Posts
This is the Official Hansard of the Speech I made 7 March 2016 as I led the motion to establish a Joint-Select Committee on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The motion was defated. A historic blockade of Parliament followed and with the people united the Government committed to a process leading to such reform.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
ON MATTERS OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE WIDE RANGE
OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr.
Walton Brown:
WHEREAS
the public welfare is now challenged by a proposed amendment to the immigration
law, and the likelihood for growing and sustained unrest 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 RESOLVED
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 involved in comprehensive immigration reform;
2.
to propose for the
consideration of Parliament 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.
The
Speaker: All right. Thank you.
Mr.
Walton Brown: And I further request, Mr. Speaker,
that we be allowed to debate this forthwith, as is provided for under Standing
Order 9, section (3), (4) and (5).
Mr.
Walton Brown: 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, immigration
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 importance 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
doing everything at once and doing it fully, without regard for opposing 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 immigration reform? You would have a
series of unilateral approaches that do not benefit the country. It will send
nerves of unease in the international business 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 unilateral 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 step 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 down
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 a desert.
Cacti thrive in a desert. They love the arid, dry atmosphere and the boundless
sun. For them, the weather is good. Daisies do not do too well in a desert.
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 consequences. 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 issues.
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 Immigration 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 shape the direction of government. This law was drafted months ago. So, we
need that, Mr. Speaker.
We
are standing here today offering this Government an opportunity through the
parliamentary process to engage in a mature discussion based on genuine
bipartisanship 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 multitude of occasions what the elements of comprehensive immigration
reform are. But for the benefit of the public, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit 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 awarded. Other Bermuda status grants
were by birth or by marriage. And then, of course, you later had the relevant
section in the Immigration 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 committee? 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 Government 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 numbers. Every country in the world has an idea, or
some controls over, how many citizenships they award, how many permanent
residence certificates [PRCs] they award. This Government has refused to even
discuss the issue.
And
in refusing to discuss the issue, it 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 created the category of PRCs. We brought that in
to provide 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 bipartisan committee will look at the current
legislation regarding 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, 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 privilege 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 multitude of views on that, Mr. Speaker. We know that
there are certain rights enshrined by law, equal protection 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 so. 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 rights 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 dialogue. 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 families do not find themselves divided on this issue of
different political status. This is 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 Parliament 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 convention
to their territories, in France, the depatment. In Holland, the Netherlands, it
is one of their integrated territories in the ABC countries, in the Caribbean,
or the British Overseas Territories. 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 criteria in place? At one point, we had 12,000 work permit
holders in Bermuda. 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
to that sensitivity. 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 country 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 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 provision 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 five,
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 living 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
gratuities 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
immigration policy, Mr. Speaker. This has to be an item involved in immigration
reform, comprehensive reform. It has to be an item that is discussed by this
committee. 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 remarks 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.
It is not one single 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 accordingly.
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. Compromise 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 says they love President Obama. And everyone wants to embrace his
approach to politics. 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 made, among many powerful statements. He
said (and I quote—well, I paraphrase. 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 matter how
many votes you have, can decide to act in a unilateral manner on all major
policy simply because you have the votes. Having 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 sacred duty to respond in ways that are meaningful and
respectful and reduce the tension. This is our opportunity 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 business and hire people. What provisions 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 tabled. 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.
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 committee 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 political 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 Constitution 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 give 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 intention 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 passport. 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 unequal 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 rights 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 opportunity 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 legacy 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 this 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 opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
This is [possibly the] last opportunity for Parliament to show it can rise
above the divisiveness 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.
