GREAT BAY--Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication Grisha Heyliger-Marten pushed back strongly against criticism from MP Ludmila de Weever over Government’s cannabis process, rejecting suggestions that cannabis has displaced long-standing TEATT priorities and warning Parliament against creating fear around legislation and contractual consequences before the final proposal is even before the legislature.
De Weever had questioned why cannabis regulation appeared at the top of a TEATT legislative presentation ahead of matters such as public transportation, beach vending, sports tourism and residential economic policy. Heyliger-Marten said the interpretation was incorrect because the presentation was never designed as a ranking of Government priorities.
The Minister stressed that the proposed legislation is not presently before Parliament and remains under development. It must still undergo the required review by Legal Affairs and the relevant approval process before Parliament receives a final proposal. "When it reaches Parliament, read it, question it and ultimately vote for or against."
“What Parliament should not become is a stage for creating fear about liabilities, contractual consequences or legislative provisions before members have received the final package and the relevant facts have been properly established,” Heyliger-Marten said.
“A bullet point at the top of a slide does not equal the top priority of this ministry,” the Minister told Parliament, explaining that the presentation was intended as an overview of TEATT’s wider legislative agenda rather than a list arranged in descending order of importance or urgency.
Heyliger-Marten also rejected the suggestion that Government’s work is intended to promote cannabis or presuppose that St. Maarten must establish a commercial cannabis industry. She said the exercise is intended to properly examine the issue, identify risks and safeguards and ultimately provide Parliament with a framework that can be judged on its merits.
She said sweeping conclusions about the proposed legislation are therefore premature when MPs have not yet seen, examined or debated the final text.
Heyliger-Marten was equally direct in defending the role of Native Nation SXM, which has been criticized in parts of the public discussion surrounding the cannabis process. She stressed that Native Nation does not make St. Maarten’s laws, determine Government policy, regulate an industry, issue licenses or decide whether Parliament adopts legislation.
According to the Minister, Native Nation was engaged to provide technical expertise within the scope of its agreement. Government remains responsible for policy and administration, while Parliament retains its constitutional authority over legislation.
Heyliger-Marten said the work underway also goes well beyond revenue generation. The objectives being examined include protecting public health and young people, reducing illicit activity, improving product and consumer safeguards, strengthening oversight and enforcement and assessing possible opportunities for local entrepreneurs and farmers.
The process, she said, is also considering prevention, mental-health risks and access to appropriate support for persons affected by substance misuse. Portraying the entire exercise as simply a search for Government revenue, she argued, ignores the wider purpose of the work being done.
Revenue may form part of the assessment, but the Minister stressed that it is neither the only consideration nor, by itself, sufficient justification for moving forward.
Heyliger-Marten also responded to questions about whether Government could face financial consequences if the legislation is ultimately not approved, cautioning against speculation about contractual liabilities.
She said Government must honor its lawful contractual obligations and manage agreements in good faith, but it would be irresponsible to announce that a particular amount would automatically become payable simply because Parliament rejected legislation.
Any financial consequence, she explained, would depend on the actual terms of the agreement, the work already performed, outstanding obligations and any clauses governing amendment, discontinuation or termination. Those questions must be determined from the agreement itself and applicable legal advice, not speculation during a parliamentary debate.
The Minister said legitimate scrutiny should not be confused with creating unnecessary fear about Government liabilities. Public officials, she argued, have a responsibility to speak carefully when Government is party to contractual arrangements so that the country is not unnecessarily exposed to financial or legal risk.
Heyliger-Marten also made clear that Parliament’s authority remains untouched. Government can submit legislation, but it cannot compel Parliament to approve it. MPs will have the opportunity to examine the proposal, question it, propose amendments and ultimately vote for or against it.
She urged MPs to wait until they have the complete legislation and supporting information before reaching conclusions about what the proposal contains or what consequences might flow from it.
The Minister ended her response with one of her strongest remarks of the debate, saying Government must be prepared to do the detailed work away from the cameras and return to Parliament with the evidence, legal framework and final documents required for a proper debate.
She said she is prepared to have that discussion once the relevant material is on the table, but until then Parliament should deal in established facts rather than speculation and conduct proper parliamentary scrutiny rather than “political theater.”
