GREAT BAY-- Member of Parliament Darryl York launched a sharp attack on Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Patrice Gumbs during the second round of the 2026 budget debate, accusing the minister of misleading Parliament on several matters and repeatedly characterizing statements made by the minister as lies and proceeded to lay out what he described as the parliamentary record.
York’s criticism centered first on the government’s housing policy. He recalled that during the first round of the budget debate, Minister Gumbs said the housing policy had been presented to Parliament. York said he specifically sought clarification on whether the minister meant the policy had simply been submitted to Parliament or had actually been presented and discussed during a parliamentary meeting. According to York, the minister maintained that it had been presented.
He referred to a December 10, 2025 announcement in which the minister said the housing policy would be submitted to Parliament and that a meeting would be requested for the first quarter of 2026 to present the comprehensive plan and discuss the policy with Parliament.
York said the March 20, 2026 meeting subsequently held in Parliament concerned National Housing and other planning and infrastructure matters that had been separately requested. He said when the housing policy came up during that meeting, he specifically clarified that the meeting was about National Housing, not the formal presentation of the housing policy, and that the policy would require its own meeting.
Against that background, York rejected the minister’s assertion that the housing policy had already been presented to Parliament. “The minister says he presented the policy to Parliament, not submitted, that he presented it. Mr. Chairman, that is a lie,” York said.
The accusation represents York’s characterization of the minister’s statement. The minister had not yet responded to York’s second-round allegations at the time of his intervention.
York then challenged Minister Gumbs’ description of a drainage project in the Cole Bay and Union Road area. He said the way the project was described could leave the impression that government was addressing the drainage problem along Union Road as a whole.
York said he had the project’s terms of reference and argued that the documented scope shows something different. According to the MP, the project covers only a section of Union Road, extending from around the HD Factory area toward the Simpson Bay Lagoon, rather than addressing the entire road.
He further argued that even the planned section does not fully reach the Simpson Bay Lagoon. York said the project stops near the M-Tech area because properties remain between that point and the lagoon and that the problem of securing a complete drainage route has not been resolved.
York questioned what would happen if the project is executed without completing the connection to the lagoon, warning that water could instead be directed toward homes near the point where the works stop.
He said Minister Gumbs had criticized others for allegedly misleading the public, but argued that presenting the Union Road drainage project as though the overall drainage problem was being solved was itself misleading.
York then made his second direct accusation. Referring to the project being presented as a successful initiative while, in his view, a critical portion remains unresolved, he told Parliament it was “another lie.”
The MP next turned to operations at the landfill and statements previously made concerning Fleming Waste Services. He recalled Minister Gumbs indicating that issues involving the contractor were being addressed and that everything owed to the company had been paid.
York questioned that assertion, saying he understood Fleming Waste Services is pursuing legal action against the ministry concerning unpaid invoices. He asked how government could maintain that everything had been settled if the contractor was taking the ministry to court over amounts it says remain outstanding.
He also asked whether the minister followed through on a commitment concerning a service-level agreement, SLA, with Fleming Waste Services. York asked whether an SLA was presented to the company, whether Fleming Waste Services refused to sign it or whether the process was never completed.
York further raised reports that Fleming Waste Services had subsequently been removed from landfill operations. He made clear that he was seeking confirmation of information he had received and asked the minister to explain whether the company had in fact been sent home and, if so, why.
According to York, Fleming Waste Services had provided services at the landfill for more than five years and contributed to improvements in landfill operations, including during the period when recurring fires had resulted in concerns from the World Bank.
York questioned whether the company received written notification terminating its services. He said that if Fleming Waste Services had been removed after years of service without written confirmation, he considered that treatment disrespectful.
It was at this point that York made his third accusation concerning the minister’s statements. He referred to Minister Gumbs’ previous comments rejecting the perception that he was against the “small man” and said that if the information surrounding Fleming Waste Services proved correct, “everything the minister said again was a lie.”
York also pressed the minister on the condition of government-owned heavy equipment at the landfill. He asked how old the machines are, what it would cost to repair each one, whether they remain repairable and whether the ministry is considering writing them off.
He argued that five or six years is relatively young for heavy machinery and asked whether government had properly budgeted for maintenance to avoid interruptions in landfill operations.
York noted that Fleming Waste Services had also provided qualified mechanical expertise for the landfill machinery and questioned who is now responsible for maintaining and repairing the equipment. He asked whether the ministry has identified another company with the required qualifications and whether a maintenance plan previously proposed by the operator was ever considered.
The MP also sought information about a new company he said is reportedly operating at the landfill. He asked whether that company has a contract, SLA or other formal arrangement with government, what the service costs, how long the arrangement will last and how the price compares with what Fleming Waste Services was charging.
York further questioned whether the new operator is using its own machinery and, if so, what additional cost that represents to government. He also asked whether the arrangement will eventually be tendered and what legal basis government is using if a longer-term contract is contemplated.
Beyond the landfill, York accused VROMI of making decisions that have affected employment and the livelihood of families. He referred to roadside maintenance contracts that were not renewed and claimed that more than 100 families lost that source of income from one month to the next.
York said government has discussed the effect of crime on tourism, but argued that it must also examine factors that contribute to crime, including unemployment and financial hardship. He stressed that this does not excuse criminal behavior, but said government cannot ignore the consequences when families suddenly lose income.
The MP similarly linked the country’s cleanliness to tourism. He said residents, MPs and repeat visitors have complained about the condition of St. Maarten and questioned why there has not been the same level of coordinated government attention to cleanliness that has been devoted to crime and tourism.
York also challenged the number of traffic-related studies and external initiatives being pursued. He referred to UNOPS, a carrying-capacity study and Dutch-French traffic initiatives and questioned whether these efforts are properly coordinated.
He argued that many of St. Maarten’s traffic problems are already evident, including congestion on major roads, insufficient alternative links, roadside parking, poorly designed entrances and exits, inadequate signage, road markings and intersections that need improvement.
York questioned why government is looking externally for many of these answers when, according to him, qualified St. Maarten professionals have approached government and offered their expertise without being meaningfully engaged.
He said he had called for systematic traffic data collection in Parliament in 2024 and questioned why, two years later, government is still waiting on studies to establish traffic intensity and other information that could have been gathered locally.
York also sought updates on several outstanding VROMI matters, including permits, fish deaths in the Great Salt Pond, possible irrigation measures and fountains for the pond, drainage outlets in Great Bay, erosion, the St. Peters “swamp project,” and infrastructure works in Dutch Quarter and Nazareth involving UNOPS.
He said some projects have had millions in funding available since previous years but still have not reached physical execution. York questioned the logic of repeatedly seeking additional capital funding when existing allocations remain unspent because projects are not being implemented.
The MP also asked for clarity regarding VROMI’s responsibilities for St. Maarten’s energy transition, including the policies and legislation the ministry is expected to develop, the timeline for completing them and the anticipated implementation dates.
York closed his VROMI intervention by questioning the minister’s priorities and saying that the trust Minister Gumbs himself spoke about when entering office has deteriorated rather than improved.
He said members from both the coalition and opposition have called for course correction, while his interpretation of Minister Gumbs’ responses is that the minister believes the current approach should continue.
“A person can mislead the public for time, but eventually the truth collects their debt,” York told Parliament.
