Referendum Bill Closing Remarks

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently and with great interest to the contributions made by Members in this debate and I thank them for their contributions. It is clear that while we may not all agree on every detail, we all recognize the significance of the issues outlined in this Bill.

Response to the Leader of the Opposition:

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to this debate. Once again, he has demonstrated leadership by prioritizing the needs of the tourism industry over political maneuvering. His willingness to engage in a discussion that puts our country first, rather than highlighting partisan interests, is commendable. I sincerely thank him for his constructive approach and for his commitment to supporting the referendum.

Response to the Member from West Bay Central:

Mr. Speaker, I also acknowledge the concerns raised by the Member from West Bay Central, particularly those regarding the timeline and the potential consequences should the referendum fail. These are valid concerns, and I respect her sincerity. But I find it ironic Mr. Speaker that many of the concerns that she, and others, have raised stem from delays and decisions made by some of the very same members who are now expressing concerns!

Let me address the timeline first. The same members now arguing that time is too short were the ones who resisted efforts to bring this referendum to the people earlier. They opposed holding the referendum before the election due to cost concerns, and now they argue that it should have been held sooner. Mr. Speaker, which is it? Or is the real issue that they do not want a referendum at all?

The Member also expressed worry about the consequences of failure. That is a valid concern, Mr. Speaker, and shows that the Members DO understand how important a pier is to saving our cruise tourism industry. So I agree that this question is too important to fail, but the solution is not to ride the fence.

If we believe in, and understand the vital need for the pier, then we must stand firm and advocate for it. Those with ulterior motives, who do not have the best interests of the cruise industry at heart, are counting on hesitation and fear to derail this process.

Mr. Speaker, this situation reminds me of a person standing at the edge of a river with rising floodwaters behind them. The gap to the other side is not too wide - they can make it if they jump. But instead of jumping, they hesitate, second-guessing every possible outcome and consequence, and in that moment of doubt, the waters wash them away.

Mr. Speaker, hesitation in the face of necessity is not caution - it is paralysis. And in this case, hesitation will not just cost us time; it could cost us the future of our cruise tourism industry. If every Member in this House who genuinely believes in the need for the cruise pier, were to stand united and advocate for a ‘yes’ vote, this referendum would pass. So Mr. Speaker, the real risk is not in holding the referendum, it is in hesitating and failing to stand behind it.

Therefore, the question we should be asking is not what happens if the referendum fails? I put it to ALL of the Members in here that the real question is: what happens if it succeeds?

Mr. Speaker, the PPM, the TCCP and everyone else who is running in the election is hoping to form the next government, That is what we are all campaigning for. So to put the Members mind at ease, let me remind them that the next administration, whether it is either of them, both of them or a coalition with others, they will have the responsibility of determining what happens next.

Once they have the mandate from the people to move forward, the next government - whoever they may be -will have the responsibility to ensure that the pier is built in the right location, at a reasonable cost, with proper environmental considerations in place.

That is why the question is open-ended Mr. Speaker. Because no matter how it is phrased, there will always be those who try to pick apart the question, rather than focusing on the fundamental issues. If we specified a location, some will say it is the wrong place. If we included a cost, others will say it is too high. If we outline an environmental strategy, critics will say it is not enough.

This is precisely why the referendum is structured as it is - to give the people the choice to say whether they want a pier or not, and to allow the next administration of leaders to ensure that the best decisions are made with those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member from West Bay Central is acting from a place of genuine concern because, as she said, there are many in her district that depend on the cruise industry to make their living. But she is not unique in that regard, we ALL have constituents who are in that same boat, worried about the future and how they are going to take care of families when passenger numbers decline so much that they can’t keep their businesses open any more. 

Sadly Mr. Speaker, it appears that she, and others who have expressed similar sentiments, are allowing themselves to be influenced by dissenting voices, rather than focusing on the fundamental issues at hand.

Riding the fence, fearing that the referendum will fail is failing the people of this country, and any Member that is doing that, I urge you to reconsider. Because fearing that the referendum might fail should not lead to hesitation - it should lead to action. Strong, decisive action, from ALL of us!

History will not be kind to those who, in a moment requiring courage and leadership, chose instead to waver and hesitate. This is not a time for doubt.

So if she and the others truly believe that the cruise pier is necessary, then they should stand up for it. Encouraging their people to vote ‘yes’ for it, so that we can finally get off the pot that we have been sitting on for well over 30 years, according to the Member from West Bay West, and move forward for the benefit of our cruise tourism industry and our country as a whole.

Leaving that there Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my attention to some of the other points Members raised, such as those made by the Member for Prospect. 

Mr. Speaker, she started out making a point about this being a government initiated referendum with non binding results, and then asked, and I quote “what does that mean to the average person for the cost…?” end quote

She also asked and I quote “where’s the dialogue that could have been done?”end quote

Allow me to address those questions Mr. Speaker for the benefit of the listening public so that accurate information can be placed in the public domain.

Dealing first with the cost.

Initially, this referendum was scheduled to be held separately to the general election, at an estimated cost of $1 million. It was subsequently moved to Election Day specifically to eliminate that expense.

The referendum questions will be placed on the same ballot paper as the general election, thereby ensuring that the cost is minimal - no extra printing costs, no additional logistics. I believe a sample of the ballot is included as a schedule to the Bill and I would have expected the Member to be aware of this if she had actually read the Bill.

Notwithstanding Mr. Speaker, the Member raises cost as an issue. If she were truly concerned about government spending, perhaps she should explain how she would justify prematurely funding a public education campaign for a referendum that might not have even happened. Would that have been money well spent, in her view?

And that leads me to the point about dialogue Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the concern, but the reality is that this referendum could have been approved much earlier, allowing the information campaign to begin long before now.

However, that Member, the Member for Prospect, and her colleagues chose to walk away at a critical time, delaying the process.

Had that not happened Mr. Speaker, it is likely that we would already be having the public dialogue she is now calling for. So if anyone is to blame for the delay, it is them Mr. Speaker.

That said, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. The topic of a cruise pier has been in the public domain for years. The question on the cruise pier is about gauging public sentiment on an issue that has been debated extensively, over decades. It is not some sudden revelation that people know nothing about.  30 years as the good member from West Bay Central West said. 30 years!

What I find most interesting about the Members contribution is her recommendation that these decisions could have been taken by holding constituency meetings. Really Mr. Speaker? So is the member saying that she would have been satisfied for decisions of this magnitude to have been taken by whatever handful of people showed up for a constituency meeting or two? I’m sorry Mr. Speaker but the democratic process that I believe in and have sworn to uphold would not allow for such recklessness.

On the one hand she is saying that there hasn’t been enough dialogue but on the other she is satisfied for these important matters to be determined for the entire country, by a few people who bothered to show up for a constituency meeting? 

The people of this country – and by that I mean all of the 25,687 registered voters in this country deserve to have their say in the referendum. The date of which has been published well in advance, to ensure all who want to be there, can be there. Not at some constituency meeting that we would be lucky if 100 people showed up, much less 25,000.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the Member and her colleagues had the chance to support holding this referendum earlier, and they chose not to. And they know that.

That decision has brought us to where we are now. The government has taken every step possible to ensure this referendum is cost-effective and gives the people a voice on these critical matters. I encourage the Member to reflect on that as she considers her position moving forward.

Response to the Member from Newlands:

Mr. Speaker, moving on now to the Member from Newlands who also raised several points in his contribution. Again so that the people of this country are not unintentionally misled by inaccurate points of view, I will address the points that he made.

First, he spoke about the environmental concerns of downtown George Town, describing it as a pristine area. That’s debatable Mr. Speaker considering the amount of cruise and cargo activity that has taken place there over the past 50 to  60 years.

But the point is Mr. Speaker, no matter where the pier is built, there will always be environmental concerns. And I dare say Mr. Speaker, anywhere else other than where the port is using now, there would be even more environmental concerns than at the current location.

This is precisely why the referendum is structured the way it is - to first gauge the will of the people before determining the best approach. Yet, we continue to hear arguments focused on the details of location and the impact, rather than the fundamental question: Do we, as a country, agree that we need a cruise pier?

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that throughout this entire debate, not a single member has stood up and said they do not want a cruise pier. Not one. Even the Member from Newlands in his contribution, accepted that we may need a pier.

If every member in this House publicly supported the referendum, it would undoubtedly succeed, allowing the next administration to move forward to create a viable project.

So, if no one is willing to say outright that they oppose the pier, then what is the reason for opposing the referendum? What exactly is the hesitation from Members across the floor? It is baffling to me Mr. Speaker, unless, of course, there are ulterior motives at play.

The Member also referenced the thousands of people who signed the petition for a referendum under the previous administration. I was one of those signatories, Mr. Speaker. But to be clear, I did not sign it to block the cruise berthing project. I signed it because I believe the people deserved to have their say. And I am certain that many others signed the petition for the same reason.

Yet now, the very group that championed the referendum seems to be resisting the idea of actually holding one, which begs the question - was their goal really about giving the people a voice, or was it about stopping the pier at all costs?

Mr. Speaker, another concern raised was the risk of the referendum failing. I have already expressed my views on that point but I am at a loss to understand why some members insist on focusing on the worst-case scenario? What if the people say yes? That is the real question.

Imagine how much further along we could be in securing the future of our cruise tourism industry if we chose to focus on the possibilities, rather than the obstacles.

You see Mr. Speaker, leadership is about vision and solutions, not about finding every reason under the sun to say no. And Mr. Speaker, they expect to be the leaders of this House in the next administration. Are you serious? 

The Member also spoke about the need to increase the value of cruise tourism. On that point, I agree with him, and with the Member from West Bay North who also spoke to that point.

I agree that we must find ways to maximize what we earn from each and every visitor. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a separate discussion. How can we talk about maximizing benefits and increasing revenue from an industry that we risk losing all together? Without a pier there will be no industry to improve. That is the reality.

Seriously Mr. Speaker. How are we going to get more money from passengers who are not here? That’s impossible Mr. Speaker. But if they’ve figured out the way to get something from nothing then they should tell us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something about cost – not of the referendum, but the cost of constructing the pier.

The Member from Newlands suggested that building a pier would require a significant investment without any guarantee of a return. But, Mr. Speaker, he knows very well that there are financial models that allow for private investment to ensure that the burden does not fall on the people of these Islands. He’s fully aware of that. He’s probably been a part of many financial vehicles in his time in financial services and knows how it works. 

For example, if the cruise lines fund the piers, they would be contractually bound to bring passengers here to recoup their investment, through the passenger head tax. If they do not bring in the numbers, they would not get repaid. Simple! We will make them pay for it. 

That type of structured revenue guarantee was part of the previous administration’s plans, and I must say, having examined it in detail, it was well thought out. So congratulations to the former Minister of Tourism, and to you as the Premier at that time.

I am certain the Member is aware of these kinds of financial vehicles that can be created to ensure that Caymanians are not at financial risk.

And let’s not ignore the fact that major cruise lines are eager to be involved in funding the project. Why? Because they see the value in it. They know the return is there. So that concern that the member raised is not real, and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I have publicly released video recordings of the cruise line executives confirming their willingness to invest, and those recordings are available in the public domain, on social media for anyone to see. 

So, let’s stop pretending that this is some sort of reckless financial gamble like the Member is trying to portray.

If the commitment is there, the money will be there, and the only thing standing in the way would be hesitation and political maneuvering.

Mr. Speaker, the Member from Newlands also spoke about the uncertainty that exists around the world right now, suggesting that this is not the time to take on a project of this scale. But that is precisely why we should move forward.

In uncertain times, we must secure stable, long-term investments. And tourism, Mr. Speaker, is the one industry that we know will not disappear overnight.

The Member comes from the financial services sector, and he knows better than anyone that financial services is a highly volatile industry. It can vanish with the press of a few buttons if international regulators decide to move the goalposts a little too far in one direction or the other.

He also knows how easy and how frequently we find ourselves on grey lists and black lists through no fault of our own. I certainly don’t wish our financial services sector any harm.  

In fact, I commend both this government and previous administrations for working hard to ensure that it remains stable and competitive. But we all know that it carries significant risks. And the same thing that we do for financial services, we should do for cruise tourism –make sure that it is stable and competitive. Because tourism is a much more tangible, resilient industry, and now is the time to invest in securing its future.

And, Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. The next administration will have every opportunity to negotiate agreements that ensure the cruise lines, not the Caymanian people, will finance the pier. The cruise lines will bear the cost, and in return, we will secure the benefits of continued cruise tourism. That is how we take control of our future.

So, I urge Members to stop using fear and negativity to cloud the real issue concerning cruise. It is time to be honest with the people. If you are against the pier, just say so. But don’t be economical with the truth.

But if you believe that the Cayman Islands needs this infrastructure to protect the industry and secure Caymanian jobs, livelihoods and businesses, then encourage the people to vote yes. There is no other choice Mr. Speaker. We either move forward with the pier or we say good bye to cruise tourism as we knew it.

Decriminalization of Cannabis:

That is all I will say on that subject Mr. Speaker but before bringing my contribution to a close, I want to briefly clarify one other point that was repeatedly raised during the debate, concerning the decriminalization of cannabis.

Several Members in this House have made comments about this question, specifically about whether people will be allowed to grow marijuana plants, or smoke weed on our streets, similar to what occurs in New York and other parts of the world.

Let me be absolutely and abundantly clear – the answer is NO!

Growing trees and smoking in public was never part of this discussion.

Members should know that this has always been about one thing: the criminal record, and preventing Caymanians from having a lifelong record for simple possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use.

To be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, the police will still have full authority to arrest individuals, charge them, and prosecute them if they are found with ANY amount of marijuana.         

The only difference is, they won’t get a criminal record if the amount they are caught with is the small amount for personal use - whatever that small amount is agreed to be. But they will still be arrested, and charged for breaking the law. They will just not get a criminal record, but will more likely have to pay a fine. Just like with a traffic ticket Mr. Speaker.

So this talk about growing marijuana, and smoking it on our streets is complete nonsense, and I urge all Members to read the Bill properly so they don’t mislead the public.

We have heard so much in this debate about public confusion. But if some Members are so clearly showing that they themselves don’t understand what this Bill is about - despite having been present for discussions in Caucus, in Cabinet, and on the floor of this House, then it’s no wonder they expect the public to be confused.

Mr. Speaker, were they not paying attention in Caucus and in Cabinet? Because this is not new information. They were right here in this House when the Motion was approved. Were they not listening?

It was reiterated in great detail two years ago by the former Premier - a lawyer, no less - who clearly outlined the specifics of two of the referendum questions.

So it is not a matter of Members not knowing—they should know.

And yet, instead of doing their jobs and informing the public correctly, here they are contributing to the spread of misinformation, whether intentionally or not. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to read the Bill, understand the Bill, and explain the facts to the people clearly and honestly. That is your responsibility as a representative.

Closing Statement

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this referendum are questions that will have real and direct consequences on the lives of the people we have been elected to serve. This is not just another political exercise; this is about the future of Caymanians, their families, their jobs, and their opportunities in life.

When we talk about the cruise pier, we are talking about protecting livelihoods. We are talking about securing a vital industry that puts food on tables for thousands of Caymanians.

The reality is clear: without investment in our cruise tourism sector, we risk losing a major contributor to our economy. We cannot afford to stand still while the world continues to moves forward. We must be proactive, forward-thinking, and willing to make bold decisions that ensure our long-term economic security, not just for today, but for tomorrow and for our future generations to come.

When we talk about introducing a national lottery, we are talking about creating new revenue streams that can directly benefit everyone in this Country. Every year, millions of dollars leave our shores from our own residents participating in overseas lotteries. We know how much leaves as remittances because we can track it, but we have no idea how much leaves through illegal gambling. Is it millions or hundreds of millions every year?

Whatever it is, why should we allow that money to benefit other countries when it could be used to support education, healthcare, and community development right here at home?

A national lottery is not just about gaming, it is about investing in our people, funding social programs, and ensuring that Caymanians reap the benefits of an industry that already exists informally within our borders.

And more importantly Mr. Speaker, it is about making this accepted practice safer, and properly regulated, to remove the black market element where criminality lurks in the dark.  It is time to take control and use these resources for the good of our own people.  

And finally Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the cannabis question, we are talking about protecting lives. We are talking about ensuring that young men and women are not saddled with a criminal record for the rest of their life over a minor offense. A single mistake should not be a lifelong barrier to opportunities in education, employment and medical care. This is about fairness, about justice, and about giving Caymanians - especially our youth - a real chance at living productive and successful lives.

Personal Testimony:

Mr. Speaker, I will pause here for a second and go into something that I don’t really talk about too often. You see Mr. Speaker, many members don’t know what it’s like to have a criminal record and what it does to their life. But I do Mr. Speaker!

Many people know my story. I made a mistake when I was a young stupid boy.

Thanks to you Mr. Speaker who didn’t hold it against me, you saw it as an opportunity to relate to people similar to me. That’s why I’m not surprised that the Progressives and the Official Opposition would be willing to support this because they understand what it’s like for people like me.

But you see these other members Mr. Speaker, they don’t get it.

I was one of those persons who made a mistake and I paid dearly for a long time. And if it wasn’t for the people around me, and good people like yourself who gave me a second chance, I wouldn’t be where I am today – standing here as the honourable Deputy Premier of the Cayman Islands.

And that’s what we are trying to protect. Real lives. Real stories. And if we succeed in changing this, those stories can be success stories just like mine. Because everyone deserves a second chance Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to be really clear that this referendum is not about party politics. It is about doing what is right for Cayman and Caymanians. We have a duty, as leaders, to put aside fear, misinformation and hesitation, and to stand firmly for the progress and prosperity of these Islands that we all love so much.

I urge every Member of this House to support this referendum, and I encourage every Caymanian that has registered to vote to go out and vote YES!

Ø Yes to protecting our economy,

Ø Yes to fairness and justice,

Ø Yes to investing in our people,

Ø and yes to a future where every one of us has the best chance possible to prosper and thrive.                          

Thank you Mr. Speaker.