"There's a crack, a crack, in everything/ That's how the light gets in" – Leonard Cohen's National Anthem, aka "Ring The Bell".

Parliament resumes and suddenly it starts to get sticky around here again. It's not just the humidity to which I am referring, Mr. Editor, and while I do not think the House and the weather are in any way connected, those were some extraordinary but not necessarily inexplicable happenings on the Hill on our first day back from the Easter recess. Government rolls the dice and comes forward with a Green Paper on Gaming, but pretty soon into debate it becomes patently clear and obvious to everyone (and I mean everyone) that the development and expansion of gaming doesn't even have the support of a majority of the Cabinet. Now I understand parliamentary procedure, and that Green Papers are typically only meant to be discussion papers, but give us a break, this one was actually proposing the introduction of casinos for Bermuda.

Maybe they hadn't read the entire paper. There wasn't just the printed document but an enclosed CD disc which contained another 410 pages of argument, in favour. I know because I found out the hard way, the old-fashioned way. I had them printed and I read them. The devil, people, is always in the detail.

We heard a lot from the Government benches about how now isn't the time etc. etc. But the question has to be asked: if now wasn't the time, why were we wasting the country's time and money bringing this up at all? The longer the day went on, and we were there until after midnight, the only interest was watching how many PLP MPs were going to join the queue in distancing themselves from gaming – and how. We heard their voices sure, but we sensed the collective hand of delegates at Alaska Hall. Starting with Deputy Premier Paula Cox, it sounded like they all had an eye on October.

Mercifully, we were all limited to no more than 30 minutes each. Those new rules on which we provisionally agreed were in play on day one; only those who open for their parties get longer – 60 minutes, if they want it. Tip of the hat here to Bernews.com which kept up with the debate online and gave us a short running commentary and a round-up of who was for and who was against of the 32 who spoke: 23 against, 7 for and 2 "undetermined". The two "undetermined" were reported to be Cabinet Ministers, Glenn Blakeney and Neletha Butterfield.

Speaking of Cabinet Ministers, they were among the more adroit at dancing – with some exceptions. Minister Without Portfolio Zane DeSilva, who was for proceeding with gaming, I think, implored members not to engage in "politics and personalities". His political plea required no reply from the Opposition benches, tempting as it may have been. Next to his feet was Minister for Education El James who spoke passionately against; so much for politics and personalities, thank you very much. But I had to ask – and blurted out across the floor: don't you guys attend Cabinet anymore?

Meanwhile, and on top of this, we had the PLP website, leading readers on, telling everyone that the facts were "clear and conclusive", that the introduction of casinos in Bermuda would strengthen tourism and create jobs. Yet in the House no more than nine MPs voiced any support, and two of them were from the BDA.

The wonder, frankly, isn't just why the Paper got this far, but how, if there was such little support. But this isn't just on the Premier. The entire PLP Government has a lot to answer for as well.

But answers aren't always forthcoming. We have new rules and a Question Period permitting questions without notice, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be answered. We can but try. The Premier boldly hailed the introduction of the Public Access To Information Act (PATI) as landmark legislation: "The fulfilment of the Government's promise to shine light on the workings of the public sector in Bermuda." He didn't stop there either: "This Bill is not the beginning of Government transparency, it is the expansion of our commitment to openness."

You don't say? He did, so I asked the obvious: where were the answers to my outstanding questions on the $800,000 review of the Corporations? What about disclosure of the Coco Reef lease? I wasn't met this time with silence but by objections that my plea was out of order. Unfortunately, the Speaker agreed. Pity that. The continued refusal leads to speculation, some of which has been taken up by readers. I had some interesting questions and comments in my mailbox on connecting the dots:

• According to one reader, I missed one more dot on the horizon: "El James and his ace boys want to close down Gilbert Institute. It happens to have several acres of land and is adjacent to Coco Reef. I wonder if John Jefferis could find a good use for that land?"

• A local realtor queried whether Coco Reef will in any event be able to successfully market the planned units even with a 120-year lease – and wondered what further or other accommodations would have to be made . "I highly doubt that any purchaser would be happy with a term of only 120 years. I know there were many locals who balked at the terms left on the units at Southside which from memory were about 120 years as well. Any non-Bermudian would not be happy with that after spending a lot of money to purchase."

• Yet a third reader doubted the Board of Governors had made a good deal – based on what he has read so far in the newspapers. He wanted to know whether the Board of Governors first obtained professional advice on the economic value of the property before agreeing to the 70-year extension to a 120-year lease.

I don't know and he doesn't know because they won't tell us, Mr. Editor. We could ask Parliamentary questions but there's little point. As you know, they still haven't even answered the first set we asked.

Got questions? Answers? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.