Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED transcript of the House of Assembly sitting for Monday, April 27, 2026, to approximately 4:00 p.m. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.

The entire audio/visual record of the House proceedings is available online within one hour of the House rising for the day. This can be accessed at: https://www.assembly.nl.ca/HouseBusiness/Webcast/archive.aspx

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we’ll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands, Lake Melville, Lewisporte - Twillingate, Mount Pearl North and St. George’s - Humber.

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of presenting certificates from the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier and myself to Mrs. Agnes Penney of Irishtown who celebrated her 95th birthday.

Family and friends dropped by her home to help this remarkable lady to celebrate this special day.

Remarkable lady is an understatement to honour Mrs. Penney, a tireless volunteer with well over 40 years of documented volunteer services including vice-chair with the Irishtown council, 29 years as mayor, served on the recreation committee, a lifetime member of HIS Firettes and Irishtown Seniors Club, St. Brendan’s Church, volunteered with the Heart and Stroke Foundation and Mental Health Association.

A very compassionate lady who brought children with physical and cognitive challenges into her home giving them the proper care and love they deserved.

In 2012, Mrs. Penney received the Seniors of Distinction Award for her outstanding contribution to her town and to the children with special needs.

If you ever dealt with Mrs. Penney, no was never an acceptable answer, and she was determined that we find answers by working together.

I ask all Members to join me in recognizing this remarkable lady on her 95th birthday and for her outstanding contribution to her community.

Thank you, Agnes, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Goose Bay Judo Club in Lake Melville. The Goose Bay Judo Club is the largest Judo club in the province and is approaching its 50th anniversary. The Goose Bay Judo Club had an excellent showing at the Newfoundland and Labrador Judo Association’s provincial Judo tournament on April 25, in Paradise.

I would like to congratulate: Jaxson Keefe on his U12 Silver; Cayden Mooney on his U13 gold; Grayson Curl on his U14 bronze; Jared Keefe for his U16 gold and U18 bronze; Logan Mesher for his U16 bronze and Clark Pastuck for his U16 gold. And finally I stand here with immense pride to mention a standout judoka at the recent tournament, my nephew Liam Russell. Liam competed in two divisions, U16 and U18, earning a silver medal and a gold medal respectively.

I say well done for your fundraising efforts all year long to attend the tournament. Congratulations on 50 years to the Goose Bay Judo Club and cheers to an excellent tournament in Paradise. I ask all in this hon, House to join me in Ritsu-rei, the formal judo bow, as we congratulate these judoka for their hard work and dedication to their sport.

Domo arigato, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. BUTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I stand to recognize the Comfort Cove-Newstead Shellfish Festival from August 14 to 16. After nearly 40 years, this cherished event was proudly reintroduced last summer by the Comfort Cove-Newstead Recreation Committee and its return has clearly struck a chord with residents and visitors alike.

Building on the success of its revival, the 2026 festival is already generating tremendous excitement. Within just two weeks of ticket sales opening, organizers surpassed last year’s total sales and two major events already sold out. That enthusiasm speaks to both the quality of the festival and the pride people feel in this community.

Promoted as three days, one epic coastal party, the festival showcases everything from a signature seafood boil featuring shellfish from Notre Dame Seafoods, to parades, outdoor concerts, family fun day, a fisherman’s brewis sale, cornhole tournaments, brunch events, and a spectacular fireworks display over the harbour. Local businesses, sponsors and volunteers play a central role in every aspect of the celebration.

Organized entirely by dedicated volunteers, the Shellfish Festival promotes tourism, supports the seafood sector and highlights the warmth, hospitality, and resilience that define Comfort Cove–Newstead and rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank You.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Speaker, brilliant is the best word to describe this young lady from my district of Mount Pearl North, Sophia Zhang.

In 2025, Sophia received the Research Inspired Student Enrichment Award and was the only student in our province granted full tuition to attend a six-week summer research science program alongside 100 of the world’s top high school students. She also ranked in the top two percent nationally at the University of Waterloo’s mathematics competition, writing competition.

Sophia earned a gold medal with Team NL at the Canada Wide Science Fair for their wind energy harvesting project, along with multiple special awards, including the WISE Award at the Eastern NL Science Fair.

As team captain of her high school’s robotics team, she led her group to achieve the third-highest score in Canada at the MATE Robotics competition. Beyond her academic and STEM achievements, Sophia volunteers as a swimming coach with Special Olympics. She also volunteers with the Frosty Festival, and also volunteered at the Canada Summer Games.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Sophia on her remarkable accomplishments and wish her continued success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George’s - Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a talented young athlete from Steady Brook, 16-year-old Meredith Hayden, who is making our province proud in the sport of snowboarding.

Meredith’s season began last summer with five weeks of training in Chile, where she had the opportunity to train alongside World Cup athletes, including several Olympians – an experience that speaks to her growing place among elite competitors.

Countless training days at our Marble Mountain and Mont-Tremblant set the tone for a remarkable season. She carried that momentum into her first NorAm competitions, earning strong 12th and 11th place finishes, followed by impressive results in Alpine Ontario and Val Saint-Côme, Quebec, where she placed 10th and 9th.

She also was selected as a forerunner at the World Cup in Val Saint-Côme – an incredible opportunity to race on the world stage. At a provincial event in Martock, Nova Scotia, Meredith earned a second-place finish.

To cap off her season, Meredith delivered an outstanding performance at the Junior Nationals, capturing one gold and three silver medals, including a first-place finish in Parallel Giant Slalom.

Mr. Speaker, Meredith Hayden is a tremendous ambassador for our province, and I ask all members to join me in congratulating her and wishing her continued success.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize April 26 to May 2 as National Immunization Awareness Week.

Whether strengthening our immunity against seasonal viruses like influenza and COVID- 19, or providing vital protection against diseases such as measles, meningitis, or whooping cough, no other public health intervention has done more to safeguard the health and well-being of a population then publicly funded immunization.

This is why earlier this morning I was happy to join Dr. Fitzgerald, Chief Medical Officer of Health, to announce new funding through Budget 2026, to expand the publicly funded RSV vaccine which will be available to all infants under six months of age and adults aged 75 years and older.

While we’ve seen infectious disease outbreaks across the country in recent months our province continues to maintain some of the highest childhood vaccination rates in Canada, Speaker, and we must be proud of that.

Speaker, I am proud to say that 98 per cent of our two-year-olds are up-to-date with immunizations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we celebrate National Immunization Awareness Week, we want to thank public health, our health care workers who provide immunization and their tremendous contribution to the health of our residents.

I would also like to thank Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for their outstanding support for immunization.

Your commitment has not only helped protect yourself, but also our most vulnerable members in the wider community as a whole.

I encourage everyone to talk to their health care provider or public health nurse about questions they may have regarding immunization. It is important to make informed choices by consulting reliable sources.

Let’s keep our communities strong, resilient and our province healthy and safe.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I join the minister in recognizing national immunization awareness week and the important role vaccines play in protecting mental health. Immunization is one of the most effective tools we have to keep people safe and to reduce pressure on our healthcare system. That is why as a government we invested in expanding access to RSV and shingles vaccines, and we are delighted to see those investments continuing.

Speaker, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also learned the importance, not only of access, but of promotion and outreach, because vaccines only work if people know about them, trust them and can easily access them. So we hope the investment announced today includes strong promotion, clear communication and accessible clinics in all areas of our province because protecting public health is not just about what’s promised, but it’s about what’s delivered.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Thank you to the dedicated public health nurses who do great work to keep us healthy, strong and safe. On national immunization awareness week, we ask this government to continue to work to reduce barriers and ask that the HPV vaccine program be made free to all who need it. By preventing cancer, we relieve pressures on the health care system and, most importantly, we save lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, as of today, 27 tenders for road infrastructure work has been issued, representing an estimated $143 million in investment throughout the province.

This reflects strong early momentum under the province’s roads program and demonstrates our commitment to delivering safe, reliable transportation and infrastructure for communities and businesses.

Speaker, this is the earliest point in the construction season ever that this volume of road tenders has been issued, providing contractors with a greater certainty and enabling work to begin sooner. Importantly, a number of these tenders have already been awarded, ensuring projects are moving quickly from planning to construction and creating immediate economic activity.

Early tendering supports better project scheduling, improved value for taxpayers, and increased competition within the construction sector. It also helps maximize the short construction season, particularly in rural and remote areas where timely access to safe roads is essential.

This work directly aligns with our government’s commitment to safer communities, including safer roads. By investing early and strategically in road infrastructure, we are improving transportation safety, supporting economic growth, and strengthening connections that residents rely on every day.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Speaker, we agree that early road tendering maximizes our short construction season and provides certainty for our local heavy civil industry. I also recognize the opportunity for more roadwork and I thank the officials of Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work to make this a reality, however, an early start is only effective if the industry has capacity to finish the job. The fact remains we are faced with a critical shortage of skilled labour. With thousands of long-time workers retiring, contractors cannot find enough qualified operators to staff their equipment.

Speaker, we must be realistic about the workforce crisis that threatens to leave work unfinished. Government must focus its efforts on helping companies in the industry address the shortage in the trades.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

We’re pleased that this government is looking for ways to improve planning and tendering to ensure that much-needed work gets done, however, as part of that planning process we ask that this government share the data in its road asset appraisals publicly so that the people of this province can be certain that decisions are based on greatest need rather than the political stripe of their MHA.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. HOGAN: The MOU with Churchill Falls expires this week. On Friday, I spoke with Prime Minister Carney and this morning I spoke to the Liberal Leader of Quebec about this important deal.

Will the Premier disclose whether he will extend the MOU and continue negotiating to build on the MOU or are we going to squander this opportunity?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Once, again, Speaker, we’re not going to squander anything. What we are going to do though is stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m not too worried about what the Premier of Quebec has to say about a deal, we know they need the power, we know we have the power. We’re open and ready and we will do business but we’re going to do an independent review. That independent review will be finished this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, if the MOU is not extended before April 30, can the Premier guarantee Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the approximate $1.4 billion we would have received this month, backdated to January 2025, will be part of a future deal or is that money now lost forever?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, as the Member opposite talked about previously, this was a non-binding MOU. I’m not interested in deadlines. I’m interested in making sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get the best deal they can get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: And let me remind the Member opposite, of his statement on September 15, we must make sure that the deal we sign, if it’s the right deal, we want to make sure it is the right deal and we’re going to take the time to do it and get it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Just so the Premier understands, it’s not binding in terms of locking us into an agreement, but it’s binding in terms of negotiating around the parameters of the MOU. One of those parameters, as I said, was a cheque that would have come to us this month for almost $1.5 billion, something I’m sure the Finance Minister would have enjoyed.

So I ask the Premier, is he going to go away and risk not having that $1.5 billion come to the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador because this is going to expire on April 30?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I just said, we’re not putting anything at risk. What we’re not prepared to do is risk signing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians up for another 50 years in a repeat –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – of what just happened. So we are going to take our time. We are doing an independent review. That analysis will be completed this week, and if the Member opposite is confident in the MOU, he should have nothing to worry about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I think taking his time is an understatement. They haven’t done one thing with regard to this MOU since they took office.

Prime Minister Carney is announcing a sovereign wealth fund in order to save money to finance major projects in our country. Meanwhile, our Premier, is cancelling our sovereign wealth fund, blaming the province’s debt.

Given the federal government also has debt, why can’t the Premier take a page from Prime Minister Carney’s book and actually plan for our future in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, we’ve said in the House many times that we value saving money. We do that. The creation of the sovereign wealth fund is for to make sure that we enhance our productivity as a nation so that we can be more productive. We agree with that too. In order to do it, we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got a reasonable debt load and have access to money.

The government before us had increased, in their reign, the debt by $12.9 – get a load of this – billion. We’ve got to fix and address that. We can’t keep borrowing money.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: I’ll just give a tip to the Finance Minister. He should probably listen to Prime Minister Carney who has a pretty good background in economics. He decided to do a gas tax cut for Canadians; they decide not to do a gas tax cut for Canadians. He says the Churchill Falls MOU is a good deal; they say the Churchill Falls MOU is a bad deal. He’s saying a good idea to invest in a future through a sovereign wealth fund; they say that’s a bad idea.

So I ask the Finance Minister: If Canada with the debt that it has, can invest 5 per cent of its revenue, why can’t Newfoundland and Labrador invest only 1 per cent of its revenue into our future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, our country, thankfully, has a much better GDP versus per capita debt, much better. Our nation, fortunately, has a AAA credit rating which is, among the G7, the best of what the G7 has to offer.

The increase of $12.9 billion, in the previous government’s reign, has not left us with a AAA credit rating. In fact, we have the worst and the lowest credit rating in our country. I think if the prime minister, who’s opinion I value greatly, were here, under the $12.9 billion left us, he would say, smart move, Finance Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: I tell you when I spoke to the prime minister on Friday, he said no such thing. So it did not happen.

It’s been almost two months since the Premier announced the Benefits Agreement for Bay du Nord. A recent article in The Independent says there are no guarantees, something we’ve been saying, about the quality of those jobs or whether those jobs will be unionized.

Since they won't show us the agreement, can they confirm here, in the House, that there are guarantees for jobs and that those guarantees are written into the actual agreement?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the Member opposite has spent a couple of questions telling us about his conversation with the prime minister. I had a conversation with the prime minister. As a matter of fact, I’ve had more than one conversation with the prime minister and let me tell you, that prime minister is very supportive of Bay du Nord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: And unlike the previous Liberal government and the Liberal government, federally, they actually believe in our offshore oil and gas which is something that this former government let drag out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: I bet you the prime minister would like to see the actual words in the written agreement to see, exactly, what he is supporting. That is what we want to see. We want to see the agreement. He is very supportive and the federal government has been supportive of our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: We worked with them, very closely, to make sure Bay du Nord was going ahead, to get it through the environmental assessment.

I ask the Premier: Rather than tell people in the House of Assembly to just trust him, will he table the agreement, finally, to show that there are actually written guarantees for jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

After 173 days, the Member – he was premier for 173 days and the conversations that we’ve had with all of these groups is that there were no conversations. So I’m really glad to hear that they’re happening now. It’s a good step forward.

We will release these agreements when the time is right. Ten years, the previous government never released one Benefits Agreement. They didn’t release anything about their vote inside of Cabinet. They didn’t release the Rotschild Report. They didn’t release anything on Snow’s Lane. They didn’t release numbers on the hospital they were pretending to build. So, Mr. Speaker, they’ve got lots of time to introduce all of that stuff and we will introduce ours when we are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: I have one simple question for the minister. He mentioned a lot of documents that are protected by Cabinet confidence.

So I ask the minister: Is he committing to release all Cabinet documents related to this government during the course of their mandate, which he has asked us to do?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: That’s a really good question coming from a former premier who said he knew nothing about the bonuses, who had the opportunity to release all of it publicly and he chose not to. No different than the Rothchild report; had the opportunity to do it and explain it publicly, decided not to.

So the question he’s asking, he ought to walk out behind that door, look in the mirror and ask himself: Should I have released that stuff?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

We’ll try to get some answers related to the same situation and issue. The same report in The Independent about Bay du Nord says that this province is expected to receive only about 15 per cent of the project’s value.

Either the Premier or the Minister of Energy and Mines can answer this: Why is this government accepting such a weak return on our natural resources?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say that there is actually an agreement. That’s the first thing. Something that they failed to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: The second thing I’ll do is I’ll carry on by saying we just spent the last few weeks listening to both Members, both the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island talk about this is the same deal they had. They thought it was a good deal when they had it, but now, all of a sudden, it’s not a good deal. So these guys really need to make their mind up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: You knew what the deal was, you said it was a good deal and now, all of a sudden, it’s not a good deal.

So at the end of the day, we have a great deal here. Much better than the giveaways that they’ve done in the past, the $100 million that they gave away in Argentia –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, if it is such a good deal, show us. We still haven’t seen it. The deal that they got to finalize, supposedly, was done because our government got the environmental assessment across the finishing line with the government in Ottawa at the time that didn’t want to do oil deals. But we got it to this point.

So comparable projects in Norway and the UK generate up to twice the public revenue. Why is Newfoundland and Labrador settling for less?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While he might think we’re settling for less, the reason that we got this deal done is because this Premier is not going to settle for anything less for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: In 2018, they failed. In 2022, they failed. In 2025, less than 100 days in, we made it happen. The previous administration had a new premier for 173 days, and we were told by those companies that they had zero conversations with them. There wasn’t even ongoing negotiations. Now they stand up in here, on their pedestal and they want to put stuff back on us.

We will absolutely deliver a floating dry dock. We will deliver this project and it will be changing (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

F. HUTTON: Speaker, I recall, during the campaign, the minister and the Premier saying they were going to guarantee 70 per cent of topside work be done here, and what they actually got was the opportunity for local companies to bid.

Speaker, there is no pedestal here. I’m standing at my desk; everybody in this Chamber has one. We are simply asking some questions. We’re looking for answers. It’s very difficult to get them, though.

There is a deal because Equinor says there is going to be a deal. Equinor has already delayed the project due to cost inflation and market uncertainty, what is the government’s backup plan if, in a year from now, they say in their final investment decision that this deal is not going forward?

We hope it does. If it does, we’ll support it, but what’s the backup plan if it doesn’t happen?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could use the line from their history and say stay tuned, but I won’t.

What I will say is that the promises we made revolved around employment in this province. They revolved around a future in this province. They revolved around a new industry in this province.

The building trades have expressed how happy they are with this. All of the players in industry have expressed how happy they are with this. Energy NL is happy with this. The federal Liberals are happy with this. The only people that aren’t happy with this are sitting across the way, because they couldn’t drag it across the line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Finance, in terms of the upcoming budget, are the revenue and jobs from Bay du Nord in the fiscal forecast?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I say to the Member that we have forecasted in the out-years when we expect, in advance of 2030, this production to begin. So only in the out-years would the Bay du Nord project be factored into the fiscal forecast going forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m glad to note that the Minister of Finance is saying that the Bay du Nord project is in the fiscal forecast in the out-years. That’s very interesting considering Equinor have not yet made a sanctioning decision.

So I ask the minister: How can you put it in the fiscal forecast when there’s no sanctioning decision?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I think the genesis of the MHA’s question would be the fact that comparable to the tobacco settlement, where they put all the money into one year and received it all to make the deficit look a little less and, I think, the Auditor General was correct. I think and, in my understanding, the Auditor General will have no problem with us having the fiscal forecast in the out-years beyond 2030 for the oil revenue that we would fully expect Bay du Nord to develop to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We think it’s good accounting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I look forward, I’m going to write the Auditor General today and ask the Auditor General how they feel about the future Bay du Nord jobs and revenue being included in the year’s fiscal forecast when the project hasn’t even been sanctioned yet, Speaker.

I ask the minister, is the government prepared for the financial and economic consequences if Bay du Nord does not sanction this project?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Presidents of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Yes, we are.

The Deputy Opposition House Leader had mentioned earlier in a question, she said, it’s not about what’s promised but it’s about what is delivered. I would say to the MHA with the question, tune in to Wednesday to find out if we are going to deliver on what we stated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: We said in the fall fiscal update, that any good governance has to be nimble and be able to adapt to whatever we faced because that’s our responsibility for good governance. Watch us do that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, the Minister of Government Services stated last week in this House that he would make sure there was no homelessness, specifically here in St. John’s.

Can he confirm that under this watch, no one in St. John’s will be homeless?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question. As the minister responsible for Housing and homelessness, happy to stand on my feet and answer that question.

We, as a government, have a plan. We have a plan to move forward with housing. We have a plan to move forward to address homelessness. My colleague spoke last week, very passionately and since then we have met with the Department of Municipal Affairs, the minister and myself to discuss this going forward.

We will have a plan, Mr. Speaker and we will address housing and homelessness, everyone deserves a place to live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, the Canadian Home Builders Association has said there’s just not enough people to do the work.

How will the minister reach his goal of 10,000 houses if there are not enough people to build them?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.

As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, just stated, good governance and good planning, and that’s what we are doing here on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We will have a plan. Come Wednesday, that plan will be announced, and that will be good news for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, it’s unfortunate that they wouldn’t let the minister get up and actually speak and respond to what he actually said here in this hon. House, but anyway.

Reports in the media state that numerous tickets are being issued as a result of the speed camera program. Will the court closures have any effect on the processing of these tickets?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I can say that addressing this issue with the courts has been a priority of our government. We are committed to collaborating with all partners to develop solutions to the issues that exist with respect to accessing justice and with respect to matters related to the speed cameras. I look forward to providing an update in the coming days on our government’s investment in the province’s justice system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Minister.

Again, really disappointed in the minister’s response as we just get promises, we get bravado, but we don’t actually have any tangible details, any tangible answers since these court closures way back prior to Christmas.

So can the minister provide a date on which the courts will be fully operational and up and running again, other than they’re just going to promise to make it work?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, let me say that the state of our justice system can be attributed to the neglect, the indifference, the inaction of the previous government.

I would ask the hon. Member and all Opposition Members to stay tuned for our government’s investments, which you will see in the coming days as we roll out the budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

When the COO of NLHS in Labrador took early retirement, the position was in acting capacity at the centre for a period of time. That person is no longer there and now we’re being told it’s being run from St. John’s. I am hearing increasingly from people that are asking to have decision-making powers back on the ground in Labrador. It’s so important given the complexities of operating in a northern and remote region.

So I ask the Premier: Can he tell the people of Labrador when the COO position under NLHS will be filled?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, the Member is correct. We do have a new person in the COO position. In actual fact, I cannot stress how vital a role the new member is playing, Speaker.

We’re actually getting action about medevacs, which, under the previous government’s neglect, created so many problems. We’re getting much help with Sked-Evacs where patients are actually battling and trying to get out. We’re dealing with logistical problems, Speaker. That’s a legacy of 10 years of Liberal neglect. In actual fact, this particular person has done so much and has engaged the Indigenous people, Speaker. I’m getting rave reviews from the engagement and the meaningful consultation by the Member, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

E. LOVELESS: Speaker, the previous Liberal government, joined by NLHS staff, community mayors, hospital staff, seniors and general public, announced an expansion of the Connaigre Peninsula Health Centre in Harbour Breton to include additional long-term care beds, family care clinic and acute-care needs which is very important and something that is desperately needed in the region, and the minister is aware of that.

Can the minister confirm that that expansion is a go or a no-go in this coming budget?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I sort of didn’t get the preamble. Would the Member just repeat his question one more time?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

E. LOVELESS: Happy to do so. The previous Liberal government, along with NLHS staff, community mayors, hospital staff, seniors and general public, was part of an announcement of an expansion of the Connaigre Peninsula Health Centre in Harbour Breton to include additional long-term care beds, family care clinic and acute-care needs which we know is something that is desperately needed in the region.

Can the minister confirm that expansion is a go or a no-go in this budget?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, in actual fact, our government is committed to increasing the number of long-term care beds; also increasing the personal care beds, because we know the burden that’s being put onto our elderly population, Speaker. We see them in emergency, out in the hallways on gurneys.

We are committed to increasing the long-term care beds. We are committed to increasing personal care beds all across the province. So, in actual fact, he’ll have to wait for the budget for us to get down into those details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: Thank you, Speaker.

Last years’ budget allocated $4.3 million to operationalize a new CT service in Port aux Basques.

Can the minister provide this House and the residents of my district an update on this project?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, one thing we’re actually doing is trying to increase the access to services out in the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our commitment in the budget for our MRIs out in the rural regions would increase access to MRIs.

We’re also looking at expanding the rules of CT scans, echocardiograms and all those resources. We have a four-year plan. We are going to be rolling out improvements across so that people out in the rural parts of this province can actually have equity and be able to access the services that people in urban can access.

That’s our commitment. It’s a four-year plan, Speaker. I’ll just have to say to the Member, he needs to stay tuned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, in preparation for upcoming forest fire season, other than the fifth water bomber announced by the previous Liberal government, what investment is the Minister of Emergency Preparedness making in the Atlantic Wildfire Centre based in Gander?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands, and Emergency Preparedness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m glad that the Opposition is finally paying attention to emergency services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: According to the Auditor General’s report, they didn’t when they were on this side.

Anyway, Speaker, in the emergency services course, we are getting –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

P. FORSEY: – we are getting ready for this years’ fire season. 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. FORSEY: We just introduced, again –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. FORSEY: We just introduced, again –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands, and Emergency Preparedness.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

According to the budget, I mean to say this year, we did a pre-budget announcement of $4.16 million in the fire protection and vehicles and equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: That’s an increase from the $400,000 –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

P. FORSEY: (Inaudible.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, there is a case currently before the courts involving a man accused of murdering his partner in 2024 with the trial now further delayed until 2027.

When asked, lawyers were told there were issues with the availability of Arabic translators. Advocates are concerned that the Jordan Ruling will come into play.

So I ask the minister: What concrete steps are being taken to expedite translation services and ensure timely access to justice?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I can say that, as this matter is before the court, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment as Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.

By way of explanation, I think it’s important for the public to know that the reason for that is in the interests of the public. This parliamentary system that we have in our government consist of three branches – the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. The separation of these three branches ensures their independence. The independence of the Judiciary is sacred and we have to protect that.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Well, Speaker, the accused above, was out on bail before, allegedly, murdering his partner. Is it possible this woman might be still alive today if this province had followed the lead of provinces like PEI and Manitoba by implementing ankle monitoring in cases of intimate partner violence?

The work has been done on ankle monitoring in this province, so I ask the minister: Why are we continuing to drag our feet?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: And, again, Speaker, I have to state what I stated before. Any comment would be inappropriate; the Judiciary is independent of government. It has to be free from any political influence. Any comment by me would affect that impartiality and that neutrality.

So for those reasons, I have to decline any comment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: Which is greater, $6.4 billion or $225 billion?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, if I could quote from The Beverly Hillbillies: naught from naught is naught.

Until we have a deal, all we have is a potential and what we have done, Speaker, is make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get the best deal possible and we’re going to have that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – review carried out and completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: The problem is asking an either-or question.

Okay, direct revenue to the province from the Bay du Nord if Equinor decides to proceed, over 25 years amounts to an average per year $256 million. Direct revenue from the Churchill Falls, 50-year agreement amounts to, on average, $4.5 billion annually.

I ask the Premier: Which deals brings in more direct revenue to the province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, we have a deal for Bay du Nord that will see this province prosper and it was the best deal possible for this province, that’s why we agreed to it.

When we sign a deal for the expansion of Churchill Falls and the construction of Gull Island, it will be the best deal possible for this province. It will be for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is why there hasn’t been a deal signed, but we will make sure of that when that deal does get signed it’s in the best interest of everyone in this province. It’s not another giveaway for the sake of a giveaway. So what this Premier has done is secured the future of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

CBC NL reported a key member of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s Churchill Falls MOU negotiating team is leaving and taking a new job with a Calgary-based energy company.

Will the Premier admit that his government’s lack of commitment to negotiating a deal is undermining our chances of ever achieving one?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, Mr. Parsons has decided to pursue career opportunities elsewhere, that’s his choice to make and I wish him well in his future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of this government.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, I will notice that I will on tomorrow, move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolution for the granting of supply to His Majesty, Bill 14.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

The reason for this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS despite grading being completed two to three times a year, many sections of Route 91, Old Placentia Highway, remain in very poor condition; and

WHEREAS Route 91, is a vital gravel roadway used daily by residents commuting to work and to the hospital in Placentia; and

WHEREAS Route 102-1, from Route 100 to Route 91, is used daily by the motoring public and by Fire and Emergency Services every time the Placentia Lift Bridge is out of service.

THEREFORE, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure to schedule grading a minimum of four times a year. We also request that both routes be maintained with the proper classification of stone.

Speaker, the issue here is in fact the Placentia Lift Bridge is often out of service, when the fishery starts and the fishery has just started. The up and down of the bridge causes it to go out of service, it’s the cold Atlantic Ocean there and the salt.

When we took government in 2015, this bridge was well on the way so we had no choice but to continue on with the bridge. There were tenders and contracts and all kinds of things signed and the bridge was pretty much built when we took government, however, Speaker, the people in Placentia area know now that this was not the right bridge for the area, because often, as I said, the fishery has started and the bridge is constantly out of service.

Over the last 10 years, we’ve done some changes. We put in solar panels, we put in a policy, we done different things but the road that the people have to use in Fire and Emergency Services when this bridge goes out of service is absolutely deplorable and it needs a plan, Speaker. That’s the issue. TI needs to put a plan in place for this specific road.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition again calls for roadwork in the District of Harbour Grace- Port de Grave as well as throughout the province.

WHEREAS the recent annual Roads Plan by the government features a decrease in funding of $66 million from last year’s Roads Plan; and

WHEREAS there are many communities in the District of Harbour Grace- Port de Grave that are in desperate need of roadwork repair; and

WHEREAS the current Roads Plan does not address these needs.

THEREFORE, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Conservative Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to address the road deficiencies throughout the Harbour Grace - Port de Grave District and to ensure safety is put first for the travelers of its roads.

Again, it is certainly very disappointing to see such a significant cut of over $16 million in the Roads Plan. When I attend events in my district, even outside my district, the people of the province are very disappointed to hear this. In particular, in the community of Bishop’s Cover. I mean, yes, we all advocate, of course, to get as much work done as possible but, that said, it’s hard to get every corner. There is work that is much needed in the community of Bishop’s Cove, in the town in my district as well as even neighbouring districts. My neighbouring district, of course, we share a border with Harbour Main. I even hear from constituents in that area where significant roadwork needs to be done but, unfortunately, fell short to seeing this Roads Plan.

I would like to consider the Premier and his minister to go back to the drawing board and, as my colleague, the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi, has called in a ministerial response to have the minister table the assessments by the engineers, the officials in the department to see how these decisions were made. we can't sit down and take this for four years. Roadwork is not political. It should not be political and every person in this province deserves to drive on safe roads as well as pedestrians.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I had no intention of getting up on the response but my hon. colleague from Waterford Valley, who’s my critic here in the House, during his response to my ministerial statement he mentioned, which was about roadwork, he made a very valid comment and I give him credit for it. He said you’re at capacity. We don’t have the capacity. He’s finding out it’s $250 million worth of roadwork. We don’t have the capacity to get that roadwork done.

So I thank him for clarifying that. Maybe he should talk to his colleague from Harbour Grace - Port de Grave because that’s exactly why we right-sized the budget. We can announce –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: We can announce $5 billion worth of roadwork and it looks great and you can go on it. You can just say you’re getting every road paved, there are 13 beers in every dozen but that will not work because you can only do so much, Speaker. In my expert opinion, from staff around me that provide this advice, $250 million is a stretch – $248 is the most we’ve ever done.

So I, actually, right-sized the budget but I want to give credit to the Member from Waterford Valley for getting it right and I hope he educates his colleagues that they understand the process, the predicament we’re in. When capacity increases, maybe we’ll increase it but right now we right-sized the budget and we will have a great year in roadwork for everyone in the province and we’ll have safer roads to drive on.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no more petitions, Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I call Motion 1, introduction and first reading of Bill 13.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Cape St. Francis, that An Act to Amend the Forestry Act, Bill 13, be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It’s been moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Forestry Act, be read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Forestry Act,” carried. (Bill 13)

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill, An Act to Amend the Forestry Act. (Bill 13)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

L. PARROTT: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I call Motion 2.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Premier, that this House concur in the report of the Striking Committee for the 51st General Assembly

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll read this out into the record just so Members here have the opportunity to make sure they’re aware of what Committees they’re on. The importance of these Committees, obviously, don’t have to be – I don’t have to stress them. We all know what our role is in here. So it’s important that we know what Committee we’re on, and certainly with Estimates coming, that we’re there for this.

So the Striking Committee was composed of myself, the Member for Terra Nova, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair and the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi. That was appointed by motion on March 9, 2026.

So then in the order of reference, it was moved that under the authority of Standing Order 65, the Member for Terra Nova, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair and the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi comprise a Committee, and in accordance with the Standing Orders, shall report within the first 20 sitting days the appointment of the list of Members to compose the Standing Committees for the House referred to in the Standing Order.

So the recommendations are that the Committees will be the Government Service Committee. It will be comprised of the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels, the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi and the Member for Waterford Valley.

The Privileges and Elections Committee will be comprised of the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for St. John’s Centre and the Member for Terra Nova.

The Public Accounts Committee will be comprised of the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for St. George’s - Humber, the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi and the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

The Resource Committee as follows: the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate and the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

Social Services Committee: Member for Burin - Grand Bank, Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Member for Labrador West, Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s, Member for St. George’s - Humber and the Member for St. John’s Centre.

The Standing Orders Committee will be the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, Member for Cape St. Francis, Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, Member for St. John’s Centre and the Member for Terra Nova.

Thank you, Speaker.

This is from the Striking Committees, and these are the Committees that will be comprised in the House.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Are there any further speakers to the motion?

Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question.

All those in favour of the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion has been carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Order 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion has been carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Dwyer): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Future Fund Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Future Fund Act.” (Bill 9)

CLERK (Hawley George): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Chair. 

I’ve just got a few questions, again, for the Minister of Finance. The board of trustees, if he can talk a little bit about that. Is it going to stay in place as it was in the previous iteration of this legislation? If there is any change, could you describe that because there’s no change listed in the new legislation brought forward to change the amendments? I just want to confirm that there is no change.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. 

C. PARDY: I would confirm to the hon. Member that there is no change. There is no change but the practicality of the board, now, would, obviously, change because if we were looking at extraordinary circumstances that would be and it’s only restricted now to debt management then the qualifications on that committee would be much different but we have no plan on changing the trustees. I can understand that some might question why you made need the environmental impact there on that trustee or that committee at this particular time. Some may question that but no change.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Chair.

The duties of those said trustees we talked about – so there’s no change in the composition. Maybe you’re going to add someone from an environmental background which, based on what you’ve said about the cleanup of sites, that may make sense. So that would be interesting because I don’t think the membership in the previous iteration has the Department of Environment on there. So maybe that’s something to consider for the new piece.

Sorry, I’ll now get to my next question.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: The ADM for Environment responsible for climate change is a member of that board of trustees.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Perfect. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

The duties, I was getting to the duties. The duties aren’t going to change for what information they’re going to provide. So they’re going to report to the minister quarterly on the basis of the improvements of the fund, invest and dispose of the assets, I guess that will change slightly if there’s no more new investments going in other than just the growth on the fund that’s currently there.

I trustee would exercise the powers of discharging the duties of a trustee, which is standard for this, act honest in good faith, of course, and exercise due diligence. I don’t think any of them are going to change, correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: Just to state that that would be correct, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

You mentioned last week, which was interesting, that the Future Fund will appear, I think you said schedule I or schedule one in the budget process, whether that’s estimates or in the budget document itself. For some clarity, if you could let me know that, and it will appear there every year and show the growth and/or if things have been removed from it. Am I correct in saying that, minister?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I say to the hon. Member, I’m trying to recall which schedule it will be in, but it will be there within the estimates for us to see on Wednesday of this week.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you.

I think last week we – uncovered is not the right word, I don’t want to say it that way because it wasn’t negative in any way – it was through questioning, we determined there wasn’t a space where we would actually understand or know if there were any funds removed out of the Future Fund in between budget cycle. Am I correct in the – when I asked that question last week, I thought you had said that there was no mechanism currently existing. There may be something coming, but there wasn’t anything other than just the budget process; so we would wait until this time of the year every year, first part of April, to determine if there was any money taken out of that fund in between budget cycles. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I say to the Member with the question that I know that on Thursday morning, the Leader of the Official Opposition was on the VOCM Morning Show and I addressed that last week in Question Period on Thursday. Two things he had stated was – one was that the Future Fund will decrease or go down and the other thing was the fact that it would be used as a piggy bank for to pull money out. So I know that I’ve stated this, being now, at that point on time, on Thursday was over 70 hours from the briefing.

Two points of clarification would be the sinking find will continue to grow but it won't grow to degree unless we’re putting more money into it. That would be accurate.

The Future Fund to be used as a piggy bank is inaccurate. That’s inaccurate. For the record, we’ve said numerous times, that there is no appetite to draw form the Future Fund because the Future Fund is to be used exclusively for debt or for liabilities that would occur.

That would be the thing. If the Future Fund – something came that it was going to be applied to debt, how would you know? Why I know that you would certainly know by the next Estimates within that time but one from budget to the next budget, no, there’s probably not a capacity to say that, you know, money was utilized to pay on debt and strategic. The officials would have determined that we were strategic to access that money at this point in time. I can't envision that. To access that money at this point in time, I can't envision that occurring. I can't do that, envision it with the sinking funds being a valued part of reducing debt. I really don’t see that.

We’ve got an insatiable desire to put more money in and we’ve stated, to put more money in, we want to get to a cash surplus. I know we’re all right that if Bay du Nord materializes, if the MOU and the deal on the Upper Churchill – what we’ve got materializes, we may see a cash surplus, maybe, in the not-too-distant future. At that point in time we will eagerly put money into the Future Fund.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: You mentioned sinking fund earlier, just now. I guess in the absence of what happens in between budget cycles, I guess that’s where the Leader of the Opposition went on Thursday morning – was unsure, exactly, what they could be used for.

We know it can be used for paying down debt, of course, like that’s the only thing it can be used for. I guess it can be used, either to pay off a debt entirely, in its entirety, or it could be used to contribute into the sinking funds as they come due. Is that a correct summation?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: The provision is that it can be used to service debt, wherever it to be the most strategic and advantageous for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, then we would service debt. Whether that particular money would be used to service debt at what point in time, I can't begin to tell you.

The only thing I know is that there was nothing ever envisioned that the money would be used for a sinking fund to contribute and pay off debt. I’m not sure if the sinking fund could fit into the category of paying off debt. It’s a fund that mirrors the debt that’s levied but it’s almost a fund in and of itself that is paired with debt that is drawn.

I don’t envision that but could it be used to pay debt from this fiscal to the next fiscal if it proved to be advantageous for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador? I guess, yes, it could.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: I’ll just pick up on one of the words you said, Mr. Finance Minister. If Bay du Nord – we all hope, on this side of the House, Bay du Nord comes and it comes to fruition for the people of the province. You’ve mentioned a number of times, now, insatiable desire to pay debt, which is good and as I’ve said many times, I believe you when you say that that’s what you want to use it for. The scepticism and I guess it’s not really scepticism, we’re just unsure and I want to make sure that when we established a fund like this, it was established with the intention of trying to make it so future generations would benefit. I think you’ve highlighted the differences in our viewpoint on that which is fine. It’s not saying that you don’t the future generations to benefit because that’s not what you said. You want to invest in paying down the debt versus putting into a Future Fund. Not to say you’re not going to put in. it’s just you’re waiting until we’re into a better financial situation, using your words.

Do we envision any – you have more knowledge about the finances now of the province just because you’re going through the budget cycle. Do we envision any assets of better, greater than $5 million that would be able to be put into? That’s the other stipulation in the Future Fund where any sale of those assets would be put into there. Do you see any on the horizon? I’m not asking what they would be but do you see any on the horizon?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I certainly would be aware of any pending sale. I’m not aware and had no discussions privy to that. Keep in mind that we reduced our borrowings for this fiscal by $186 million. That’s what we would have had to borrow and add on to our deficit and our debt – $186 million.

So we did that, and remember, saving money is not the problem. The only thing being is that we’re going to be held accountable for our bond rating agencies if our debt increasing and our deficit increasing. Our goal would be to get into a cash surplus position. I think all investors value our GDP and what we’ve got.

So we will announce that we will lead the country in GDP by a significant amount this year, a significant amount we will lead, and I guess with the pending projects that are happening, it’s creating a lot of interest in investors, but I would say to you that we always have to manage our debt. That is the one that shows out in the lending money, and I would say resource-rich we have and with the lowest borrowing classification in the country, well that speaks volumes. We can’t keep growing the debt to the magnitude and the degree we have been.

CHAIR: The chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

You mentioned bond rating agencies, and that’s true. The current bill that exists today was viewed positively by bond rating agencies. This one is viewed somewhat positively. I’m not saying it’s much of a difference, but from an economic standpoint it probably would be. If we invest – just using very basic numbers – $100 into the Future Fund, and we pay off $100 worth of debt, we’re actually better off putting $100 in the Future Fund because the rate of return is greater than the cost of borrowing that $100, right?

I mean, that’s using your numbers that you gave us last week. You can confirm if my numbers are correct, but we’ve made $64 million on the Future Fund so far since its inception over and above what we put in. That’s what the staff had told us. So there is a point at which I agree with you that paying down debt is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing, but if you can make more money on investing in a Future Fund or even, as you said earlier, sinking funds, then that’s not a poor investment. It’s viewed very positively by the bond rating agencies.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: Mr. Chair, the figure we’ve earned on the Future Fund, by putting the money into the Future Fund is about, since the inception, about $56 million. That’s a large amount and when you look at the earning power of a Future Fund, that is a large amount and who wouldn’t look at that as a positive. There is no doubt about that. But here’s the kicker to that, from the time that our government started that fund and any time you save is a good thing, you’ve added in that time $755 million to the deficit and the debt.

So $56 million is a good figure of a Future Fund that we would say that we ought to be excited about because it did save that, but to think $755 million had to be borrowed for us to maintain our operations, that is the uncomfortable part. If that continues to grow and grow forward, you will know that if you’re looking that the linear of what you invested in, the time you invested, the amount of money, it is the accumulation of the debt that really hits you over a period of time. Everything is cumulative. Everything is cumulative, so it’s the large size of the deficit and the debt that we’ve got to service.

So if we were in cash-surplus position and we didn’t have to borrow for anything and we, all of a sudden had $400 million, then, I think, that is a wonderful time that we can the lion’s share of that go into a savings fund which is a fund for what we call the future. We’ll continue to add that 1 per cent on any debt did not have a sinking fund to it. We will put that money into it, so that works to pay off debt that does not have a sinking fund, that will come due at some point in time in the future.

I think, then we’re into a win-win situation. So the value of the sinking fund, saving money is great. Having to borrow with a compounding debt, that gets larger and larger, that the element and the factor that concerns us. Again, we didn’t have to borrow $186 million this year to put money into the savings account. I think, at least that trims down what us adding to the deficit, to the debt.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Yes, thank you, for correcting the number.

I think, I was told $64 million, maybe it was my math is wrong there. I think, we put in $469 million and the fund is now at $533 million. I thought that gap was about $64 million in return on investment that we’ve received over that time frame. I can stand to be corrected but that’s what I thought it was. That’s okay, I’ll ask my question, if I’m wrong, I’ll apologize to the Chair. I just may have made – there is some good opportunity here based on your numbers that you gave to us last week which I thought was really good. The cost of borrowing was a little under four this year – 3.76, I think you said. The amount of money that we were making on the fund was, previous to last year was 5.6. This past year was over 7 per cent. So just so the public is fully aware, the Future Fund is doing exactly what it was supposed to do which is outperform what it would cost us to borrow that money. There is a rate of diminishing return which I do agree with you on. That’s why we put in sinking funds, as well, at a similar time to pay down debt, to plan to pay down on that debt.

The other really interesting part that the general public will be interested to know, when debt comes due, like the debt the one billion dollars worth of debt that’s coming due in June for the province, that could be 20 years old. They don’t know exact. Maybe you can tell me how old that debt is but I think it’s in the 20s. When we negotiated that back 20 years ago, the rates were higher than we’re paying now for that money.

So we’re saving on that as well. Every time we renegotiate those or it comes due, we hope that continues. I’m not saying it will but it has for the last little bit getting a better rate on the money that we borrowed to fix.

I’ve only got a couple of questions left, Minister of Finance. One is what’s your thoughts on the fact of the, and I think you answered a little bit in Question Period, the Government of Canada establishing a Canada Strong Fund today. Starting that fund with $25 billion over the next three years and then allow some opportunity for, which I thought was an interesting point, some opportunity for individuals to maybe be able to buy into that fund as well, which I thought was an interesting – very early readings on it.

I don’t claim to know everything about it but I just want to get your initial thoughts based on what we’re doing here and I am quite happy that you’re not following through on your election platform of disbanding this entire fund. I am happy about that. I think that’s a very good move that the fund stays. I would like for more contributions to go into it because I think that’s a measured approach. It would be good. Like, I said to you, before, I’m fine with putting stipulations in that it can go on debt only and my colleagues – ask 40 people what they think about something and you may get 40 different responses but I can live with that choice as well.

But I just want to get your initial thoughts on where the Government of Canada is going and the extensive background that he has in finance and economics and, you know, he’s fairly well educated in that area and done some – I think you even said that about him earlier. So just your initial thoughts on that because I know it probably hasn’t got vetted quite heavily through the department yet because it just came out, so.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: It’s a sovereign wealth fund to create – I think to have the nation become more productive for major projects. It’s different from the Future Fund, which I think a genesis was for the future, that you would save money for the future, and I think you and many people have compared it to Norway and my understanding with Norway is that they were debt free when they starting putting money into that. Unfortunately, in our jurisdiction, we haven’t been debt free. At least not – I don’t think since Confederation, have been debt free.

So there are two different funds. But would I agree with the sovereign wealth fund to create for advancing major projects in our country in light of the situation, I think, between us and our neighbour down south. I don’t disagree with that. I think that’s probably a good venture. But in ours, we want to make sure that we do leave it for the future, but to save money is one aspect. To not increase the debt for our future generations is another one which I think all 40 Members of the House would agree that if we can reduce our debt that we leave for our future, that is planning for the future too.

So I don’t think you can extricably say that one is different than the other. One to save, then the other one is to reduce the debt that you’ve got for future generations. If we achieve that to a significant degree, then that’s a good thing and, in my opinion, that would be planning well for the future as well.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Chair.

The federal government has debt as well, as we’ve highlighted. Their financial position is in a good situation, which is great in the (inaudible). I think two things can be true at the same time, and I think what we’ve uncovered through conversations here is that two things can be true.

If there’s no one on this side of the House – I think the hon. Member for Waterford Valley had mentioned that paying down debt is never a bad thing. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House will ever say that that’s a bad thing. I think, there’s a measured opportunity that we have and that’s where those questions, I’m coming from with those questions, the saying two things can be true is not wrong in this case. It is good to invest in this and we’re getting a very high rate of return. It’s really good when we put money into sinking funds, if we’re getting a good rate of return. I think you said somewhere over 8 per cent. These are getting 7.6 per cent, so it’s pretty close. It’s a little higher in the sinking funds which is good and, I think, your own words, behoves us all in this House of Assembly, when you say words like we’re going to lead the country in GDP this year. Not by a little, I think, by a lot is what you said, which is always good.

That’s part of the reason why the Future Fund is such an important piece for me and why I’m talking about it so much.

We have the ability today when we are leading the country to put money away for those children that we have and paying down debt will help that too. If there’s only one thing I can say is that it would be great if we could do a little bit of both and, I think, having a government be directed to do some measure would be a good thing. I think, the public and bond rating agencies and everyone would view that very positively.

My last question, I guess, is over the last – since we started talking about this last week – I’m sure nothing has changed with respect to the thoughts and the process that you had in mind of doing this, not putting any lockbox around it again or looking at – obviously keeping it to debt servicing only, which is your prerogative and fine. There are no other parameters that we’ve talked about here over this past week that gave you pause for thought for any moment on slight changes to the legislation.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I think, in your briefing that you had, they used the words credit positive, if we were just going to focus the Future Fund on debt, somewhat what we would have. Any time that we add to invest in anything we need to borrow money. We need to borrow money, that’s the thing that we have some reservations about, is that we need to borrow money to do it.

The oil industry is pretty volatile. I think, we all know that the oil industry is volatile. The interest rate and with the uncertainty in the world is another thing that if someone is going to predict what that’s going to happen in the next one to two years, well, we’d like to hear from you, if you have that. Sure there are ones that can make a prediction that we can do it.

Keep in mind that on December 31, the Future Fund was valued at $533 million. In 20 years, that will be $1.4 billion. So it’s going to grow. Would we like to put more money into it; yes, we would. The thing would be is that is that advantageous to borrow money to put money into it, and that’s probably what we have a difference of opinion on. We agree that on the sinking fund, to attach for debt, we’d like to increase by 1 per cent, and I think I gave the example on Thursday – at least I hope I did – that if we had $4 billion debt, then instead of putting in $60 million, we’re going to put in right now $100 million. We’re adding another 40 into that sinking fund. We’ve got to borrow. We’ve got to borrow for that.

You can ask and say what’s the difference between that and borrowing more and put into the Future Fund. We’re thinking that attaching the sinking fund to debt that we have to get it paid off earlier and for it to grow, we think that’s right.

So while you say some combination of it, then I think we’re doing that, only thing we’re putting that 1 per cent more into the sinking fund which will be $40 million that we’re going to put into a for savings account to pay off debt when it comes due. So we are doing that, and I know that it’s not going into that Future Fund, but the only thing being is that, again, the money that we accrued and made off the Future Fund, and we look at in the last 10 years, our debt grew by $12.9 billion, that is the factor that we’ve got to look into and say listen, we’re going to be as frugal and spend as fiscally conservative as we could going forward, to look at it. That’s our goal, to do that.

We would hope in the very near future that we’re into a surplus that we can put some money into savings and pay off more debt. Boy that would be an exciting day that we would have here in this Chamber, and I think we’ll all take great pleasure in that.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s Centre and Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Just a question with regard to withdrawal. I think the minister has said that it would be identified – anything, I guess its progress, its status – would be identified in Estimates in budgetary documents. So I’m just curious then, how would withdrawals from the Future Fund be communicated to the public aside from that. Is there another way that any withdrawals would be communicated to the public other than waiting for the budget process?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I’m not sure now if my officials may send me a message as to any other way but I know Estimates will. The only thing I could inform the House was that there is no desire to pull money out of the Future Fund. That’s not, but if we pull it out, because it’s advantageous to pay on debt because we think it has more value, then would the House know of that? I don’t think there’s any provision here for it to be indicated to be informed of that. Sinking funds is committed that you don’t touch a sinking fund. Once you put into sinking fund, there is no – I mean that is legislatively put in there. The only thing we’re legislatively putting in there now is that we pull it out to pay debt but how soon would you know, would you know before the next budget? I’m not sure what capacity it is for you to know that but I know that when we look at Estimates and you sit down in Estimates and you look at the line item, which will come up in this week, next week. Then that’s a fair question, but will you have knowledge if we decide to, where it is advantageous to take money out of that and pay debt, in advance of the next budget year, if a minister told you that I will certainly share with you if eve that occurred but no, is it in legislation, no.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s Centre and Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: So, why wouldn’t the government communicate that? Why wait until the budgetary process, because as we see, the process seems to have been delayed this year until the last possible moment and other than the few Members in the minister’s district and others who religiously watch and tune into the proceedings of the House of Assembly, it’s unlikely that many are going to know about it, nor is it going to be reported. I guess the question is: Why wouldn’t that be part of it? Secondly, why wouldn’t that be something the government would automatically do or does this require now an amendment to this for that happen? I guess it’s about transparency, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I say to the hon. Member, there is no difference now than what it was in the Future Fund previously. Through the budget process and the loan bill, it would have to be clearly stated as far as the movement of money and where the money is being accessed and going to. That would have to be part of the House of Assembly proceedings.

I would think in the planning process that if we had and are going to use money this year from the Future Fund, then I would think that that would be part of this budget process that you’re going to see coming up this year – coming up next week, the week after, in the Estimates this week. That’s part of the budget process. So if we were going to move any money for debt that would come out, the House would be aware of it through that budget process that we would embark upon.

But I think your question was can it occur somewhere between this year and the next fiscal end, if something happened. My understanding is that that ought not to happen, it shouldn’t happen because legislatively, it has got to be through the budget process where that would occur. For money to be taken out, it has got to be part of the budget process.

So the line item comes up in this budget item. The line item is there. If there’s no mention in the loan bill that money will be paid for debt or money coming out of the Future Fund, then I would say it ought not to occur in advance of the next budgetary process next March.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s Centre and Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Two things, I guess, Chair – thank you.

I know the minister said this has not been the process so far. I would put it to the minister that this is a new administration with a promise to do things differently, to be more transparent, and I guess, as you can see, re-establishing or redefining, reimagining the Future Fund. That’s the first thing. I can’t see why they wouldn’t.

So I guess the question becomes – I think the minister said this ought not – I think the minister said any, like, knowledge or information of the Future Fund being withdrawn ought not to be made public, and I apologize if I misheard the words. That’s the first thing. Secondly, then in light of the minister’s own promise and the government’s promise to be that much more transparent, would he object to an amendment that would allow for that, that would allow government to to make people aware when money if being withdrawn to service the debt?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I would say to the hon. Member that if ever the usage of those funds were going to be utilized for debt, I, certainly, have no problem in making sure that I inform the hon. House that that would be the intention and a rationalization for that to be done.

I can give you my word on that for the official record that would be here, that if ever those funds were ever going to be accessed, then this hon. House will be aware of any, we’ll say, deduction from that Future Fund.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question, I guess, is about the – I understand that we’re adding an additional 1 per cent to our sinking fund contributions. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: That is correct. That wouldn’t be in the – I link but you know that’s in policy.

Good. Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: I guess the – so we talked about some of the purposes of these sovereign wealth funds. One of which, of course, there’s the rainy-day fund aspect that some sovereign wealth funds are used for to get us through tough times, whether it’s a pandemic or collapse in the industry or something like that.

There’s also, of course, intergenerational wealth which we’re talking about as well. I know funds often pay only contributor interest on the fund to operational things or to other generations.

Then, of course, there is, as we talked about earlier, the option like with the new fund that was announced by the prime minister which, a big part of that seemed to be to do investment in strategic priorities. So given the fact that we’re adding, contributing more to our debt, sinking funds, to cover off debt better in the minister’s opinion, why are we deciding to limit ourselves by taking away the ability to respond to extraordinary circumstances or strategic priorities? I guess I just want to understand the rationale for why government wants to limit itself in that regard.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I think, not I think, I know that at the briefing they mentioned about the investors and the bond rating agencies would look at that if there was some other political means that which the money was going to be used for, for some special project of which Cabinet decided, then they didn’t look as favourably upon that. Didn’t look as favourably upon that, as what they would if a withdrawal was used for debt management.

Now that is the term that was used at the briefing, even though I didn’t hear it now, but my understanding would be, that’s where it would be credit positive, that they would think and that was the deal.

If you’re looking at – and when we look at extraordinary circumstances and think that some event may occur, then there’s always a grey area with that too. When I say that it still comes down to a political involvement that you’re going to have to decide.

If I said to you that we had a naturel disaster in the community of Dunlop – you notice I use one that don’t exist, Dunlop. So Dunlop had a natural disaster and you figure what the amount for the remediation of Dunlop would be around $14 million. Would that be an extraordinary circumstance?

So in my office we had three people, not that long ago, and I said well, I’ll give my opinion. I wouldn’t class that as an extraordinary circumstance. The other two that were in my office thought it would be, so we have three people, there was a difference of opinion. It came down to like a Cabinet position and a Cabinet position would be the majority are going to rule as to what is – so we have a grey area of what would be an extraordinary circumstance. There’s no grey area of paying debt. You pay debt as long as the feasibility, but what it wanted to do was to eliminate the grey area where it may be used for some special projects or some other ones and you might say, well, I think, the Leader of the Third Party now on Issues and Answers might have mentioned about the extraordinary circumstances at that time, well, the previous government had a contingency fund of $200 million and I stated in the House and, I think, you know we had it because of the unknown trade sensitivities with our southern neighbours. We didn’t know what to expect, so we had a contingency of $200 million that if any extraordinary circumstance arose that was going to negatively hit us financially, we had that fund available as a contingency fund. That would serve an extraordinary circumstance.

So we’ve got the ability. This year in the budget, I think you’ll find out – here’s another little tidbit – you’ll find out that it’s not quite $200 million, but we’re not far off. We’re going to have the contingency there if something ever happened.

One thing I would say to you is that any time you’ve got an extraordinary circumstance that is really a clear one, we’re going to have the federal government being participants in whatever occurs too. I can’t think of one that we’ve had where the federal government has not been a part of some natural disaster or something that affects the province negatively.

So I think we’ve got that covered. It doesn’t have to be the Future Fund, but we do have that. But know that that will affect the deficit and the debt. As we pull out of that contingency fund, it is still going to add to our deficit.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: Thank you, Chair, and minister.

Yes, I understand, I guess, there would be contingencies. Could you tell us, I guess, how those contingencies are held. Are they held in cash or how are they held? What interest are we drawing on those rather than being in a fund like the Future Fund.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: Good question.

My understanding – and I’m going to be corrected – my understanding would be that they’re held in cash that we’ve got that we can access that money in the event that we need it.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: You can anticipate probably, the next question is why wouldn’t we consider using our Future Fund as a means to maintain a certain amount of – and I know, again, a mixture of cash and other investment instruments, of course. But to have this – whether it’s a rainy day fund or a strategic priorities fund, so that while – that we are, I guess, getting interest and investment money on that while we are continuing to – while we’re anticipating, I guess, using those funds in ways other than debt where it makes sense.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I think you mentioned at the end other than debt. But the thing is the amount of debt that we’ve got, and that’s the bottom line, to try to reduce what the borrowing would be. I know that when I say the cash, we’ve got the ability to borrow. When we borrow, it is – yes, it is a cash, but really it’s the ability to be able to borrow it. Once we pull it out, then it becomes – the materiality of it becomes existent. But really it’s there in case we need it. We’ve got the ability to access it. Then when it’s pulled out it is, certainly, cash. I would think, to put money into the fund with the amount of debt we’ve got, and we’ve got to borrow it to do so and add it; that is the issue. There’s nothing secretive about that.

I would say to you that, I’ve stated before, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island had mentioned about an individual that had a mortgage on their house. Why wouldn’t they continue to save? He’s correct. You would suggest that they would. The only other would be is that you had a large amount of debt on credit card and all of a sudden the interest you’re paying on it and that was building. I think most investors would say address that before you save because you’re probably going to have more money going out on the other side. I want to say more money.

Again, it’s a job to know what the value of the borrow to the expanding debt that we’ve got. That is the issue. We think that we are investing and saving for the future. We think we do by reducing the debt with the increase in this sinking fund is going to pay us dividends. The $1 billion debt that has come forward, that the hon. Member mentioned earlier, there is no sinking fund attached to that. That will be 2.5 per cent, now, will be attached to that as we recycle it out, again, right, future debt payment.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: Yes, I guess just the analogy with the credit card, I guess, is the issue I have in terms of the interest rate we’re talking about. I think we said it wasn’t correct – 3.76 per cent was what it cost to borrow for us last go-round.

So in terms, I guess, the analogy, with the credit card versus, I say, a mortgage payment. It probably doesn’t work. I think the borrowing money and paying down debt versus contributing to a Future Fund for strategic purposes and for other uses.

I think there are two issues here. One is the validity of investing in that Future Fund, putting something away for a rainy day, the next generation, whatever. Then there’s also this issue of whether or not we would actually use the funds for other purposes or restrict ourselves in this way to, only, especially, when we are and it sounds like in the budget, we are going to increase our contributions to our debt through the sinking funds.

So we have that mechanism to do that. It seems redundant to do it with the Future Fund as well. That’s my point and I was just wondering if in terms of why the rationale, again, to limit yourselves. I know I have full faith that government will do the right thing, of course, but why would you not give yourself the ability, the flexibility.

In terms of credit agencies and whether or not it would be considered credit-positive or whatever that means, I’m sure that having the funds available to either rescue ourselves because of an industry failing or a natural disaster or something like that would also be seen as – and having that ability to do that would be seen as something that credit agencies would see as a positive factor, for sure.

So I don’t know if you, Minister, would think that’s true or not, or is there any other reason why we would take away government’s power to use thing for anything other than debt.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: We had: We should take away the political power to be able to use the money for a political purpose. That’s it. Whether you were in power or whether we’re in power. All we’re saying was: Take away the ability that we can utilize that money for any other purpose other than debt.

I went to a Finance meeting in Ottawa, and in that Finance meeting, when I had an opportunity to speak, I talked about the Microsoft licences and how it would benefit us in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we went with the federal government and, you know, piggybacked on the federal government for the Microsoft licensing while the savings would be about – I think about $890,000 is what we would save with that. But I also took the – talking about we want now to work together, we want to build a nation.

My final comment to the Minister of Finance in the federal government was – he excitedly proclaimed that they have the best credit rating that exists, the AAA. You know what? That was exciting. But I sat at the table with the federal government with the best one, and here we were in Newfoundland and Labrador with the lowest one of all provinces.

I would say if the debt increases, if the deficit continues to increase without a fiscal plan, then I would fear that not only being the lowest, but our greatest fear would be that we would be lower even. All that has a cause and effect, and I don’t know what point. If we’re looking at 33 per cent or 43.5 per cent as far as debt to GDP, per capita, what we would have then that’s a large number. That’s the largest in Canada.

Our GDP for our resources is fantastic. We just got to make sure that we match the expenditures that keep it in check. We can’t and don’t desire to have a lower credit rating than we currently have. So I’m just saying, we’ve got to be accountable, not you, you’ll hold us accountable going forward but our goal is to try to get, to say, listen the lenders are going to say, they’re getting it right. We’re going to pay on debt. We’ve got a plan to tackle the debt going forward that it doesn’t continue to grow. That’s on us, now for those decisions.

All I’m saying is we’re going to invest in the future with the sinking funds. We’re going to maintain that Future Fund with no desire to pull anything out of it, nothing. We don’t desire to pull money out; we want it to grow. We have a desire to put money in.

The credit positive from the lenders, if we take the political influence out of that, that all of a sudden is exclusively for debt, that is what they look at as being credit positive.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m going to ask for a bit of leeway, because I stood here listening to this, the fund itself, Future Fund and I seen people on this side of the House and a few on the other side go 10 or 15 minutes on the MOU, how that would be a Future Fund for us.

We’ve seen people give full 20 minute speech on it, so I’m going to go on the MOU a bit, about the Future Fund if we had the agreement signed with Quebec. I just give a bit of history –

CHAIR: I remind the Member that we are talking about Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Future Fund Act. If you want leave to talk about something else, you’ll have to ask the House for the leave.

E. JOYCE: Leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Thank you, got leave, thank you.

I have leave, so, Mr. Chair, what I’m going to say, no one shouted out no leave, so I assume I have leave, thank you.

What I’m going to do, Mr. Chair –

CHAIR: One second, Member. As I’m just informed that leave has to be unanimous so I’ll ask the House.

Does the hon. Member have leave?

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I’m just asking for clarity as we have a few (inaudible). Is the Member asking for leave to speak to something different than what’s on the floor, and if we’re granting leave, I would look to the Government House Leader, are we setting a precedent now for the rest of the spring as we move forward, that that’s okay.

We got called a lot of times on relevance in the last three weeks by the Government House Leader to say this is not relevant; this is not a money bill. So I would ask for that, in fairness.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Chair, what I would say is there was a clear ruling from the Speaker last week about the latitude and a Member getting to that point. I haven’t heard anything yet that would cause me to stand and say point of order, relevance. So if he goes there I’ll stand, no different –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: What was the question?

CHAIR: He asked for leave to speak –

L. PARROTT: He asked?

CHAIR: – to tie the MOU to this legislation.

L. PARROTT: I think we have to hear what you have to say.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Do I have leave or not?

CHAIR: Does the Member have leave?

L. DEMPSTER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Okay. No problem. No problem.

CHAIR: Leave has not been granted.

E. JOYCE: I just want to put it on the table that the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair would not let me speak on the MOU in this House of Assembly, which would help us give us a Future Fund. So I just want to put that on the record. The exact same minister –

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Just for clarity, and I am always thankful for Hansard in this honourable House. Just for clarity, my question to the Government House Leader was if we are debating the Future Fund, well we’re in committee on the Future Fund, is it okay to talk about something else because up until now it hasn’t. That’s all. I didn’t put any words in anyone’s mouth, or whatever. That was just what I was seeking clarity on.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Chair, I answered that question. So a Member of the House doesn’t need leave prior to speaking. So what I would say is that the Speaker clearly ruled here last week that individuals have latitude to get to the point, and if they don’t get there, then either the Chair or the Speaker will call them on relevance, or me as the individual or anyone in this House has the right to stand on a point of order, Article 48 (1) or (2) and speak about relevance. The Member, in my opinion, has every right to get up and speak, and if he goes outside of relevance, then we have the ability to stand up. So he doesn’t need leave in order to speak, and that was ruled here last week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: I know. Fair. I know.

CHAIR: So leave hasn’t been granted and we’ll see where the conversation goes. I ask the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair –

The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: I just find it’s very odd that the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair let her own Member speak for 20 minutes on the same issue I’m trying to bring up. Now, all of a sudden, I’ve got to ask for leave to get it. Why are you scared about the MOU that you guys went and signed? Why are you so scared? Why are you so scared about the MOU? How are you going to put that into your Future Fund? Don’t bully me. I’m speaking.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Please address the Chair.

E. JOYCE: Don’t go bullying me. You’re not going to bully me by speaking about me, I’ll tell you that. I can tell you that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

E. JOYCE: I am speaking. I am speaking so please respect me and my speech, please. You’re going to listen to me? That’s good.

The MOU could’ve been great. If we had to get a good MOU, it would’ve been a great Future Fund. So, Mr. Speaker, what I did as an Independent when this came into the House in January, I said, well, they have majority. The Liberal government has majority, so I want to make it strong.

So I worked with another Member and the Leader of the NDP to come up with an Oversight Committee. We set out the grounds for the Oversight Committee. In it, it says: Memorandum of understanding, December 12, MOU, progress towards a definitive agreement and provide advice to Cabinet. Now if we had to get this properly done, we would’ve had a Future Fund. This is my point on this MOU. We wouldn’t be here today talking about this. So what happened?

This is the question about how the Future Fund got derailed – how the Future Fund got derailed. We passed that motion in this House of Assembly. We passed it and it was part of the government law that we voted in this House and we approved. Now someone changed that when they wrote the Chair of the Independent Review Committee in May – almost five months later – to change the terms of reference. If we didn’t change the terms of reference, we might not be here today. We might not be here today with that. So this is why this is important when we’re talking about a Future Fund for everybody, is that we could’ve been done here today.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read it, the letter. This is the letter to the Independent Oversight Committee: “In our view, involvement on the Panel and Term Sheets negotiation process is an inappropriate level of integration with not only the negotiation team, but it also inserts the Panel into the pre-existing oversight role by core government and its own advisors.”

Mr. Chair, the question I have to ask and I don’t know if this was even brought up in the House, if this was written – and this is a big question for me, I hear all the questions about oversight of this and how we’re going to get the Future Fund, how we’re going to handle that Future Fund. I just want to make it quite clear, Mr. Chair, I want to make it quite clear that if this has had to go properly, we mightn’t be here but here’s the point. This was written by the clerk of the Executive Council on her last day in office.

So the question I have to ask, because this could have been part of our Future Fund which we would need it. the question I have: Who gave her the direction to write that letter to change what we agreed to in this House? Who did it? Explain to me who did it.

When the Opposition now is talking about the Future Fund, what we could have had with the MOU, who changed the terms for the Independent Oversight Committee in this House that we voted on, who changed it?

Not only did the Clerk change is on the last day, she did not do that on her own. A clerk of the Executive Council don’t write that letter on May 3, the same day the current Leader of the Opposition became Premier and then – the same thing now, Mr. Chair, because the Oversight Committee, which could have taken care of all of this here for us, was the legal counsel for government who three weeks later became chair of the Executive Council. And, just for the record, the Independent Oversight Committee, asked for 37 – I think it was 37 or 27 items, from Newfoundland Hydro, guess what? They got every one. They got every one.

So their interpretation of what we agreed to on the Oversight Committee, was the same that they had, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had, the same that the Committee had because they were given the information until May 3, a letter was written saying oh by the way you can’t get that no more, you can’t get that.

So how serious was the government at the time, about a Future Fund that they’re always talking about if we had to get the MOU when someone like myself whose a lonely independent in this House, with the help of the Leader of the Third Party and the other independent who was sitting here, that we tried to get proper oversight and then it was changed four months later, without our knowledge, changed.

So why don’t someone in the Liberal caucus – the leader, the leader is sitting here now – explain to us who wrote – and you know who was the minister of the industry and trade at the time? The campaign manager for the Premier.

So here we had the department who is giving legal council – sitting on that floor, giving legal council – getting information that you’re allowed to get and then, all of a sudden, he’s going to go Clerk of the Executive Council. Then the letter was written the day that the former Clerk was going out with direction. We all know – anybody in government knows the Clerk does what the Executive Council or the Premier’s Office wants.

So to write that letter four months later to change – we agreed to it and I did it on good faith. I did it on good faith because I truly want the best for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. I want the best for Newfoundland and Labrador. I was hoodwinked – I was hoodwinked. I’ll say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when we all agreed to this here, the Leader of the Third Party and the other Opposition Member, we did it in good faith.

So when you want to stand up and talk about: We could’ve had a Future Fund if the MOU – why did you play games with the MOU? Who gave – that’s the question the Leader of the Opposition is hearing now – who gave the Clerk on May 3 the authority and direction to write the letter to the Oversight Committee to say, by the way, you can’t get this information that you’ve got 27 times or 37 times prior.

So when you want to talk about the Future Fund, I’m all for a Future Fund. We had a great opportunity, and I sincerely hope that the report comes back that we’re going to get on track again for it. I sincerely hope. I can tell you if anything like I did before with the previous one, to get oversight, which is already done before we even start, that if there’s something going to be good for Newfoundland and Labrador, just count me in because I’m not going to form any government. I’m not here to have any beefs with anybody.

But I guarantee you one thing, Mr. Chair, I am not going to be suckered in to do what I think was right for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and have it changed behind my back because they wanted it done.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I’ll remind the Member that his time is expired.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don’t need to respond.

C. PARDY: No.

CHAIR: No response?

C. PARDY: No.

CHAIR: Okay.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

It’s a very important piece of legislation and we have some questions in Committee. So the minister has said that $186 million this year – my understanding of what he said, I welcome the minister to correct – there would have been $186 million go into the Future Fund but that will not go into the Future Fund. Is my understanding that will now go on the debt? Can you confirm my understanding of that is correct or? Can you discuss the $186 million that would have gone in the Future Fund and what’s going to happen with that?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: The Member is correct, $186 million is what I referred to. We do not have to borrow that amount now to pay in. We don’t have to borrow. Our borrowings will be less that $186 million.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Okay, thank you.

So instead of – you’ve looked at how much it is going cost the government to run your programs and policies that you want and then instead of borrowing another $186 million, you’re using that money from what would have gone in the Future Fund otherwise.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: Instead of borrowing money to pay into the Future Fund, that is correct. We would have had to borrow $186 million to put into the Future Fund.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

And is $186 million the amount of money the government estimated would have been otherwise put in from oil and gas revenues?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I would say to the Member that is my understanding.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

So I have some other questions, let’s see and some thoughts. I heard what the minister was saying about extraordinary circumstances and that he asked two or three people in his office and they had different ideas. I would suggest though that there would be legal precedent for all the wording you can put in the legislation. Anything that, if the government wished to put money in for certain circumstances of the government that could be enabled. It’s not a subject. I’m sure there is wording that the government could put in such a bill which would have legal precedent and does not – the subjective opinion of the minister and other people in the department.

(Inaudible) here and that’s fine.

I do want to note, the Fraser Institute discussed what the government is doing with the Future Fund. They believe that the government should be more aggressive with investing more money in the Future Fund and they suggested recently that 100 per cent of oil revenues should go into the Future Fund. I just want to put that on the record, in Committee.

As well, if we look at the Centre for Policy Alternatives, I don’t always agree with their policy, I guess positions, but in this case, I do certainly agree with them that additional discipline, financial discipline, would significantly benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of adding more money to the Future Fund and not, kind of closing it off to not add any more. So if the minister would like to rebut that or anything, I certainly welcome his feedback.

I’m glad to hear that the minister is amenable to a potential amendment in terms of disclosure in terms of what the government – what and how the government discloses to the Legislature in terms of when money is taken out of the Future Fund.

Now the minister said – and I believe him – that the government has no plans to take money out of the Future Fund, even to pay debt at the moment. But I think it would certainly be responsible and prudent to have a condition in the bill that requires the government to disclose to the House of Assembly, the Legislature, and other ways to disclose when the Legislature is closed so that it is transparent with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when money is taken out of the Future Fund.

We actually have an amendment when we get to the clause around that. Maybe that could be a friendly amendment or, you know, maybe the minister’s team will beat us to it and that’s fine too. The spirit of this is that I think it’s important – we think it’s important, the Liberal caucus, that the government – whatever government of the day, if money is taken out of the Future Fund, that it is disclosed to the Legislature and we don’t wait until the next year or the next Estimates to find that out.

What else do I have here? So the minister talked about the debt, and the province does have a large debt and a large deficit, and I share many of the minister’s concerns about that. I did want to add to – I guess rebut some of the comments that the minister made that since I’ve been here, we’ve been getting $500 million a year from Hibernia which we’ve had to use, not for improving services, not for paying down debt, but we’ve had to use so that power rates did not increase significantly for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That’s $500 million a year that we’ve had to spend extra because of Muskrat Falls.

So I’m not trying to be sensational, but that is a fact. The extra $500 million we’ve got from the federal government. They gave us their portion of Hibernia and we put that on electricity rates so that they would not significantly increase for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So if you add up the $500 million, I’m not sure what year we started that, it wouldn’t be too hard to work it out, that would be a few billion dollars, Chair. So I just want to add that to the record as well.

I’m going to dive into some questions and obviously I’m sure the minister may have feedback from some of the things I’ve mentioned, but I’ve heard the minister mention that this bill, the Future Fund is now a cousin of a sinking fund. I’m just wondering if, in your remarks, if you would elaborate on what you mean by the fact that the Future Fund will now be a cousin of a sinking fund.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: Thank you to the Member.

I notice that when the previous government had the Future Fund Act there was no disclosure requirement included in that fund. I know that if were on the other side asking that question, why wouldn’t you have a disclosure requirement in the fund? In particular if you had a variety of the special projects that it could be used for, but we didn’t ‘because I know that that was the decision. Here, it’s only debt.

To be notified as to when you’re going to pull or if ever you decide that it is going to be strategically pulled out, everything, all financial statements have to be audited and they’re audited and released in reports in this House of Assembly. So any movement that would become from a fund, would be passed on to the floor of this House of Assembly that there was financial – in the financial statements that are audited.

Another thing, just for the record, is that if you ever made a quick withdrawal from the Future Fund, you put that money and you put the investment originally at risk, whereas on the sinking fund, you are planning as to when you’re going to create that sinking fund, when it’s most advantageous for the debt to come due.

So pulling money out of an existing fund, that’s got the longevity would be a much greater risk than what you borrow because you have the choice to borrow at a time that is convenient for you. Borrowing at a time that would be convenient for the people.

I’m not sure if I answered the Member’s question anywhere there? If I didn’t, please ask again.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I’d ask the minister: Have you heard – I assume in the last week or two since this has been introduced, you’ve heard public feedback about this. I was just wondering if the minister – if there’s any – have you heard feedback? What’s the nature of that feedback? If the minister would like to elaborate on that, that would be appreciated.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: What we had to respond to, I say to the Member, was some incorrections that were out there in the public and even maybe from selected media. Like, if we were going to be raiding the Future Fund, I think that was a wrong title for an initiative to know that we weren’t just putting it in, but we weren’t raiding it.

I have stated before that it was stated in the public forum that we’re going to use it as a piggy bank, and that’s a little bit disingenuous as well. We’re not planning on pulling money out of this Future Fund. It is just simply to know that we don’t wish to increase our deficit and our debt by doing so at this time, and we will do it in a cash surplus. Do we value saving? One hundred per cent. Who doesn’t? RESPs, RRSPs, I would recommend, yes, without a doubt. But I know it depends on the credit and the availability of finances from each and every household that would be in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So what I’ve responded to were basically innuendos or falsities about what our intention was here in the House of Assembly with the Future Fund. Again, the fund is not going to drop in value. It will continue to add value, as much or to what it would have been if we were borrowing money to put into it? No. Do we wish to use it as a piggy bank to pull money out when we desire? Absolutely not.

So I say to the Member: Those are the items that I probably had to address, mostly in the questions in the media and probably from the two or three emails that I may have received in relation to that. Just to restate what I just stated to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I just had two questions for the minister wondering if he has spoken to credit-rating agencies about this bill as a result of this bill being public now, if there’s any feedback from them, and also wondering if the minister consulted with the board? I’m not sure what the term is, if they’re a board of directors or the –

C. PARDY: Trustees.

S. STOODLEY: The trustees, thank you.

I was wondering if the minister consulted with the trustees of the Future Fund on this change.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: We have not spoken to the bond rating agencies in this in particular, but I know that overall with the budget, that’s on schedule for Wednesday morning. Of course, we will engage at that time. Every action we’ve taken we’ve taken with – I shouldn’t say every action; a significant portion of the decisions we’ve made in relation to the Future Fund had the bond raring agencies in mind.

As I stated, to control the political ability to be able to withdraw funds, we think that would be credit positive. That we know. The bond rating agencies would love to see us put more money in as we all would, 40 of us, but they are most concerned with the debt load of the province and the deficit and that is what we’re hopefully addressing here and we’ll continue to address in the future time.

I think you had asked a question about the bond rating agencies and when it comes to the Board of Trustees, a member from that Board of Trustees have communicated to the other trustees to explain what we were doing with this. As far as feedback, I can’t begin to tell you what the feedback would be.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

I have a few specific questions on the specific clauses. If we go to 1. (j.1), the definition of surplus cash position. Again, I guess I’m looking for – I know we’re not in a surplus cash position now. The minister was optimistic that we could be in a surplus cash position in the future, which is excellent. So I just want to make sure we understand this clause and this definition. So, “surplus cash position” means the financial position where the amount of cash on hand is in excess of the amount of cash required to fund all operational and capital expenditure requirements of the province, excluding amounts borrowed to fund such expenditures.”

So in terms of the capital expenditure requirements of the province, I’m wondering if the minister can elaborate and expand on what that might mean for a layperson watching here today?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: It will be the time that we do not have to borrow. We will not have to borrow that year. Again now, with the exception of having debt come due. But as far as our operational budget where we managed revenues versus expenditures, when we have more revenues come in that are greater than the expenditures that would be a cash surplus, then at that point in time, we will look at investing it into the Future Fund at that time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

So this is vital to, I guess a few clauses in the bill. So let’s say the government has additional cash, which is excellent, they do not need to borrow to fund the operational and capital expenditure requirements of the province. So thinking about when that might happen during the calendar year, so the minister said any money taken out or added into the Future Fund will be in the Estimates, which is excellent.

But I’m just trying to think, like, right now, the budget is on Wednesday. At some point in the next few weeks or months, I’m sure the government will vote for their budget because they have a majority government, as is their prerogative. But we’re still – let’s say – I know we’re still approving invoices and the public service, I imagine, is still approving invoices for the last financial year.

So I would say yes, on the whole, we understand. During the year, we will get an updated binder of the updated final numbers of each department, including the House of Assembly, during the year. So I’m just wondering realistically, from the minister, I guess that there could be a position where they might think that they’re in a surplus cash position, but it is partway through the year, farther than now, after budget is voted on, when all the accounts are reconciled, that they know for sure the amount of money that could or would go into the Future Fund.

So I’m just wondering about the time between when things are published in the Estimates. I would just appreciate it, which is an estimate, and then when – I guess part of my question is also when is the cut-off for the final amount of cash surplus, let’s say, to go into the Future Fund during the calendar year?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: When the budget is debated in the House of Assembly, the Estimates, are presented and we participate in those and we vote on the budget on hand, then we’ve approved everything that would be into the Estimates and that is what government has a right to be able to continue with and to do in the next fiscal.

We immediately begin working on next year, for next year’s budget as well. At that point in time if we’re changing anything that, materially, then that would come out in the next budget cycle to know as to what plans we would have. So, Future Fund wasn’t mentioned as far as touching or accessing any money within the loan bill or anything that we would have this time. So, you wont see any action on the Future Fund and the distance between the Estimates and when it becomes in legislation and activated would be at the end of this sitting, the end of the debate.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I’m going to move right into another question. I’m just going to think about what the minister said, I might circle back to that.

Wondering if Sovereign Wealth Funds and this idea was on the agenda when the minister met with the other finance ministers for the FTP meetings and if so what kinds of discussions they had.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: If I misunderstand the question or I missed something there, Member, do please correct me again. I think, when it came down, I think the question was the fact that did we discuss this fund, with the finance ministers? No, we did not.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

I’m wondering if, I guess, when the finance ministers met, with the federal finance minister, was the topic of Sovereign Wealth Funds or provincial wealth funds like the Future Fund a topic of discussion or on the agenda and or was there a resolution noted in a resolution about it?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I try to listen very, very attentively at all those meetings and not to my knowledge was it ever mentioned, at the meeting.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

So I’m going to just circle back and maybe the minister mentioned this and I missed it. I know that we debate this now, there’s a budget. At some point the budget will receive Royal Assent but there’s still money being moved around between accounts, we’re past the financial year now, but we’re still approving and paying invoices from this past financial year. So wondering when the exact, if there is a final cutoff, or maybe it is when it gets Royal Assent, what is the cut-off where the government can no longer take money from the Future Fund? I guess the cut-off is then – at least I got it when I was – I assume we’ll still get it now in Opposition – but essentially a book of all the final expenditures reconciled from the Estimates, what was estimated and then, like, a final spent column. When is the actual cut-off or is that related to the budget date?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: We passed a loan bill for operational until the budget is passed, and that is the plan. So that operational money from the loan bill would have us operate on the next fiscal while we’re waiting, in order to have the budget approved. That was the appropriation that we made for the loan bill, was to make sure that we had to be able to carry on the business of government in the next fiscal until the budget received Royal Assent and passed. So I think the question might have been that – we’re operating on the next fiscal now, what we’ve got.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

So maybe the date has already passed, but when is the, like, final, final, final last day that anything can possibly be processed in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on this past year’s budget?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: My understanding is that we are past that date. We’re on the next fiscal now. Any kind of government initiative would happen is on the loan bill that gave us the operational money in order to conduct the affairs and business of government, and on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I think the last fiscal is done and I guarantee you there will be no changes in what we present because it’s done. We’re ready to present on Wednesday, so everything, booklets that would be done are completed. So the previous fiscal is completed – done.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

I do hear the minister and I understand what he’s saying, but I understand today – let’s say it’s the last day for MHAs to approve expenses out of last year’s budget. That had to be with the timeline. I know when I was a backbench government Member and a minister, part way through the year you receive a book with the Estimates and it says, like, the estimate, the revised amount and then another revised amount. So I’m wondering when the final, final, final, final day is – and maybe it’s today. If today is the last day for MHAs, I imagine it’s a date later than today, when is that magic government day, is what I’m asking?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I can say to the hon. Member that I’m not aware when that specific date was. All I can tell you is that my understanding and I feel pretty well certain of it is that that date has passed but you’re absolutely correct that it’s after, that there was a period of time, that the Office of the Comptroller General, I think, before they wrapped up you had ability that long was acted on and it was passed through Treasury Board, prior to that date and everything, there was a period of time, yes, after the fiscal where decisions could be made but again, if I’ve misspoken here, or misspeaking I’ll certainly correct this afternoon, because I’m sure somebody will let me know but we’re passed that but I’ll let you know the date, to the hon. Member.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I have just a couple of comments, because I think most of the comments that, or the questions that I would have asked have already been asked at this point and it may be a little bit redundant but we certainly, the hon. Member spoke about changes and of course, possible changes and again, obviously this is an ongoing question here, but I ask with respect about why you wouldn’t place a level of certainty in the legislation to enshrine expenditures that occur between those periods, the budget periods, understanding, of course, and with all due respect, of course, honouring the commitments certainly of yourself in that role, but we live in changing times. There are all kinds of unforeseen circumstances that can happen.

So why not enshrine the expenditures in between the budgets, understanding that there can be circumstances that can arise, in the spirit of transparency because obviously people are asking about that. They want to know if the money is going to be spent from the Future Fund and when they occur.

So, understanding that you’d have to wait until the next cycle otherwise, but why not, kind of would be, I guess, my question to the minister.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I do think the previous Member had a question, it was just on overall House or government expenditures. Just concluding up to make sure that they were all finalized and maybe reported on with a separate document knowing that we transition from one year, but here’s where the funds were spent, which may not have been represented in the Estimates that were there. So there is a period of time and I’ll get that date but I know it’s past due.

As far as withdrawal from the Future Fund, my understanding is that the AG audits that anyhow. Every year that the AG would audit the Future Fund so she would audit the fund, but all I can say that there is no desire, it would not be strategic for us ever to withdrawal on a short-term, quick, knee-jerk reaction to pull money out of a Future Fund which is locked in in order to pay for some kind of debt. My understanding would be, is that it would be cheaper to borrow in that event than what it would be to withdraw money from the Future Fund. Much the same as we plan when our best time to borrow would be and where it would be, to borrow. Not at a knee-jerk reaction to pull money out of a Future Fund that is working for us.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker and thank you, minister, for that response.

I’m again, as a new MHA, I’m learning the processes and certainly about a Future Fund that was created before my time.

One of the things that we’ve certainly discussed in amongst our caucus is the hope that the Future Fund could be used to fund a green transition. So this idea of removing the strategic priorities, of course, would eliminate that possibility. You know what we’re not hearing any details about that and the idea of moving towards a green transition, it’s inevitable, it has to happen. No matter if we sing the praises of oil from here to eternity, it doesn’t matter, the green transition has to happen. We can’t see ourselves stuck in the same scenario as what happened in the cod moratorium where we put all our eggs in one basket. We know the future is coming and that.

So in preparation for that, eliminating the strategic priorities eliminates that possibility in the Future Fund, so where, I guess, where could we anticipate – if the Future Fund is not going offer that opportunity, the strategic opportunities limiting it, where could we see that green transition funding come from?

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

C. PARDY: I think, that was one of the characteristics. I know it was one of the characteristics that the Future Fund existed for. To what shape or what initiative that was going to take towards the green transition, I have no idea. I know that was in the future, that we were going to see as to what may occur for a green transition with oil.

We’ve got to plan for a transition, there is no doubt about that and I know that when you go to Estimates and ask, that’s a fair question to ask. Where is the plan that we’re going to transition when we no longer have oil?

The only thing we’ve ever contended is that we will use the resources we’ve got to make sure that we make strategic decisions within government or within the House of Assembly, as to what we would do. That’s the value of the Opposition, it’s the value of the House to make sure we debate what those initiatives would be, that what we’ve got.

But that’s a good question. It’s a good question for Estimates. My understanding was it didn’t necessarily have to come from the Future Fund because initiatives could be funded by the whole of government in any fiscal year. A good question you would have after the budget, well, where are the green initiatives that we would ask and that’s a fair question. Where in the particular budget and what part of the plan are you actualizing in this fiscal? That’s a good question.

I always look at the Future Fund when we had it was that for the future of our province, always good to be saving money. Our only contention now is that we had to borrow in order to save and, I think, it comes a certain point that we’re better off not borrowing until we get to a cash surplus and get our debt under control.

Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED transcript of the House of Assembly sitting for Monday, April 27, 2026, to approximately 4:00 p.m. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.