient while
they engage in whatever measures they are engaging
in for this Pathways to Status. I was very insulted by that because when I read this I said, Maybe I’m mis sing something. Let me see what is so novel in here.
What am I missing out on, Mr. Speaker, because I
cannot figure it out. Where the people we are addressing in this legislation by and large are people
who enjoy all the rights that we are saying that this
legislation is giving to them, except for the right to
vote.
When this happened in the not -so-distant
past, the British Government, looking at these same
sorts of things that we are playing now basically called
it for what it was. They saw a people— Bermudians —
being disenfranchised in one way or another, having
their rights . . . perhaps had things bee n allowed to
progress without any impediments, without anyone saying no, to the point where we would have been
overrun by others in our country. In fact, an Honourable Member made mention of Cayman.
Well, if any of us know any Caymanians, they
can tell yo u straight up that there are more foreigners
in Cayman than there are now Caymanians. And most of them enjoy far more than what the native Caym anian does.
I will fight with every fibre in my body, Mr.
Speaker, to make sure that that does not happen to
the Bermudian. Because as my Honourable Member,
Wayne Furbert, did say, I am standing up for my
grandchildren. I have two grandsons who I love
dearly, Mr. Speaker. I have friends who have grandchildren, nieces, nephews, I come from a large family.
And Bermuda should be —and people hear me say
this all the time—Bermuda should be for Bermudians
first and foremost —first! We are not trying to disa d-vantage anyone else, but we are trying to make certain that we protect the interests of Bermudians.
So when I hear Mem bers more or less say
that, and I am just going to paraphrase it, Mr.
Speaker, that we are being disingenuous or we are just being , , , I guess, Opposition being the Oppos ition, being adversarial just because we are the Opp osition. I will put it that way. No. We are speaking up
against this because history has shown us what this
has already done to us as a people.
When you look at the voting base of largely
the Caucasian community and you still look at the stats today, there are a greater number of Caucasi an
status Bermudians than there are born Caucasian
Bermudians. So just even looking at that and given
that they vote almost 100 per cent one way, and it
does not matter what name—UBP, OBA or whatever
other name—they are very clear about where they put
. . . and that is their right, but they are very clear about
where they put their “X.”
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, when you look
in other countries all around the world, and you look at
the political enclaves that we have here in Bermuda,
that is not by chance, Mr. Speaker. You can see examples of that all over the world. You can go to South
Africa, you can go to other countries, you will see examples of the same thing that happened when you
had a situation where you had things being done ac-cording to race and the power that be putting legisl ation in place that, whether they did it by design or not,
does not matter because the end result of that are the
political divisions and the political enclaves that to this very day . . . my Honourable Member, Mr. Walton
Brown, who did do political science, he could probably
tell you more about that than I can. Right? I only did a
little smidgen of it, Mr. Speaker —

[Inaudible interjection]

Yes, I did take one of his
classes at Bermuda College. But I did my dissertation
in electoral reform, and I had to study, read countless
articles, books —like this thick —and I am like, oh, my
God, you know, there are a trillion books on political science.
So, what we see happening here, we understand that it is indeed happening. There is social e ngineering taking place. And there are many books that, if we want evidence to prove, where we can look
at what we are seeing with the legislation that is being
shaped and trying to be implemented, and compare with document s that will show the same thing that
happened over and over again. It is clear.
And so, like my colleagues, I must stand up
and make certain that my voice goes down in history
on the right side. I am standing up for my Bermudian
people. So that it is clear that anyone who hears the name Lovitta Foggo knows that she did everything
within her power, within the House and the regulations


Bermuda House of Assembly and rules that guide us here, that she could to try and
make certain that we engage in a process where at
the end of it we c ould have a document that is accepted across the divide in this House, and that we
feel assured is for the benefit of all people who live in
Bermuda.
This document, Mr. Speaker, does not do
that. And I have heard Members say that we have not
engaged in col laborative measures. We have, just as
someone else pointed out, we had a Joint Select
Committee for Education Reform and we had a Joint
Select Committee on Guns and Violent Crimes, trying
to come up with measures that Government could
implement that could help arrest the direction in which
crime was heading, and it was heading up, so that we
could put policies in place in a systemic way and in a
way that was not piecemeal.
So we, under the PLP Government, did engage in collaborative efforts and we got somet hing
done, Mr. Speaker. And the reports that we did were
excellent reports. And I would like to say that it has
informed some of the policies and programmes that have been implemented within our Government today
because they have.
I would like to make a call to those who sit on
the other side to rethink their position. I am speaking for the people because just because you do not see
them on the electronic media, because I could tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, I am not one who would ever
engage in writing c omments by some fictitious pen
name and just spew vitriolic comments out in the pu blic domain like that. But I can tell you this . . . and most Bermudians are not like that, but that does not mean
[that] because people do not know who they are, peo-ple have not heard them say anything, that that
means that they are in support of what is happening
here today. And I dare say, Mr. Speaker, because if
everybody that I have engaged bar none, there is not
one person who has come to me and said that they
are happy with this and that they are not concerned.
With that type of outcry from my people all I
can do is come here and implore them to have a r ethink. It is not going to hurt, it will probably help them, you know, Mr. Speaker, if they did pause, have a r ethink, and engage in something that the people who
put them there are asking them to do. It might actually get them more support.
So, Mr. Speaker, to Members on the other
side, please do the right thing, and it is the right thing
and say “yes” to a joint select c ommittee to try and
come up with immigration reform that is comprehen-sive and ensures and protects the rights of all people
on our shores.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Honourable Member.
Is there any other Honourable Member who
would c are to speak? The Chair will recognise the Honourable
Member from constituency 35, MP Dennis Lister.
Hon. Dennis P. Lister: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day and let
me just pause for a minute, Mr. Speaker, with your
indulgenc e and just remind folks how we got here,
particularly for the edification of our listening aud ience.

Okay.

Hon. Dennis P. Lister: But the Honourable Member
from constituency 17, Mr. Brown, brought h is motion
this morning, Mr. Speaker, and again, for the edific ation of the listening audience, the motion that he
brought, Mr. Speaker, is one that in my long time here
in this Parliament, in this House, Mr. Speaker, is the
first time that I have actually seen us have this
achieved. And that it is not a motion where we have been here all day, Mr. Speaker, discussing under the
normal motions that appear on our Orders.
As you know, the motion that is before us t oday comes under the Orders that allow us, and i f you
do not mind I will read it, the “Notice of Motions for the
Adjournment of the House on matters of Urgent Public Importance.”
Mr. Speaker, which allows us the ability to
stop, to pause the normal business of the day to deal
with what is seen to be an important matter that seeks
the urgency that requires us to put off all other bus iness. And, Mr. Speaker, that only gets allowed to pr oceed because you, Mr. Speaker, as the Head of this House, the one who controls the Orders of this House,
also values that matter as a matter of importance and
urgent enough that we stop the business of the day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I give you credit as well for
seeing the importance of this and the urgency of this to the country, that has allowed us to be here all day to bring this matter on behalf of the value that it has
for the Bermudian public and the people that we
serve, the people that elected us to these Honourable
Chambers.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the morning when the
day proceeded, I sent an e -mail to a couple of my colleagues and basically the e -mail said to them that you
know, again, because of my long time here in this House, this is really a great day for the PLP. But let us not get lost in the moment. It could be a great day for
the country. It could be a great day for the country if
we can get the Government to join us in calling, in supporting the Member’s call for a joint select commi t1218 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly tee on the immigration reform. It could be a great day
for the country, Mr. Speaker, not just for the Oppos ition, but for the c ountry.
Because, Mr. Speaker, we are here at this
point because the Government of the day, in their lead
up to the election that allowed them to become Government, took some clear positions in regard to things
they would do and would not do. Immigration w as one
of those when it came to work permits.
Mr. Speaker, soon after they became Government what happened to that, their stance on work
permits? Complete reversal on their position, Mr.
Speaker. Then the time limits . . . the term limits, the
same thing, they were revoked, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, and now we are here being
faced with the immigration issue that is before us now
and giving status to long- term residents. The issue
that the public is asking, Mr. Speaker, is what is next? What is next? What is next? Because all these little
piecemeal approaches that have been taken, Mr.
Speaker, leave you always wondering what is up their sleeve next that is going to kick the Bermudian public
in the backside? That is why Bermudians are upset,
Mr. Speaker, because they do not know where the
end is. They do not have a clue what is coming next.
Heck, Mr. Speaker, there has been an approach that
says let us have a consultation by bringing the input from both sides on a joint -type committee that the
Member is call ing for. And, clearly, Mr. Speaker, the
country could have an understanding of where we are
and what could come next or how far this really is going to go.
When the Member was on his feet this mor ning, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Brown opened up the de-bate thi s morning, I think he laid out about nine points
that could be put to the table in a consultative matter.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if we go to the table with that matter, Mr. Brown is bringing his nine points on behalf of
us, the Government will come to the tabl e with their
points, it could be another nine, ten, six points, what-ever, Mr. Speaker. But if we can sit across the table
and discuss those points maybe, Mr. Speaker, we
would be surprised at how on many of them we find common ground. And we could stand on that common
ground and go collectively, Mr. Speaker, to the country and say, This is what reform of immigration will
look like for Bermuda. This way Bermudians can feel
protected as we go forward, Mr. Speaker, because
they know what is coming next and know the range as
far as where this could go.
Because of the approach that we have seen
by this Government [the people feel they are] co nstant ly being surprised, hoodwinked, almost, Mr.
Speaker, and waking up on a particular morning wit hout any pre- warning that this is now thrown on the
table. I think an earlier Member made reference to, what was it? February 5
th, the day after the last by -
elect ion, a long campaign up there for that by -election,
no indication —no indication—and that would have been the time, Mr. Speaker, for some indication while
they were campaigning on the doorstep. But no indication of it, Mr. Speaker, and then the day after ha ving
been defeated at the by -election, we find the Minister
now rolling this out, out of the blue.
Mr. Speaker, part of why I am rising to speak
on this matter is that I feel like I have a mandate to
speak on it. And the mandate comes from the people,
Mr. Speaker, in that since this matter has been a nnounced—since February 5th—no matter where I go,
not only in my constituency, not only in the Sandys
Parish, but up and down this country, Mr. Speaker, no
matter what setting it is, whether it is a casual, for mal,
or just a stroll through the street into the grocery store,
no matter where I am , , , watching a football game,
no matter where, I am being constantly, constantly approached with concerns being expressed to me by Bermudians, Mr. Speaker, as to their concern about
this approach that the Government is taking to imm igration.
Mr. Speaker, what alarms me, though, is the
gravity of their concerns and the way their concern is
being expressed. It is like it is almost at the straw that
broke the camel’s back. The way it has been expressed, it is a boiling point, Mr. Speaker, that I have
never experienced before in my long years in this
House. And it concerns me because that sensitivity, Mr. Speaker, is one that can easily get out of hand. It
can easily get out of hand if not taken control of in appreciating and understanding the viewpoints that are
being expressed by the people of this country —our
voters, Mr. Speaker —those who voted us, no matter
where we sit in this House, we all were voted here by
our people, Bermudians. And those same Bermudians
are the people now, Mr. Speaker, who are reacting.
They are reacting in a way that says, Enough is
enough.
Mr. Speaker, I am not one who is being on
social media. But this weekend I was in company . . .
as a matter of fact, I had a full weekend of socialising
with different groups of people (so to speak), different
ages and ranges of people. One of those groups, Mr.
Speaker, was just some young people and they were sharing with me the exchange of comments that were
going back and forth on this matter on the social m edia.
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I was shocked at
the tone of the language that was being expressed on
both sides —on both sides. All that says to me, Mr.
Speaker, is how serious this matter is being taken by
the community, how close we are to that boiling point. And I do not think there is anyone in this House, in this Chamber, any Member, Mr. Speaker, who wants
to see that boiling pot blow over —explode? I do not
think any of us want to see that.
That is w hy, Mr. Speaker, the Member
brought this today as an urgent matter to stop the
normal business of the House. I believe that is why you, Mr. Speaker, allowed it, because you understand


Bermuda House of Assembly it. I am sure that as a Member of this House those
same concerns are bei ng expressed to you as you
move up and down this community. So you are sensing the pulse of the people right now as well, Mr. Speaker.
So, I give an urgent call to our Members on
the other side of the House, that you cannot ignore
that, Mr. Speaker. You cannot ignore it. This calls for
a time for all of us, Mr. Speaker, to be true statesmen,
to rise to the occasion and to acknowledge where the
country is right now. I am calling on the Premier, unfortunately he is not in his seat, but I am sure he is
listening wherever he is, Mr. Speaker. I am calling on
the Premier tonight to be a true statesman, to show
that he can rise to that level, Mr. Speaker, and accept
that this is a time to pause, to step back and to accept
what is on the table before us here today, Mr.
Speaker.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, calls for us to
pause and take time to put together a joint select
committee to allow us to collectively look at what is
best for Bermuda in the long- term immigration of our
people and the impact that it is going to h ave on our
people, Mr. Speaker. The hollow arguments that we
hear today do not support them racing forward. And I have to say “hollow,” because they have been hollow.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of the rhetoric that we hear is based
on the fact that we need to inc rease numbers. We
need to increase numbers so that Bermudians can be
fed, Bermudians will not starve, and Bermudians can
be clothed. That is almost verbatim of what one of the
Ministers, I think the Minist er Pamplin- Gordon said
when she was on her feet.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. And I want
everybody here in and that can hear my voice to be
clear. This will not increase the resident population of
Bermuda—not one. Not one. Not one increase in the
resident population. What it simply does is increases
the Bermudian population—the voting population.
That is all it increases, Mr. Speaker. Not a single new
resident, it is just the voting population who is going to
be increased by this, Mr. Speaker.
So one pauses and says, What is the real i ntent then? What is the real intent? What is the real
intent? We have heard the history, Mr. Speaker, of
their former party, of how they used immigration to
play with the voting numbers to favour them. Based
on that history, Mr. Speaker, based on their using the
hollow argument that this was going to increase res idential numbers, and we know that is not true, then one can only assume that once again we have seen
them fall back to their history to play with voting numbers, the voting numbers.
Mr. Speaker, again, the call is for the Government to appreciate the time of the clock that we
are at. It is time to pause, it is time to step back and
appreciate that both ends, Mr. Speaker, both sides of
the House are concerned about the issue and the level of concern and intent that this is bringing in our
community.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen seniors, we have
had the Members on the other side talk about the
meetings that were disrupted, we have had them talk
about other forms of civil disobedience, as they have
termed it, taking place. Each of those, Mr. Speaker,
each of those occasions have been in great numbers
our seniors, senior people, Mr. Speaker, because they
can reflect on past year s, they understand those
things. They understand that.
But, Mr. Speaker, what I have been saying to
people is that our seniors are going to react as they
have reacted, but there is a line that they will not
cross, but they are going to keep reacting. My co ncern, Mr. Speaker, my concern is the youth of the country because they too understand the time that we are at, they understand clearly, and they may not be
as restrained in their reaction as our seniors. That is
the concern, Mr. Speaker, and each of us should be
concerned of that in this House.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of the young folk who we
may see as not having been able to take advantage of opportunities, some of them understand clearly where
we are, but they also understand that some of that is
their own doing. They played around in school, did not
take advantage of the opportunities that were being offered. But some of those same classmates that they
rubbed shoulders together with did take advantage.
They stayed focused in school, put their hard work
into achieving what they should have achieved and
have been given opportunities, Mr. Speaker, to go
overseas, get training, get college, university degrees, masters degrees, et cetera. And what has happened?
They have come home and cannot get a job. They
cannot work.
Those same young men that we see on the
street who did not take advantage of the opportunity, they were proud of their classmates. They were proud
to say, He was one of us, he got the opportunity, he
went off and was able to go off to school and get educated, get qualified. They were always proud of that
young man because they saw him as one of them. But
they also see his pain, Mr. Speaker. They feel his pain
now that he has been home, having sacrificed [and]
seeing the sacrifice of his family, the hardship that that education cost on his family, Mr. Speaker. He has
been overseas, done what he had to do to get educated, to get his degrees. And he comes back home
and is denied in his own country —in his country.
Those young friends of his, Mr. Speaker, who were
proud of him are feeling that pain, they are sharing that pain. Do you understand me?
Mr. Speaker, we do not want that to be the . . .
what is it?

[Inaudible interjection]
Hon. Dennis P. Lister: The straw!
1220 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly The straw that breaks that camel’s bac k.
Mr. Speaker, we are at a very, very sensitive
time and it is up to us in this Chamber to control the
next buttons that are pushed. We have control of
those buttons, Mr. Speaker, in the actions that we take here. We can ignore it and pay the cons equences or we can push the right button and control it.
That is what is being asked for today, Mr. Speaker.
The control is in our hands. We can ignore it, laugh it
off as we see in here sometimes during the day, Mr.
Speaker, but laughing it off and taking it lightly will not be the right choice that we have been elected here to
do. We have been elected here, Mr. Speaker, to a lways act in the best interests of our country, the best
interests of those who voted for us to be here.
The time is now, Mr. Speaker, that we pay
attention to where we are. Pay attention, Mr. Speaker, to the writing that is on the wall that people are really
and truly concerned about this piecemeal approach
that the Government continues to take.
This is the time, Mr. Speaker, to pause, step
back and embrace, embrace the Honourable Member’s call of this motion for a joint select committee.
Mr. Speaker, what the public should be mindful of [is that with] a joint select committee, we are still the Opposition, they are the Government, they will still
have the majority on that committee, so we still cannot
overrule them in that committee, Mr. Speaker. We are
still going to be the minority on that committee, Mr.
Speaker. They still have control of it, Mr. Speaker.
They are not giving up the contro l. They are just taking time to pause, step back, and let the country si mmer down a bit, Mr. Speaker, so we can move forward
in a manner that is best for this country.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good evening.
Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: And good evening to Honourable Members, good evening to the listening public.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express on
behalf of the Loyal Opposition our profound gratitude
to you as the Speaker for your ruling today to allow
this motion for a joint select committee to proceed.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as a son of the soil, you I am
sure, recognised in making a ruling the gravity of the
situation, in spite of others minimising the situation. I
would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us
to take these extraordinary steps to ensure that we can emerge from this with a semblance of stability.
Mr. Speaker, you heard it from my colleagues
all day. We, as a result of the policy actions of the Government, find ourselves on the precipice of irr eversible social and economic instability —right on the
edge, Mr. Speaker. We have warned, I will go as far
as to say that some of my colleagues have even
begged the Government to cease and desist on this path. And it seems as if those [pleas] by people on my
side have fell on deaf ears, it seems as if the OBA,
their hearts have been hardened and they continue to
press on even though over the last three years we
have made it clear that this issue of granting of status
piecemeal, willy -nilly, is a red line that the Progressive
Labour Party deems so serious that it cannot be
crossed.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that through the
Honourable Minister who sits in another place and others who support him, they are convinced that the
path that they are on taking this country to that edge is the right path.
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute shame. You
know, I would give the One Bermuda Alliance some
credit with their attitude toward the people of this
country. I can see the way they are thinking and I know what they are thinking, and Bermudians, if you
are listening to me, let me explain to you how the One
Bermuda Alliance Government is thinking towards you
in regards to this issue. The One Bermuda Alliance
Government considers Bermudians to be passive, Mr.
Speaker. The One Bermuda Alliance Government because of that passivenes s, they think that Bermudians and their kindness that is attached to that passiveness is a sign of weakness. But history, Mr.
Speaker, shows that Bermudians are very reserved until you press all the wrong buttons. It happened in
the 1970s; it happened in t he 1960s, it has happened
time and time again.
This is not a funny or joking matter, Mr.
Speaker. But I can see why the One Bermuda All iance approaches it in that manner. Let me address
the people of this country; for once and for all, let us consider this fact, as long as you march, as long as
you sit up on soapboxes, as long as you call into talk
shows, you will be playing to the position and strength
of the One Bermuda Alliance Government. I will go as
far as to say this: As long as we think that viabl e action . . . and I am not diminishing this action, but as
long as we think that we can go down to East Broadway and block the road, if we think that that is going to
move the mindset of this Government, we are miscalculating.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, as a little aside, I got
caught up in that traffic that morning down on East Broadway, like the rest of us from the West End. And I
understood the reason and it was a just reason for this
action. But I could not help but think whether or not it
would have been more effective if the people had
gone and camped out outside of Minister Michael Fahy’s house on the main road, or camped outside of that stretched arm by the flower shop in Devonshire
where the Premier lives, so they could be inconve nBermuda House of Assembly ienced instead of the ordinary citizen. Because while
we were being inconvenienced, I imagine that Minister
Fahy and the Premier had easy access to their offices
in Hamilton. In other words, after all the barking, they recognise that without teeth you can bark as much as
you l ike.
I want the people of this country to wake up
and smell the coffee. Talks shows, marches, gathering amongst one another, playing drums, that is all good, fine and dandy. But when the rubber hits the
road, it is going to require people, men, and women t o
grow up, be mature, be adults, have courage, fight for what they know is their conviction, fight for the past
and future. Talk is not enough. As long as we talk,
people like the Honourable Minister of Economic D evelopment will find time during the most i mportant debate that we have had in years in this country, to rid icule and mock the people. To find time, Mr.
Speaker —

Dr. the Hon. E. Grant Gibbons: Point of order, Mr.
Speaker.

Okay, thank you.

Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker , I actually wrote it down in a note.
Can the people recall . . . can those who listened to
the debate earlier today recall that Honourable Mini ster standing and speaking in the most childish of
manners —Kindergarten level —of discourse, Mr.
Speaker? And he attempted, as per normal, to sow
seeds of discord, to play that game of divide and rule,
trying to make it seem like there is division on this side on this issue.
Let me make one point clear. Regardless of
what you might perceive is going on on this side, I
could put my hand over heart that there is not one person representing the Progressive Labour Party
who has the mentality to marginalise Bermudians.
There is not one person, regardless of the issues we
face—

[Desk thumping]

Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: —[who is] studying how we
can put others, our neighbours and strangers, before
our own selves. Not one. So I do not mind the childish ridicule by him
who covertly pulls strings of this current Government.
You have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that very few have
spoken to this issue from that side. Maybe they are
not all on the same page. Maybe, as usual, they have very little of substance to offer. It remains to be seen.
But when the kingpin, the boss, the master
gets up and finds time to ridicule and seek to divide and rule our people, the representatives of our people,
instead of addressing the substantive issue on the
table, it says it all, Mr. Speaker. They are morally
bankrupt, Mr. Speaker. Shall I repeat it? They are
morally bankrupt, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have on this side, in my opi nion, an accurate measurement of the temperature of
this country today. And that measurement tells us that
the temperature is ab ove 100 degrees. The temper ature is now at fever levels. And so today, Mr. Speaker,
this attempt to bring a joint select committee repr esents the final, yet most genuine, attempt by us to begin this process that sees all sides sit down and de-velop a vision that is inclusive of all and beneficial to
all. This is our last attempt. We are exhausting all avenues through Parliament, Mr. Speaker, to ensure
that somehow we can prick the conscience of at least
two, three or four Members of a silent backbench to
vote and join us, to put some water on this fire that
has been lit. History will record their decision. But this
is our final attempt.
And why? Because, Mr. Speaker, we left here
on Friday with no indication of what was coming t oday. By the time I got home at three o’clock on Saturday morning, I had an opportunity to have a convers ation with my Deputy Leader. And he said to me,
Leader, do you know that these crazy people just t abled the Pathways to Status Bill? I said, You have got
to be joking. And so, subsequently, we got on the
phone to colleagues, and we discussed the need to
draft, to take this extraordinary step, to see under a matter of urgent public importance, to bring a joint s elect committee to this House.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this. If this joi nt select
committee proposal is rejected, the One Bermuda A lliance would have burned the bridge that connects them with the people of this country. You will burn it. You are burning it now. And some actually thought
that this is some joke, that it is funny ! But, Mr.
Speaker, have you noticed the extraordinary number
of police officers around the House of Assembly t oday? I know that there is a Court of Appeal sitting. But there is an extraordinary number. We saw Special Branch, the Chief of Special Branch. W e have got
constables up and down the place. I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who called them, but no one on this side called them. So I wonder who called
them? Why such a large police presence?
Could it be that, in spite of all the theatre,
could it be that those on that side understand the real
1222 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly gravity of this situation? Could it be that they are
nervous? Because if anything happens in this House,
I promise you—I promise you, Mr. Speaker, it is none
of our business on this side. But yet, the police are all
up here! So that tells us that, in spite of what they say, they understand the gravity of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the petty (did I say
childish? ), immature arguments by the Government,
which, to be honest, do not have any v alidity or merit.
My colleagues have made that clear. Citizenship is not a right. That is correct. Status is not a right. Those are all privileges. Population growth has no correlation
to economic growth, even though this has nothing to
do with population growth. In fact, again, the master
on that side got up and tried to tell people in Bermuda to tell us today that in terms of trying to correlate
popu lation to economic growth, he used the example
of, of all places, Japan. And he said that Japan is suf-fering as a result of a decline in birth rate.
Mr. Speaker, again, that just shows the depth
of deception that Members are willing to speak to the
people of this country and Members in this House.
The Honourable Economic Minister will know that J apan has been suffering from 30 years of monetary
policies that have seen them operating now into negative interest rate territory. That has nothing to do with
population growth at all. But the Minister of so- called
Economic Development will refuse to point that out.
Instead, he will create the straw -man argument, this
false correlation. And this is from their best and
brightest!
Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show the depths
that the UBP . . . sorry, the OBA will seek to mislead
the people of this country. I hope the people listen to
Dr. Gibbons. Let me take this opportunity to remind
him, all right, that the world is still in recession, except
for those in the 1 per cent. But the rest of the world is
still in recession.
[Inaudible interjection]

Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: And they are saying, No, it’s
not, but again, if they are speaking from the perspective of the 1 per cent, I can understand why you would
say, No, it’s not. But for those of us who are trying to
find a loaf of bread and a container of non- dairy milk
(you k now, almond milk), it is very much a recessionary environment. So I am saying that just to refute the
foolishness that has been emanating from their han dful of speakers.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Fourteen minutes.
Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, for some reason, listening and
looking at the attitude of the One Bermuda Alliance,
they really consider this to be funny. They must really
feel that they are in some safe space. Because I
would not say confidence; the arrogance has been
oozin g out of them. Clearly, they feel so safe that they
can freely mock Bermudians, mock them and talk about Bermudians as if we are fourth- class citizens,
as if all Bermudians are dumb and stupid, and all
Bermudians are dependent on being the beneficiary of
their largess. “Paternalism” is what it is called, Mr.
Speaker.
But I will tell you what. I will tell you what. It is
no joking matter. It is no joking matter when you have a government that is seeking to politically, culturally
and socially reengineer ou r society, all based on hi storical racialist motivations. You can only fool so many
people for so long, Mr. Speaker. And I think not just
black people, but there are white Bermudians in this
country who are feeling the wrath of the One Bermuda
Alliance Gov ernment. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker.
And they think it is dangerous.
But you set the tone early, to your credit. You
gave the weight, the gravity to the situation, Mr.
Speaker, by the tone that you set. You showed that
this is not a joking matter. And w e agree. And we will
go as far as to add that it is a potentially dangerous and deadly matter. We will go that far, Mr. Speaker. You see, we encourage the One Bermuda Alliance,
the backbenchers at least, to vote in favour of a joint
select committee. There must be at least one voice of
reason, one voice of the conscience of our people on
that side. There must be one! We are looking. We are
searching. We are waiting for someone to get up and
say, Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We are not going
in that directi on. That is not the approach to take.
You know that there was a man who came up
here about four o’clock, a gentleman whom I just met.
But he came to seek me out. He is from the East End.
But he told me, Mr. Speaker, Opposition Leader, I
have just come. Ni ce to meet you. My family is cool. I
am comfortable. We are all right. I am not going to work, but I just came from the West End, and I have
been Island- wide. And I have been so moved I had to
come up here and let you know that you have to do all
that you can to shift the thinking and mindset of this
Government. Because from what he had gathered on
the street, there are some gentlemen and women in
this country, you might think they are old, Mr.
Speaker. I am not old. They remember the clash of
1977. They remember 1981. They were there. Okay? They were there.
And this gentleman said that he heard things
today that he has not heard since 1977. And it moved him to come up here and appeal to us to do all that we
can to intervene in this destructive path that th e Government has set upon.
But let me be frank, in closing. To vote this
joint select committee motion down today, we would


Bermuda House of Assembly have exhausted all of our parliamentary options. That
is it. There is nothing else. People of Bermuda, there
is nothing else that w e, as your representatives, can
do if this joint select committee motion gets voted
down. Vote it down today, Members of the backbench
of the OBA, and I suspect you will have a minimum of
about 48 hours to withdraw the Bill.
Let me repeat that again, Mr. Speaker. If they
proceed to vote down this joint select committee, then
they will have at least 48 hours to withdraw their Bill.
That is not a threat, not a threat. This is what I suspect
is going to happen.
After that point, Mr. Speaker, the One Bermuda Alliance will have involuntarily submitted you to
the will of the people. And I suspect that many of you still think that the people do not matter. Well, wait and
see.
In closing, let me sum up.
I have sat here and I have observed. I listened
to the fool ish talk from Members opposite, who clearly
have no consideration of their own. It is a sign of self -
hatred, if you ask me. But nevertheless, this is what usually happens in the real world. The real world co nsists of about, what, 225 independent nations, a bout
16 Overseas Territories? Right —or 15, and then we
have Bermuda. Well, I am going to let you know what
happens in the other 225 nations in the world when
we have a government that puts themselves on this path. This is what happens, Mr. Speaker.
You end up having three choices: One, the
people bend over and bow down like little passive snails, like subjugated beings, and allow this Gover nment, in a very dictatorial way, to run roughshod over the rights of Bermudians. That is one option. The
other option is that the people rise up and say, No!
We are not going any further. And they decide to take
drastic actions, to maybe even revisit what happened in 1981, to bring a paralysis on this country, even if for
a short term, even if it requires short -term sacr ifice!
But, Mr. Speaker, some would say that,
Leader of the Opposition, you are instigating civil u nrest! No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. Let me make myself
abundantly clear. In the real world, what we are pr oposing in this regard is the only democratic and
peaceful solution! And that is via the ballot box. If you
are so confident, if your confidence has turned into arrogance, then roll the dice! Take it back to the ballot
box. And if perchance the people of this country decide to re- elect you based on your ne w-found promises, then I will step away. We will step away. And you can have your will and pleasure on our people. But
until you get that mandate, then you have bucked up
against the wrong group of people this time.
Mr. Speaker, we turn to the ballot box. This is
the message I am sending to the people of this cou ntry. No more marching! No more soap- boxing! It must
be clear that every time you continue that behaviour,
you are actually being a surrogate in the hands of the
One Bermuda Alliance. It is time for real men and real women to have the courage to stand up for our rights!
That is the requirement. And, no, I am not calling for
civil unrest. What I am calling for is for this OBA Government to be driven out of government. That is what I
am calling for. I see it coming! And it is the ballot box
that restores stability, Mr. Speaker.
Do you know what the alternative is to the ballot box, Mr. Speaker? Now, I am not assuming. I am a student of world history. I am a student of political
economy. Do you know what happens when that last
remaining option of stability for a country, via the bal-lot box, is rejected? All hell breaks loose, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I heard some people mocking earlier. When I
put it to you in that context, it is not a joke, is it? It is
not funny, is it? Soon you are going to realise that
Bermuda is smaller than you think. Soon they are g oing to realise that their little gated communities that
they can retire to and live in a different world, an alternative universe to our people—soon those art ificial
barriers will be broken down.
No one is an hour away from the next person
in this country! No one. And you feel that we are up here threatening you? We are not threatening you.
There are not enough police officers in this country to
secure you whe n the people get tired! There are not
enough for you to hide behind! And you really think it
is a joke? This country, the history of this country has already proven— it has already proven that, yes, we
are passive until you make us tired. And when we get tired— what happens next? What would happen next
would not be beneficial to anyone in this country, Mr.
Speaker. And that is why this is the ultimate and final
appeal to what little conscience exists on that side of the House. To have an about -turn, do a 180, join us
with the majority seats on the committee in a joint s elect committee. And let us work through it.
But I will tell you what. I am hoping that the
people again hear my voice. We are at the cros sroads, people. If these people who are supposed to represent you, and they call themselves the One
Bermuda Alliance, choose to proceed with this Bill, I
say that they should have 48 hours to withdraw it.
Forty -eight hours. If they choose not to, then I will
humbly submit that we have done all that we can. And
our swords will now have to be turned into plough-shares. And the One Bermuda Alliance will finally be brought into the judgment of those who sent them in
this Honourable Chamber, Mr. Speaker. They choose
at their peril.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once
again, I want to just thank the Speaker for allowing
1224 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly this matter to be debated as a matter of great public
importance and urgency.
It has been, as expected, about an eight - or
nine-hour debate. What is disappointing, Mr. Speaker,
is that the backbench from the Government did not
speak on this matter. It is a matter that transcends the
entire community. It is a matter that clearly anyone
has their comment on. And as Members of the Legi slature, they had a responsibility to speak. Every Member on this side spoke, save for one, who for various
reasons was not allowed to be present to speak. But, Mr. Speaker, we have all spoken on this matter. And
everyone has a responsibility to do so.
Let me just wrap up on a few points, Mr.
Speaker, to reiterate. This is a call, a sincere and urgent call for a bipartisan approach that the Gover nment will control, first of all. You will control this com-mittee. You can set the agenda. You write the report.
But we have an opportunity to address a multitude of
issues. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Government does
not have a mandate for the legislation they intend to table. We can all appreciate that issues arrive during a
government’s tenure in office. This was expressly —
expressly, Mr. Speaker —expressly denied that they
would do in the 2012 election campaign. This was an issue in 2012 and before. The Government said they
would not do so. As a result, if you wish to bring it in a sincere effort, submit to a committee that you get to
control.
Mr. Speaker, there has been nothing demonstrated here tonight that suggests any kind of urgency to having this matter tabled and debated and passed
within two or three days. Where is the urgency? There is none. There has not been a single argument advanced for any kind of urgenc y. It seems that this e ntire legislative mission has been directly determined
by two Members of Government, the Honourable A ttorney General, who is not in his seat, and the Honourable Minister responsible for Immigration. That
cannot be a sufficient rationale for moving forward,
Mr. Speaker.
I heard a lot of comments about my respons ibility in getting people to be up in arms. Mr. Speaker,
people were up in arms the minute this matter was
raised. I reflected the concerns of many in the community. Do you thi nk I could call out 1,000 people b efore Parliament? My name is neither Che Guevara nor
is it Ho Chi Minh, Mr. Speaker. I do not command a
battalion. I do not command a group of revolutionaries.
These are the people who were speaking, Mr.
Speaker! And what we have seen demonstrated here
today on the Government’s side is contempt for the
people. Because there has been an effort, a sustained
effort to minimise the outrage in this community, the
deep concern of this community, the call in this com-munity for a collaborative approach by reducing it to
the actions of one person. That shows contempt for
the people. And then you wonder why we on this side say the Government does not care about the people.
It was an effort to try to deflect what the real issues
are.
Mr. Speaker, the issues are complex. I li stened to the Honourable Attorney General say, Well, how could I, for example, on the one hand call for the
protection of employment rights for nannies, who are
serially abused in this country, and at the same time
call for the rights of Bermudians to be protected? The
world is complex. The world is not a black -and-white
world, in a figurative sense, at least, Mr. Speaker. It is
complex. And so, yes, I can support and defend the
rights of domestic workers who are abused. I can
support and protect the rights of workers to come first
in their own country. I can support a collaborative a pproach to immigration reform that requires a give and take.
Everyone knows that collaboration means you
move away from extremist posi tions. What the Government is proposing is an extremist position. What
we are saying is, let us all step back. The Government
thinks there are threats of unrest. Mr. Speaker, there is widespread discontent. There are groups organising
meetings as we speak, contemplating how they may
react based on how developments unfold tonight! You
recognised the urgency. You recognised the importance. That is why we are here. I gave a list of eight or
nine items that will be part of a comprehensive reform approach. I do not know how anyone can say that we
have not identified what the issues are that are out
there that need to be assessed: the criteria for Bermuda status, the numbers for Bermuda status, the criteria for PRCs, work permit policy, the issues of
divided famil ies and their political status. There is a
litany of issues that have been identified tonight.
The Government knows that for three years
we have called for collaboration, for three years for an approach to get this right. We have demonstrated
over a three- year period that we will support every
single piece of Government legislation that we believe
is in the country’s best interest. I think it worked out to
about . . . we did a calculation. What was it, 80 or
90 per cent? At least 80 per cent of all legislation, we
have supported. And so, to hear Members on that
side say our sole purpose is to demean, diminish or try to weaken the Government is just wrong on the
facts. It is just wrong on the facts.
And so, Mr. Speaker, as I am about to take
my seat, I am m aking, on behalf of everyone on this
side, a sincere call for collaboration. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a comment made by someone who made a presentation before
the Royal Commission report into the—the Pitt Co mmission in 1978, looking into the 1977 disturbances.
Lord Pitt believed that this comment was sufficiently
profound that he put the actual quote in this report. So
I am going to read from this report. And for those who want to make reference, it is on page 10. And this is
what the individual says before the commissioners:


Bermuda House of Assembly “What happened in December was people’s natural
reaction” —December, of course, referring to the riots.
“They had spoken in some instances until they were
blue in the face. And they were not heard. And so, the only avenue for them to take was to loot and to burn
and to riot.”
People will feel that. But let me finish off my
comment. We must raise our consciousness so that
we can rise above this and bring about peaceful change. There is a plea to step back fr om brinkma nship politics. There is a plea to look at the wider interests and the petulant position by, Well, we’re the
Government, and we’re going to rule . . . What is it?
You have your say and we will have our way. That is
childish, that is juvenile. Thi s Government was elected
on a platform which said, We can do better. We will
embrace the spirit of collaboration. We will work with
the Opposition. I recall this Government as a party
seeking power, saying, We will even appoint a Mini ster from this side. Well, if you were going to appoint a
Minister from this side to be in your Cabinet, why on
earth would you not support a collaborative commi ttee?
So, Mr. Speaker, as I take my seat, I look forward to the Honourable Premier’s comments on this. I
look forward to a way forward that minimises the obv ious and clear division that exists within this country. I look forward to his statement that will perhaps reduce some of the tension, the anxiety and the mistrust that
exists, and that we can find a way forward that is in
the best interests of everyone in this country. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

[Desk thumping]

Thank you, Honourable Member.
The Chair will now recognise the Honourable
Premier for the closing of the debate.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the way we move forward is for
us, all 36 of us, as leaders in this Honourable Chamber, to help minimise the anxiety, the angst and the
mistrust that that Honourable Member talked about just before he took his seat. H owever, Mr. Speaker, as
I have listened to this debate from its start before lunch this morning, I have listened and been subjected to various levels of inflammation. At times, Mr.
Speaker, it was hard to stay calm and cool and listen
to what was being sai d.
Mr. Speaker, in case some of those had not
been paying attention, just let me reflect on some of
the comments that Honourable Members have said.
The Honourable Opposition Leader said, “This is a . . . dangerous and deadly matter,” Mr. Speaker. Dangerous and deadly matter. The Honourable Opposition
Leader said that the Members on the other side sink
to all depth of deception, that the Members on the other side are morally bankrupt and they are crazy
people.
Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. These
are—
Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Point of order.

Honourable Premier.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Mr. Speaker, the Hansard
will not lie. And the Opposition Leader gets so i nflamed with his own passion when trying to convince
people, he cannot remember what he said. I wrote
those words down after I listened, Mr. Speaker. I
wrote those words down.
Members on that other side talk about the
presence of police in these Honourable Chambers.
Now, come on, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, former
premiers had bodyguards with them 24/7. I do not
hear them talking about that now.

[Inaudible interjections and laughter]
Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Mr. Speaker, the verbiage
continued on —

Just a minute, Premier.
I have got to remind people who sit in the audience, in the visitors’ Gallery, that you sit there; you
watch what is happening, and that is all you do. You
do not comment. You do not make any kind of r esponse to anything that is going on , on this floor. Ot herwise, you will be asked to leave.

Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At times, it was hard to sit and m ake notes
and listen. But I heard comments from Members opposite, OBA with the attitude towards people of this
country. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said,
arrogance in the whole group. And they really do not
care. The Minister doesn’t care about Ber mudians.
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to build an arg ument to develop your case and convince people that
what you are trying to achieve is the best way forward.
But it shows a glaring lack of leadership when Ho nourable Members can just resort to raising t ensions
and making personal derogatory attacks.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I will stay away. I will
stay away from that divide- and-conquer strategy. And
1226 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly why, Mr. Speaker? Because, one, it is unparliamentary. Two, it does not get us anywhere, because in the
long run, we all pay for that type of strategy. And
three, Mr. Speaker, most importantly, we were elected to govern. We were elected to lead. We were elected to restore Bermuda. We were elected to restore the
ability of all people to provide for themselves, to provide for their families.
And if the Opposition Leader is falling asleep,
he can go in the back and take a break. I have no
problem with that, Mr. Speaker. But I am not going to be put off by childish behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, when we became the Gover nment in December of 2012, the challenges that we
faced were immense. In fact, many in the community did not realise the deep significance of those cha llenges. In fact, many in the former Government, and now in the Opposition, did not realise the depth of
those challenges. I think today, many people in the
community have realised just how significant they
were, from the crisis in our community with jobs being lost, confidence gone, debt rising at alarming levels.
Government was losing $330 million a year. It was a
downward, very slippery slope.

Mr. Premier.
Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Mr. Speaker, that is not
correct from the Shadow Finance Minister, who was the Junior Minister. He would want to erase that
memory bank on those numbers. But I am not going
to allow him to do that.
Mr. Speaker, against that backdrop, every
single decision that we had to make had tough, very tough consequences on both sides of the equation.
That is not an excuse; that is a reality. And so, for
three- plus years, w e have governed with that stark
reality. And we started to make progress. We have started to lay that foundation for success, and pr ogress is happening.
But we clearly understand, Mr. Speaker, there
is a long way to go. We clearly understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are many of our fellow Bermudians who are still struggling. And the struggle is extra
deep and significant because of the length of time that
they have had to deal with their challenges. And so,
as the Premier of this country and with the full support of my colleagues, we all put our heads on our pillows
at night with very heavy hearts, because we work
nonstop to try to make that progress, Mr. Speaker.
And if Honourable Members do not like what I
am saying, they can leave and go to another room.
But I listened intently for the whole time. I never once
said anything to them. Because I respect the freedom
of speech and the ability to come to this Honourable
Chamber and say what is on your mind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I get very, very upset when
I hear any Member on either side of the House say that they have the interest of people at heart and
someone else does not. That is clearly something that
is untruthful. That clearly is an attempt to divide and
conquer. And I think it is inappropriate to continue to
do things like that. We have heard the debate go on
today about this immigration matter. We all know that immigration is always one of the hot emotional issues
in any community. We have seen it in the United
States. We are seeing it now in Europe. An d certainly,
it is no different here.
But I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask
Honourable Members, who are we? Who are we to
stand and throw bricks at our brothers and sisters
when the Opposition Leader is married to a lovely lady
from the Bahamas? T he Opposition Leader . . . his
family went away to have a child born overseas. My wife, Mr. Speaker, is from the United States.

Hon. Marc A. R. Bean: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Thank you. Just a minute, Premier.
Just a minute, Premier.
Members, I made some statements earlier. I
am not making jokes. I am not making jokes.
Hon. Michael H. Dunkley: Mr. Speaker, here is a
man who does not want the truth told, but he stood up


Bermuda House of Assembly a few minutes ago and said, Why doesn’t everybody
camp outside a Minister’s house? Why doesn’t ever ybody camp outside my house, Mr. Speaker? Oh, so,
when it gets close to the Opposition Leader, he wants to stand up and be a man? No, Mr. Speaker. If the
shoe fits, you are going to have to wear it.
My point is not to pick out any Members on
that side. I am married to a beautiful lady from the
States. She has been here for 35 years. Anybody can tell me that I do not have deep roots in Bermuda, but
connections to the rest of the world—just like the O pposition Leader, just li ke the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition, just like the Member from constituency 24,
just like the former Premier who was born overseas, just like Honourable Members who were born overseas. Mr. Speaker, who are we to say that Bermuda is
an Island with no connections to the rest of the world?
Immigration is a very complex matter. And if
you want to throw stones, those stones are going to
break the windows in your own house, Mr. Speaker.
Who are we to say that because the Government
brings this policy, that the Government is wrong and
let us call for anarchy? Because that is what the Honourable Members on that side are calling for, Mr.
Speaker!
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Gover nment, with the Junior Minister and the Attorney General, had a public meeting for open dialogue and di scussion back and forth, before they could get 30 seconds into it, it was shut down by people who did not
want to listen! So, Mr. Speaker, it brings me back to
the point where the comments from the Honourable
Opposition Leader on the other said in 2014 at the
end of the year, There will be no collaboration with
this Government! Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want a
retraction. I do not want him to try to spin it, because I
take people at their word. I take people at their word,
because w ords mean something. Not only do they
mean something, Mr. Speaker, they cut deep.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this Government tried to
start that dialogue a long time ago. We tried to continue on. But what we found with this Opposition, they
can talk a good picture over here. But when it suits
them, they will come right back and swing, and divide
and conquer. And, Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable. It
is totally unacceptable with the approach that they
have taken.
Mr. Speaker, I go back to a speech that I
heard Labour Day, two Labour Days ago, by a former
Premier, who I believe still calls a lot of shots in the Opposition benches —or maybe not now because he
and the Opposition Leader have fallen out. But that Premier said at that speech . . . he instructed Members at that banquet to launch a sustained programme
of disinformation and criticism to remove the Gover nment, Mr. Speaker. And I heard no retraction from that. I have not heard any backpedalling from that.
And do you know what is interesting about
that, Mr. Speaker? That is the same former Premier who, behind closed doors and in the secret of night,
conspired with a Member who sat in another place as
the Minister responsible for Immigration, and contrived
to bring in four Uighurs to Bermuda. And, Mr.
Speaker, what is interesting about it, while those Honourable Members on that side now try to say that our
team is not united to serving Bermuda and moving
Bermuda forward, those Honourable Members, as far
as I know and has been reported, there were only two
of them, the former Premier and the spokesperson for
Immigration who sat in another place as the Minister
at that time, knew about what was happening. And in
the darkness of night, the plane landed in Bermuda
and those Uighurs got off.
And, Mr. Speaker, the same peopl e now, a lot
of them sitting on that side, are so vehement about
immigration reform. But seven or eight years ago, they lost their fortitude. They lost their nerve. And the De puty Premier at that time said she was not aware of it,
and she felt that she was cut out of the loop. I will not
use her exact words, because they are unparliamentary.
But now, but now, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden they found the strength to try to stand up for the
people of Bermuda. And my honourable colleagues,
who have done a good job in this debate today, have
said that those four have now multiplied to sixteen.
And I hear the Honourable Member who started this
motion today talk about, they were refugees. They
were not refugees. They were prisoners.
They were prisoners, Mr. Speak er.
And so, as we sit here, early March 2016,
when this country has been down to the depths and started to come out of those depths, and this Go vernment is working day and night to turn things around, Members want to try to come in and divide
and conquer our community. It is unacceptable, Mr.
Speaker.
This Government realises the significant challenges that we face and the significant amount of con-cern in the community. Because, Mr. Speaker, unlike
many Members on that side and many former pr emiers, I am easily accessible. I do not hide from an yone. You can get me on any type of social media. You
could speak to me at any time, Mr. Speaker. And
people feel free and comfortable to reach out to me. And I take all phone calls.
So, while Opposition Members talk about
what they have heard on this debate, I have not been living in a dark closet over the weekend. I was a nswering my phone. I was talking to people. I was out
and about. And yes, there are people who are con-cerned about this. I went to the gas station early on
Saturday morning. A young man stopped me. We had
a conversation about this. And I explained what we were trying to do. And then before I could even get in
my car, somebody else said, Premier, you guys are
on the right path. Do it. We understand there’s nothing
1228 7 March 2016 Official Hansard Report

Bermuda House of Assembly easy about what you’re doing. And it went on all
weekend.
And so I understand, Mr. Speaker, no matter
which side of the debate you want to be on, you can
launch a compelling argument. But the fact of the mat-ter is, Mr. Speaker, we believe in all of Bermuda. We
believe in the approach that we are taking. And we will
not stop listening to the people. Mr. Speaker, we will
not stop listening to the people even if the Opposition
wants to threaten, threaten action at all times, Mr.
Speaker, put 48 -hour time limits on and stuff like that.
I think the people of Bermuda, although some of them
might be very frustrated, they understand the i mmense challenges that we have and how we have to
work through them together.
Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy. I n the early
1960s we know the immense challenges that Pres ident Kennedy had. He made this comment that I
found to be quite interesting in a long speech that he
gave. He said, Mr. Speaker (and I quote): “We cannot
negotiate with people who say what's mine i s mine
and what's yours is negotiable.”
And so I found it quite surprising when the
Honourable Member who led off this motion earlier
today refer to President Obama, who will go down as
one of the greatest presidents in the history of the
United States. Wh y, Mr. Speaker? Because he too
faced tremendous challenges when he entered office
in his first term. And as a legislator who had relatively
little experience compared to many people— he had
just served, I believe, one term as a Senator to that
point —he went into office with the air to be open and
collaborate as much as he could.
But what happened, Mr. Speaker? Not so
quickly, but over time the GOP [Grand Old Party, the
Republican Party] did not want to cooperate. Every
time he tried to bring something to the Hill, it was sent
back. And what did President Obama have to do? He
had to make executive decisions, Mr. Speaker. And
now, so much so that the GOP, as they try to fight to
get the candidate for the next election, are saying that
He’s the president who has been the least cooper ative, Mr. Speaker! So I raise that to say, Mr. Speaker,
no matter where you are in politics, there will be two
sides of the fence on collaboration and lack of collaboration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, turning to the motion, the
first line re ads (if you will allow me to read it):
“WHEREAS the public welfare is now challenged . . .”
Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree. I agree. But I would like to
think that the Honourable Member would say,
Whereas the public welfare has been challenged for
years, Mr. S peaker, because the public welfare is
“now” challenged?
No. This public welfare was being challenged
back in 2010 and 2011. And that Government, the Opposition Members, did not see it at that time.
Hence, the 2 per cent increase in payroll tax when
there was a flight of talent and job- makers who left this Island pretty much overnight, Mr. Speaker. And
the Finance Minister and the Deputy Premier have
talked about that significantly and said it again today.
And so, the Motion starts off on a very patchy
wicket, Mr. Speaker, The public welfare is now challenged. The public welfare continues to be cha llenged.
It goes on to say, “by proposed amendments
to immigration law and the likelihood for growing and
sustained unrest increases daily . . .”
Now, Mr. Speak er, I can recall early on in the
tenure of the former Government, I believe Dame Jennifer was the Premier at that time, and there was a
march on this House. And Dame Jennifer was met at
the top of the steps by, I would say, thousands of
people of all walks of life, complaining about some of
the situations that were going on in Bermuda. And it
was a peaceful protest. The message got across.
Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the Oppos ition in those days calling for unrest or trying to incite
things. But, my, ho w time moves on. And I think it is
indeed unfortunate that, while we have deep cha llenges in our community, the Opposition will say that,
If this motion does not go through, then it is not our
fault what happens from here. Well, Mr. Speaker, this
Government will continue to listen. We will continue to
work for all the people of Bermuda. But we will not be
pushed, bullied or threatened by an Opposition that has a hard time in keeping its message straight.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you now put
this m otion, and all honourable colleagues will vote on
it.
Thank you, sir.