In December 2022 & October 2024, Politicians Agreed To Motions For A Referendum On A National Lottery, Ganja & Cruise Berthing.  Now, Some MPs May Boycott Or Vote Against The 2025 Referendum Bill.

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Alric Lindsay

According to the Official Hansard Report dated Wednesday, December 7, 2022, MPs voted “yes” to Government Motion No. 3 of 2022-2023, addressing a referendum on national lottery and decriminalising small quantities of cannabis. Subsequently, on October 7, 2024, they voted “yes” to Government Motion No. 1 of 2024-2025 concerning a referendum on cruise berthing infrastructure. The next step was to pass a referendum law addressing these items; however, it transpired that, following the Government’s publication of the Referendum (Cruise Berthing Infrastructure, Gambling and Cannabis) Bill, 2024, in the Cayman Islands Gazette on December 23, 2024, some MPs reportedly said that the issues they previously agreed were matters of national importance are now “too controversial” to deal with. Stakeholders are now uncertain about how MPs will vote in Parliament in January 2025 or if MPs will boycott Parliament entirely, leaving the referendum vote for another date after the April 2025 elections.

Details of 2022 “Yes” Vote To Ganja & National Lottery

Based on the Official Hansard Report dated Wednesday, December 7, 2022, when MP Katherine Ebanks-Wilks was the Speaker of the Parliament, the then Premier, Hon. G. Wayne Panton, said:

Madam Speaker, I rise to move Government Motion No. 3 of 2022-2023 entitled Referendum on National Lottery and Decriminalisation of Small Quantities of Cannabis.

After articulating his views on the lottery and decriminalisation, Panton said:

Madam Speaker, I just want to reemphasise that we feel that now is the time to consider these two matters as matters of national importance. In the first case, in terms of the gambling, [because of] the reality that it is widespread, that it is regulated by legislation which is extremely old and has not been made fit for purpose and kept up with the times.

In the case of consumption and possession of small amounts [of cannabis], the impact that it has on our young people, the fact that there is a wave where we have adopted medical marijuana, and around the world there is a view that small amounts such as this is contemplating, should not have too significant a consequence on the lives of people.

Panton added:

This, Madam Speaker, is the opportunity, this is the Government, hopefully, optimistically, perhaps too optimistically the whole Parliament, wishing to give and support the right of the people of our country to make a decision on these really, what we say are, important issues and what our constituents tell us are important issues, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, of course some might say, a referendum isn’t absolutely required for this; that’s correct. The Government could be making these decisions but again, I go back to the point made earlier, we wish as a government that is reflective of the views of the people and accountable to the people, to be the government who is listening to the people on issues that are important like this.

Panton concluded:

This is in the long-term best interest of these Islands to fully utilise the provisions of the Constitution in this way Madam Speaker, this is what it is intended for and we are seeking to give the people a direct say on matters of national importance which impact their lives.

When it was time for each MP to share their views, MP McKeeva Bush raised issues about the timing needed for consultants to provide advice and for MPs to campaign on the issues.

He explained:

My concern is timing and if there is a Yes, then you have to come up with a lottery system. I guess consultants would have to be employed to create a lottery system, et cetera, and then, when will that take us to?

There is no doubt, from what I am hearing, that there is going to be a huge pushback from our churches and other religious people, who will usually fight about what causes social deterioration, that’s going to be part and parcel of their argument, so if there is a huge No then what of the issue? Government will say, No, we can’t go; it’s a huge no and we have done right because we have been democratic and we campaigned and we have said where we want to go, and the people have said, No.

Chiming in on the issues, the Hon. Sir Alden McLaughlin remarked:

Madam Speaker, this House ought to listen to the wise counsel of the Member for West Bay West. Whatever else may be said of him, he is a wily old veteran of Cayman politics, the longest survivor ever.

I am going to start where he left off not because it had been my plan, but because I think that it is the point that the Premier has missed entirely. It is political naiveté at its highest to believe that a Government can promote a referendum and take no side. You’ve got to have a side, the other side or as West Bayers say, Jackie both sides, but you have got to have a side.

How can a Government believe that it can promote a referendum, and when they are asked by the electorate, by their constituents, Well, Mr. Premier, what do you think about it?

Well, it is not really what I think about it, you know, it’s what you think about it. I want you to tell me what you think about it.

But you are the one who know these things, big time lawyer and all like that. You the Premier.

Sir Alden McLaughlin added:

As sure as I am standing here, there is going to be significant pushback. There is more likely than not going to be legal challenges to this Referendum going ahead. If any of us think that what you are hearing about the national identification thing, is anything to worry about, wait until this hits the headlines. Hence, at this stage we need to try to get this as right as we possibly can, and to minimise the opportunities for a challenge to be made.

Sir Alden McLaughlin continued:

Madam Speaker, the other bit that I am concerned about is this issue about decriminalisation of consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis. What are we trying to achieve by using a nice word like “decriminalisation”? I was concerned to hear the Premier say that if you are caught with whatever we finally decide constitutes small quantities of cannabis, that there are still going to be consequences.

Madam Speaker, we need to call a spade a spade and not try to say a spade is a shovel, because if I want to buy some ganja—

Who am I going to buy it from? [There are] no shops that I know of, at least not proper storefront shops that you can go buy ganja.

Sir Alden McLaughlin concluded:

Madam Speaker, if we are asking the country to take a view on whether or not it is— what is the word I’m looking for— acceptable, to smoke a little bit of weed, then that’s the question we need to ask them to answer.

If we are to be serious about this, and are asking the electorate to tell us whether or not it is acceptable to use small quantities of ganja, then we need to ask them the question and let them say yes or no.

Don’t talk about this concept of decriminalisation. I understand conceptually the difference, but as far as I am concerned, it is a difference without any real distinction. We don’t want to own up to the fact that we are saying, the Government believes that it is okay to have in possession and smoke small quantities of ganja. That’s the question we need to ask. Let the people say yes or no, but the Government is going to have to take a position on it, it is not going to be acceptable to tell people, Well, I really don’t know, you know; I need you to tell me.

My position on both of these is that I believe we should introduce a national lottery. I believe that the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis should not be an offence.

After Sir Alden McLaughlin’s comments, other MPs noted their concerns over regulating a national lottery and cannabis usage.

After all discussions, the MPs voted in favour of the motion for a national lottery and cannabis usage.

Details of their votes are as follows:

Regarding the next steps in the referendum process, Panton explained:

Madam Speaker, if I can again outline the process on this issue. The successful passage of this Motion would authorise the Government to return to this Parliament with a Bill which we can refer to as a referendum Bill in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 as amended and that means, given the timing now, the earliest that we would be doing that would be the first quarter of next year.

Of course, we are all familiar with the requirements for public consultation which is enshrined in the Constitution; originally as 21 days now extended to 28 days. There is obviously the possibility to certify shorter notice but this is not an issue that, I certainly, would regard as appropriate to issue short notice on.

Details of 2024 “Yes” Vote

Notwithstanding that the motion for a ganja and lottery referendum was passed in 2022, it does not appear that a referendum law was enacted to put the matter before the electorate for a vote.  Instead, there were shakeups in the Government, resulting in MPs changing sides and a new Speaker of Parliament, new ministers and a new Premier being appointed.

Following this “restructuring” the Hon. Kenneth V. Bryan brought Government Motion No. 1 of 2024 addressing a referendum on cruise berthing infrastructure.

Introducing the motion, Bryan said:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring forward this Motion for debate, with a sense of purpose, duty and urgency. The future of our nation’s tourism industry is at stake, and it is my responsibility, as the Minister for Tourism, to address the evolving realities that threaten one of the key pillars of our economy— cruise tourism.

The Motion before us seeks approval for a Referendum to be held in tandem with the upcoming General Election on the question of whether the Cayman Islands should build cruise berthing facilities. This is a matter that affects us all, and we believe that the people should decide on this issue. It is a matter of national importance that we do not take lightly. This government has taken a supportive stance on the development of a cruise berthing facility, and I stand here today to explain why.

Bryan added:

We are not here to rush decisions, or to force through measures that have not been carefully considered. Instead, we are here to ensure that the people of these Islands are given the opportunity to weigh in on an issue that directly affects their livelihoods, the future of their businesses, and the long-term sustainability of our economy. As the Minister for Tourism, it is my firm belief that the government’s decision to support this Referendum reflects our commitment to transparency, democracy, and the welfare of our people.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that this Referendum is about empowering our people. The issue of cruise berthing has sparked passionate debates across our Islands with strong views both for, and against, the development of a pier.

The Government respects these views, and we recognise the need for the people to have their say in a fair and democratic process. This is why we are bringing this Motion for a Referendum to the floor of this honourable House today. While the government has taken a supportive stance on the issue, we are not here to impose our views without the People’s consent. It is only right that a decision of this magnitude, that can shape the future of our tourism sector for decades to come, should be made by the People.

Bryan continued:

Mr. Speaker, we trust the people of the Cay-man Islands to make an informed choice based on facts, realities, and the long-term interest of all three Islands. The forthcoming General Election will already serve as a time for reflection and accountability and decision-making. Holding the Referendum in tandem with the election will ensure that its cost is minimised, and voter turnout is maximised. This is a prudent and democratic way to handle such an important and consequential issue.

Making his case for the cruise berthing infrastructure motion, Bryan explained:

Mr. Speaker, I will now outline the Government’s reasons for supporting the development of cruise berthing facilities in the Cayman Islands; one of the most compelling being the protection of Caymanian thousands of Caymanians who rely on the cruise sector for their livelihood. They are not abstract statistics- they are our friends, neighbours, and family members. They are taxi drivers, tour operators, artisans and small business owners who depend on cruise passengers for their income.

If the cruise sector is allowed to dwindle to nothing-and let me emphasise that this is a very real possibility- these Caymanians will be left without a source of income. Their jobs will be displaced, and the businesses they have worked so hard to build over decades, will face closure. We simply should not stand by and allow this to happen.

Bryan added:

As a Government, we have a duty to safeguard the livelihoods of our people, and one of the most effective ways to do this is by ensuring that we have the infrastructure in place to support a thriving cruise industry.

Bryan then gave examples of how people’s lives would be impacted by the loss of cruise tourism, saying that the following would be affected:

 • The people who deliver supplies to the shops in the cruise industry;

• The people who clean the stores that cater to cruise passengers;

• The gas stations that supply gas to the taxi drivers, tour and boat operators;

• The landlords who lease and rent their units to cruise tourism businesses;

• The tender operators and captains— yes, they too will be affected over time, as fewer and fewer ships come to our shores.

Bryan suggested that any fears that members of the public had about the cost of the cruise berthing infrastructure, ownership and control of the ports, location, traffic and environmental impacts could be mitigated.

He added:

Mr. Speaker if the people say ‘Yes’ in the referendum, I am sure that there can be a quick, economic report advising where would be the best place to have a cruise pier, but with hundreds of millions of dollars already invested around the current location to facilitate the industry; and the wisdom of our forefathers telling us it is the best place for it, I am confident that economic and environmental assessments would suggest it is best to keep it where it is. In a natural harbour that has already been established for port activity, potentially highlighting some of the damage— but, again, let’s first decide whether we want it or not.

Moving it to another location could create more unforeseen problems, so it may prove to be better to build it where it is, in an area that already has some damage, rather than to go somewhere else and dam-age a more virgin marine environment; and on that note I should add, that if and when the time comes, if the people say, ‘Yes’ in the referendum, modern engineering allows for so many different techniques designed to reduce environmental damage, such as building on pylons, which was a part of your project before, but we will get to that shortly. Mr. Speaker, as years pass, more environmentally friendly engineering solutions are being developed.

He continued:

Mr. Speaker, turning to the most sensitive area of concern: the environment. We have heard all of this before, so perhaps it is time for us to talk about the elephant in the room because I recognise that there are real concerns about the environmental impact of building a cruise pier. These concerns are valid, and the Government takes them seriously.

We know it is the beauty of our natural environment, above and below the waterline, that appeals to our visitors and keeps them coming back; but Mr. Speaker, natural beauty alone will not sustain our economy, keep our people in jobs, or put food on their tables, therefore, a balance has to be struck between environmental protection and economic sustainability.

Responding to Bryan’s comments, the Hon. Joseph X. Hew, the new Leader of the Opposition, said that Bryan made “a very brave move to express his change in opinion” regarding cruise berthing infrastructure.

Hew explained:

He is now fully on board with having a cruise pier and he even supports having it located in George Town, which we were once accused of not having any vision. Why were we building a port in George Town? Yet, as he confessed today, he was one of those who fought against cruise piers in George Town when he was in Opposition.

He has also said in recent times that he now supports building a new cargo dock facility. His debate today sounded as if he dusted off speaking notes from the People’s Progressive Movement (PPM) Government when we were trying to get an upgraded cargo port and cruise berthing built.

Addressing the referendum motion brought by Bryan, Hew said:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that referendums can be a valuable democratic tool, however, they are only effective when the people are presented with clear, developed alternatives to choose from.

A referendum should be the culmination of a decision-making process, where there are options on the table that are fully outlined and understood.

This allows voters to make an informed choice based on the facts and the future di-rection they prefer for the country.

Hew added:

Unfortunately, the referendum question proposed by the Government fails in this regard.

Instead of providing a well-developed plan that outlines the specifics of cruise berthing infrastructure— where it would be located, how it would impact the environment, the costs involved, and the long-term benefits— we are being asked to support a question that is, at best, vague, and at worst, incomplete. It is not enough to simply ask, should we develop cruise berthing infrastructure, without giving voters the detailed information they need, to weigh the pros and cons.

Hew continued:

This leads to my primary concern, Mr. Speaker: What is being presented today is far from that. There is no proposal on the table for the people to con-sider, no cost breakdown, no detailed environmental impact assessment, and no feasibility studies outlining what this infrastructure would look like or where it would be built. Without such critical details, how can the public be expected to make an informed decision?

Hew concluded:

Mr. Speaker, before the people can make a judgement on whether to support cruise berthing infra-structure, they need answers to a few fundamental questions, including, but are not limited to:

• Where would the infrastructure be built? Will it be in George Town Harbour, as previous discussions have indicated, or has the Gov-ernment identified a new potential site?

• What will be the environmental impact of the Government’s proposed solution? Will there be measures in place to mitigate damage to marine life, coral reefs, and our environment as a whole?

• What would be the projected cost of the cruise berthing project? Who will foot the bill? Will it be the Government, the private sector, or a public-private partnership? How much of that cost will ultimately fall on Cay-manian taxpayers?

 • Will the redevelopment of the cargo port be part of this project or will it be handled sep-arately, as has been hinted?

• What additional infrastructure will be neces-sary to support cruise berthing facilities? Will we need expanded roads, more trans-portation options, or new visitor amenities? Let me say, Mr. Speaker, these are not standard rims on your car.

• What is the economic impact of proceeding or not proceeding with this project? How many jobs will be created, and how many might be lost if we don’t move forward? What will the long-term benefits be for local businesses?

These are fundamental questions that any responsible Government must answer before asking the people to vote on a matter of such national importance.

Hew emphasised further:

Making such comments without presenting a detailed, concrete proposal has potentially poisoned the public’s ability to make an informed decision on what is being voted on. Then, by pushing for a referendum without offering clear details or supporting research, the Government has muddied the waters, leaving voters to speculate on critical factors like cost, environmental impact, and feasibility. The Minister’s words today may have added to that.

After discussion, the MPs voted on the cruise berthing referendum as follows:

MPs Get “Cold Feet” Before April 2025 Elections

Notwithstanding that MPs clearly agreed on the above motions, some reportedly say questions outlined in the motions are now too controversial to enable them to pass the recently published Referendum (Cruise Berthing Infrastructure, Gambling and Cannabis) Bill, 2024, into law.  This may be because of the restructuring of the Government during the intervening period, which may have resulted in a change of heart. Dissenting MPS may have also realised that voting “yes” to the Referendum could significantly impact their chances of being re-elected in April 2025.

Whatever is pushing MPs to back away from the Referendum Bill now, they must make one of two decisions: (1) boycott Parliament in January 2025 so that there are not sufficient MPs present to hold a meeting, or (2) show up, form a quorum, debate the issue and let voters know exactly where they stand on ganja, lottery and cruise berthing infrastructure.

Concerning the number of MPs deemed sufficient for the business of Parliament to occur, the Cayman Islands Constitution says:

74. (1) If at any sitting of the Parliament a quorum is not present and any member of the Parliament who is present objects on that account to the transaction of business and, after such interval as may be prescribed in Standing Orders, the person presiding at the sitting ascertains that a quorum is still not present, he or she shall adjourn the Assembly.

(2) For the purposes of this section a quorum shall consist of a majority of the elected members of the Parliament in addition to the person presiding.

The Constitution adds:

75. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in the Legislative Assembly shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting.

(2) The Speaker or other member presiding shall not vote unless on any question the votes are equally divided, in which case he or she shall have and exercise a casting vote.

In the case of a Parliamentary boycott, if some MPs decide to stay at home, voters will not have certainty about the position each MP holds on issues outlined in the Referendum Bill. 

If they show up to work in Parliament in January 2025 and detail their concerns in a lively debate about the Referendum Bill, then voters will clearly understand why each MP is voting “yes” or “no” to the Referendum Bill.  This places voters in a better position to make informed decisions about who to vote for in the April 2025 elections.

Summary

While MPs can choose whether to show up in Parliament in January 2025 to debate the Referendum Bill topics, they are encouraged to attend, form a quorum and debate the Referendum Bill. However, before doing so, each MP should carefully explain their views to their constituents and ensure that what they intend to say in Parliament represents their constituents’ interests.   Failing this, MPs may lose more of the public trust.

Note to readers

It is interesting that the initial idea for a referendum only addressed cannabis and a national lottery.  Perhaps MPs should have proceeded with a January 2025 referendum bill with only these two topics and left the more controversial cruise-berthing infrastructure referendum for the new government to be elected in April 2025. This may have caused less election jitters and uncertainty about how they should vote on the referendum bill.

To learn more about the Official Hansard Report showing approval of the 2022 motion for cannabis and a national lottery, please see the below link:

https://parliament.ky/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OHR-7-December-2022.pdf

For the Official Hansard Report showing approval of the 2024 motion for cruise berthing infrastructure, please see the below link:

https://parliament.ky/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OHR-Oct.-7th-2024.pdf