PDF Version

April 22, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 17

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, Bill 9.

SPEAKER: Order 4.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity today to speak in this hon. House and on behalf of the great people of the Burin - Grand Bank District and, of course, all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who care deeply about the future of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our uniqueness, Speaker, is our strength, and our struggles bring us together. I think that’s the way it’s been for years, down through history, and we’re proud of our unique history, we’re proud of who we are. We’re proud of the makeup of our province, our urban centres and our rural areas in the province that many of us represent. Those are the areas we grew up in. Most of us grew up on the water, and we love it.

Today, we’re talking about the Future Fund. I want to say, right from the start, this is not just a financial bill. This is a bill about responsibility. It’s about planning for what we’re going to leave behind.

Being an educator, and the Minister of Finance can relate to this, you walk into a classroom and you have a number of students in front of you all with dreams and aspirations to some day do something with their lives, but most of all, a lot of them want to stay in the area that they grew up in; if not, even the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador anywhere. They want to be here. As most of us know, when you go away, you always want to come back home.

Mr. Speaker, this is what this bill is about. It’s about giving hope to the dreams of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It really is. This is where we’re coming from when we’re talking about this bill.

I know the minister, as someone suggested, takes notes and so on, and I appreciate that because some of the things I say today, I know you have answers for. You’ll get an opportunity hopefully to do that when you stand up. It’s also important, and I know, Minister, you as well understand how important it is, to keep our youth in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think when this was talked about a few years ago, the legacy fund and so on, I felt proud, as all 40 of us did, because we want our legacy to be what we left behind. We want a legacy, and the Future Fund was that legacy. It’s what we wanted to leave behind. It’s something that is there for the future.

Speaker, as well, I can tell you, when you don’t plan for the future, you definitely pay for it later, without any doubt. It’s always the people who can least afford it who pay the most.

The Future Fund was created for a simple reason. When we get windfalls from oil, from resources, from major asset sales, we shouldn’t spend it all at once. We should put some away. We all do that in our homes in our own lives. Every month we try to stick away a few dollars for that rainy day, for that trip we’re going to take somewhere when the world gets to be a better place to travel. We’re all going to go somewhere, a little trip, but you have to have a little nest egg for that. It’s planning.

It’s not complicated, Mr. Speaker, at all what we’re doing here – not complicated at all. It’s just common sense. That’s what we’re doing.

In the District of Burin - Grand Bank, people know the value of saving. They know what it means to put a little bit aside for a rainy day. I’ve been talking to seniors as of late and what they’ve been talking about is basically the fact that they’re dipping into these rainy day funds, this slush fund, whatever they want to call it. They’re having to do that now because of the high cost of groceries and gasoline and other things that are happening.

They’re starting to dip into those funds, but the problem is that they can't replace it. Once you dip in and take it out, they have no way to replace those funds that they take out, but they’re needed. I know seniors that have told me, just recently, their oil bill is $1,100 for a month. You might say that’s exorbitant; it’s not. It’s not for people who are seniors. They like having heat. They grew up with heat. They don’t want to be cold. They need to hold onto these rainy day funds that they’ve saved.

I think about the mines in St. Lawrence. I think about the fishery. I think about the ups and downs we’ve lived through. I think about the families who worked their whole lives only to find out, in my case, my family’s case, when the mines closed, pensions were gone – zero. My family was impacted by that. In 1975, Alcan closed the mines in St. Lawrence and walked away, cleaned up the site and moved on – nothing left, flat surface – but the people of St. Lawrence who worked in that mine got no severance, or very little severance, but no pensions, nothing. They just walked away – terrible.

We have to be very careful. We have to plan and to live through that, there’s no difference when they closed the cod fishery – same thing. I remember, as well, seeing a lot of these former miners and people that worked in the mine coming to school. As a matter of fact, they did a carpentry course in the building that I was principal. I was principal of the school. They did a carpentry course, but none of them wanted to be there. They wanted to go back to the mine.

I must say happy ending, the mine in St. Lawrence has reopened. It’s hiring people on a daily basis, and it’s a success story for the province.

Speaker, what I’ve just talked about happens when you don’t plan for your future. The Future Fund was meant to be that kind of thing, to prevent that kind of thing from happening again. Not with pensions, but with the financial stability of the whole province. We have to exercise financial discipline at all times.

This bill weakens the Future Fund, in my estimation. It changes its purpose. It narrows it. It strips away all the tools that were meant to protect it. This bill removes the definition of extraordinary circumstance. It removes the definition of non-renewable resource royalties. It removes mandatory contributions. It removes restrictions on withdrawals. It removes regulation-making authority and it turns the fund into something that is used almost entirely for debt services.

Speaker, this is not what the Future Fund was created for. Again, I will stress that a government with vision, a government that looks to the future is a government that I want to be part of. This is not what people were told.

L. PADDOCK: That is what we are doing, so come on over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. PIKE: A voice in the wind, Speaker.

One of the biggest changes in this bill is how the money goes into the fund. Under the current act, a portion of non-renewable resource royalties will be deposited. That’s predictable, that’s stable, that’s responsible. Bill 9 removes that. Instead, deposits can only be made when the province ends the year in what the bill calls a surplus cash position.

Speaker, in a province like ours with volatile revenues, with major infrastructure needs, with the ups and downs of the global economy, that’s not something we can count on, I can guarantee you that. If you can’t count on contributions, you can’t count on the fund growing. How’s it going to grow? A Future Fund that doesn’t grow is not a Future Fund at all. What is it?

The bill also makes withdrawals easier. Under the current act, you can’t touch the fund for 10 years unless the balance is large enough to cover long-term debt maturities. That safeguard was there to give the fund time to grow. Bill 9 removes that protection.

Other speakers, yesterday, talked about other jurisdictions where the Future Fund, the different types of funds, are working and they’re working well. They’re providing for those jurisdictions. They’re providing for a future. They’re providing for a time when they need those funds. It may be to invest in a project that’s going to create more funding to put into Future Funds and so on.

Under this bill, the money can be withdrawn for servicing public debt, paying expenses related to Crown asset sales and paying oil and gas abandonment and decommissioning liabilities. Speaker, these are not Future Fund focused purposes, not at all. Once the 10-year protection and the balance threshold are gone, the fund becomes accessible at any time for these purposes. This is a major shift away from long-term planning.

Speaker, the government talked a lot about transparency, but this does not strengthen transparency; it weakens it, in my estimation. There’s no requirement in this legislation to release withdrawals when they happen. There’s no requirement that a withdrawal appear in the Order-in-Council. There’s no requirement for real-time public notice.

Speaker, when we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, money meant for our future generations, for our children and our grandchildren, the public deserves better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: I know that in some parts of the province, especially in rural areas, people don’t always see the value of the Future Fund. The reason for that, of course, is they have immediate needs. I always say to people who live in the urban communities and urban towns and cities, look, in St. John’s if a development is coming in and if I live near that development, I’d be concerned about things such as traffic. What’s it going to do to my ride home? What’s it going to do to getting in and out of my driveway? What’s it going to mean to getting to the grocery store? How long are the lineups going to be? That’s what I’d be worried about.

In rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we spend all of our time trying to attract industry. I don’t know if you saw the news last night, but they talked about the rocket launching from the Town of St. Lawrence – a wonderful project. If you look all over the world, St. Lawrence is an area where they’re going to start launching rockets into space. We’ll be one of two locations in Canada. The federal government is all over it.

That’s a future for the people who are going to work there. I think it’s wonderful, I really do. That’s the way I would like to see some things, maybe the Future Fund –

AN HON. MEMBER: We’re in that, too.

P. PIKE: Yes. I think the Future Fund should be looking at that, because that’s an investment that will put more money back into the fund.

Speaker, I know that people understand this bill, I think, for the most part. I think so. I think that when I read it first and looked at it, the first thing I thought about was 2030. In 2030, I mean we’re going to need $500 million a year to offset electricity rates – rate mitigation.

That’s so important. That’s almost the total value now or a little under the total value of our Future Fund. We need to grow that fund and we need to grow it quickly, because we don’t know what’s happening. Four years is not that far, when you think that March 27, 2026, was my fifth year as a Member. So those years go so fast – like that.

I just think that we need to be ready for that as well. That’s the first thing that came to my mind, and I worry about that. I really do.

Speaker, rural communities know better than anyone else what happens when governments fail to plan for the future. We’ve seen the consequences, and our needs are different. The Future Fund is one of those few tools that we have to make sure that when the good times come, we save something for the bad times. It’s simple. This is not an urban idea. It’s not a rural idea. It’s just, again, common sense.

Speaker, I think about my own community. I think about the men who work in the mines. I think about the fish plant and I think about the people that work hard their whole lives and expecting something, but nothing there. That’s the people that we have to think about: people in the future. What’s going to happen?

I think about the young people today, the ones just starting out, the ones raising families, the ones who will be sitting in these seats long after we’re gone, saying I wish we had had a Future Fund. What are we leaving them?

Speaker, Bill 9 is not a bill for the future. It’s a bill for the present, and that’s the problem that I have with it. It’s a bill for the present. Bill 9 weakens the Future Fund, it narrows its purpose and it eliminates mandatory contributions. It removes safeguards, it reduces transparency and it shifts the fund away from future savings and towards short-term debt management.

This is not why we created this. All 40 of us, by the way, created this. This is not something that it was created for. This is not what the people of this province were promised, and that is not what future generations deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I call on both sides of the House to work together to maintain the integrity of this Future Fund. Let’s work together on this one, because we know we all need it. For those reasons, Speaker, I just can’t support this bill. But thank you all for listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, Bill 9,

An Act to Amend the Future Fund Act, is what we’re debating and the bill amends the Future Fund Act to alter the conditions of how money is deposited and withdrawn from the fund.

Like the previous speaker, I’m thinking of the future generations, my children and grandchildren. The little turtle on the front of my desk there is from one of my grandchildren, a constant reminder. As a teacher and I know my two other colleagues in the House who were teachers, we teach into the future. It’s as simple as that. We’re always focused on the future. Children are our most valuable resource and we just don’t say that; it’s part of who we are.

We had concerns certainly with the Future Fund when it was first introduced back originally in 2022, but I’m not convinced that the changes here will improve this. It was passed in 2022 by the previous administration, following a recommendation of the Greene report.

Here are the key things here. The legislation requires a minimum amount of non-renewable resource royalties in oil and mining to be deposited into the fund, set in regulations. The low end is 2 per cent on everything up to $250 million and, at the high end, it’s 75 per cent of all royalties exceeding $2.5 billion. It also requires the revenue of any sale of government assets exceeding $5 million to be deposited unless some extraordinary circumstances merits otherwise.

When I think of it, if you’ve ever gone to a financial advisor, anyone, they’ll say the first piece of advice is to pay yourself first. Put aside money for the future, invest it, whatever, so that you’ve got something there for not only the rainy days but maybe, at some point, when you do want to retire, you want to move on, you want to change jobs, so on and so forth. But pay yourself first. I guess, in many ways, the Future Fund here is about paying ourselves, paying the people of the province first for the future.

The withdrawals from the fund are permitted to service public debt; pay expenses because of the sale of Crown lands; pay for the abandonment and decommissioning of oil leases and projects; to fund strategic priorities recommended by the minister; and to pay the cost of extraordinary circumstances. I’ll talk a little bit more about that because maybe we could define that instead of eliminating it.

Bill 9 would remove the requirement for resource royalties to be deposited. In many ways, I think this would cripple the fund. I do not know how many assets we’re planning to sell or what their value is, but I don’t think that would make up for it.

You consider Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Alaska’s sovereign fund, the fact is, they took royalties from a non-renewal resource, and knowing that resource would run out, whether it would run out physically or commercially, economically viable, whatever you want to call it, that they were thinking about the future. Norway has, I think, it’s in the trillions of dollars – $2.2 trillion. That’s a lot of zeros.

What I’m thinking here, Speaker, and my colleague from Waterford Valley talked about converting a one-time, volatile resource into a long-term investment of sorts – paraphrasing his words. In April 2020 – and why I bring this up. The federal government spent public money, $1.72 billion, to clean up orphaned and abandoned gas and oil wells in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

That’s a lot of money, of public funds. I think here, if indeed, while this bill still is going to pay for the abandonment or decommissioning of oil leases and projects, it comes down to where are we getting the money to do it, if indeed we’re draining the very sources of revenue for the fund itself.

We know what the ultimate fate is of mining towns, of economies based on extraction resource of non-renewable resources. My first job teaching was down in St. Lawrence. I eventually was boarding with the widow of one of the miners who died of silicosis. If you’ve ever read Elliott Leyton’s Dying Hard , you know the tragedy of what happened because the mining company did leave. It decimated the town. More importantly, it decimated the people of that community, but they were resilient.

I remember at that time, I was teaching economics – God help us. Nevertheless, the fact is that one of the projects we had was, what could be the future of St. Lawrence if we weren’t depending on that single resource? Who knew that we’d be launching rockets from there?

However, having a well-funded Future Fund or sovereign wealth fund, whatever else, allows for those eventualities and makes sure that, in the end, I would like to believe, that it’s about protecting communities, protecting the people who live in those communities and protecting the workers who work in these industries in support of these communities. It’s about looking after our own, looking after the future, looking after our resources, looking after my children, my grandchildren, your children and grandchildren.

Now, it talks about putting a budget surplus in it. Well, there hasn’t been a budget surplus since 2013-2014, and by all accounts there’s probably not going to be a surplus in this budget. So that’s a revenue stream that’s gone.

This legislation removes the ability for funds to be withdrawn to cover the costs for extraordinary circumstances, and I was thinking about this as to – I understand the fact that it allows leeway, maybe government making the decisions and maybe they’re not really extraordinary circumstances or what defines it, but I couldn’t help but think, like the Conception Bay North fire was an extraordinary circumstance. Directly, you can look at it, fuelled by and exacerbated by climate change.

I can’t help but think if having a Future Fund, you have a fund there to help communities who are facing that devastation because while we’re still trying to solve the issue, help the people of Conception Bay North, we’re still dealing with the effects of hurricane Fiona several years ago. These are long-term financial costs that are usually borne by individuals.

It removes the ability to withdraw funds for strategic priorities. Well, I guess it comes down to rather than removing it, maybe we should define what strategic priorities are, and maybe some of those strategic priorities could actually involve a transition to a sustainable renewable economy, as well, that would, again, protect the workers, the communities who depend on those workers and the families as well, and make sure that we have an environment that can actually sustain our future generations.

The legislation removes the restriction that prevents money from being withdrawn until one or both of the following conditions are met, so 10 years. Basically, it can be withdrawn at any time. I guess there’s a lesson to be learned here from the Teachers’ Pension Plan and the Public Service Pension Plan because for many years, Speaker, we paid into it, but it went into general funds and it wasn’t put away; it was used in general account to pay for roads and so on and so forth. As a result, we ended up with a significant unfunded liability, which the previous administration under Premier Williams attempted to fix by putting $1.95 billion of Atlantic Accord money in to fix it.

My point is that the cost of fixing it was probably way more expensive than the cost of taking care of it in the first place. But now we do have plans that are protected by legislation, jointly managed, and so on and so forth. That’s, I guess, the advantage of when you’re looking toward the future of putting that money aside.

I think, here, once you remove those restrictions, it becomes easier and easier to raid the piggy bank. That’s human nature, especially if we’re dealing with issues that affect us now, but in the end, we still have to think about the future of this province. What is the future of this province when the natural resources – when oil runs out, when the mining runs out or becomes no longer economically viable or a company decides to pull up stakes?

It’s about making sure that the future is protected. Not my future, necessarily. My time on this planet is limited, but my children and grandchildren are going to be around a lot longer, and hopefully my great-grandchildren and so on and so forth. This is my home. I have no desire to live elsewhere. All parts of this province are my home. I’m a townie, but Newfoundland and Labrador is my home, and I want to see it thrive.

We’ve been down too many roads of the big ideas. Burn your boats, for every job in the water, there’ll be two jobs on shore, and so on and so forth. But somewhere along the line, we’ve got to start looking toward the future of not just simply a resource-based economy, especially non-renewables, that can be exhausted, how do we turn this into using this Future Fund maybe to become a leader in renewables?

Whether that’s through hydro projects, Churchill Falls; whether that’s through projects such as the national marine conservation area in the Southwest Coast that would actually bring in tens of millions of dollars of federal money that would allow a sustainable economy; or let’s look at it this way, doing aquaculture in a better way so that it’s closed containment that would actually create more jobs. The floating donuts that would actually probably create manufacturing jobs here.

I can’t help but think that a Future Fund, properly managed, would allow that. But for that to happen, then there’s got to be a few things. You have to make sure that it’s well funded, which is why, I think, paying a percentage of royalties is so important and you have to make sure, especially from – again, I have to remind you of this. Oil companies, according to The Guardian , they are reaping in $30 million a day in profits. I think, by the end of the year, they’ll have made well over $273 billion in profits.

Windfall profits, they answer to their shareholders, no doubt, their executives will get tremendously big bonuses and so on and so forth; but, in the end, it’s the consumer at the pump who’s paying for it. Governments, we respond by trying to lower gas taxes, cut out the various sources of revenue government needs to do its work, but, in the end, these oil companies look after themselves. These mining companies look after themselves.

The key thing about being in government, I guess, whether on the government side or the Opposition, is making sure that we look after the people of this province first, and that they come first. That they are the first beneficiaries – and I’ve heard this from all sides of the House, that we should be the first beneficiaries of our resources. Well, that means also making sure that we take a portion of the royalties and pay towards our future for that time when that time comes when we have to transition.

Being able to withdraw it – I understand, by the way, it’s certainly with regard to this paying down the public debt was something that the – service public debt that the government left in and certainly that’s a positive. No one will argue with that. Paying down the debt certainly increases our financial well-being for the future as well, so no issue with that.

I think, also, we need to look at in terms of what else this fund could be used for and really thinking about the future. Debt is upon us now, the future we have really no control over, but we can do our best to plan for it and have the resources we need.

To me, if there’s a concern here, it’s the failure to, I would assume here, fund it properly and the ability to withdraw money more readily, I think, in some ways, undermines the viability of the fund and maybe even strangles it a little bit, prevents it from doing the work that it’s supposed to do.

If we didn’t agree with it, Speaker, if we thought there were things wrong, let’s find ways to improve it as opposed to hollowing it out. Maybe that’s a discussion we can have here in the House or behind the scenes or whatever else, but I think having a Future Fund that’s well funded gives us, whoever is in government, 10 or 20 years from now, the opportunity and the options to do the things they need to do to protect the province, to grow the province and protect the people of this province.

With that, Speaker, I’ll take my seat. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Before I get into my comments on Bill 9, I was sitting here wondering what I was going to open with and then the speaker before me talked about home and he took me back to Harry Martin, a name that most here in this Legislature, I would think, would be very familiar with. It’s National Tourism Week and I would say that all 40 of us are really proud of where we come from, of the districts that we have the privilege to represent.

Harry Martin is a very gifted musician from my district, from Cartwright, now spends most of his time in a little place called Paradise River. He penned many beautiful songs about the land that we come from but one – and I can’t say one of my favourites because they’re probably all my favourites, but one particular song he sings that, I think, is so fitting for Tourism Week, goes something like, one of the sentences: From the rugged beauty of the Torngat Mountains to the golden beaches of the Wonderstrand, to the beauty of the Pinware Valley, you can recreate the visions in your head.

In National Tourism Week, I represent a district, we start, we come across the border in L’Anse au Clair, you’re met with the Gateway, tallest lighthouse in Atlantic Canada at Point Amour. We come down to Red Bay National Historic Site, World Heritage UNESCO site; lots of Basque whaling history. We have Battle Harbour. We can go right on up to Cartwright.

So I just want to give a shout-out to all of the small businesses, in particular, in Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair that do an incredible job creating those positions, working hard, from the hotels to the summer enterprises. I’m really privileged to work with such incredible, incredible people. I want to wish them all a great National Tourism Week.

Speaker, for the last couple of days, we have been speaking to Bill 9, a bill that’s on the floor of the House,

An Act to Amend the Future Fund Act. Like many of my colleagues that have already spoken, I certainly have my concerns about the direction and about the changes proposed here in Bill 9, because at its core, this bill fundamentally reshapes what the future is meant to be and not in a good way – not in a good way.

I think, Speaker, when I go back to the beginning of our time, the original intent of the Future Fund was simple: Save during the good times and prepare for the future. Really, at its core, it was to protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from volatility.

Anybody who has heard me speak in this House knows I take things down to very, very, very simple terms. Raised in a very large family – there was 12 of us and pretty much every doctor, nurse and everybody who went through, pilots, they all stayed at our place, and we found room for them in a little isolated community on the coast.

My grandmother – I didn’t fully appreciate it – who took me in at the age of four and then I grew up with my – they’re like my siblings now. This is how Nan ran the household. When she got money, she would say, now, I got to go down to the store. We’ve got a bill and I got to pay off the bill. I’m going to give you a little treat for today because we’ve got this extra money, but I’ve got to put a little bit away for a rainy day.

That’s pretty simple terms. But that is how we need to be in government, managing for the future. It can’t be all or nothing. You know, you have to save for a rainy day. We’re living in a time of unrest. When we look at the geopolitical climate, when we look at climate change, when we look at all the things happening around the world, there are so many unknowns.

I think about in March of ’20, when I hopped on a plane on a Friday, with a sky-checked bag, and I came back seven weeks later. I was one of several people that was called back to pass some legislation in this House related to COVID. We went through a worldwide pandemic. We haven’t fully recovered, when we think about all of the expenses and the price of things went up and they didn’t seem to go back down.

I can go back a little further. I can think about 2015 when we came into government, November 30, 2015, and we didn’t have a fall fiscal update that year. We didn’t know what we were inheriting. But getting a $2-billion deficit, it was really hard to accept because we were coming off really, really rich times with oil that was flowing.

I think about a colleague of mine, Randy Edmunds. One day I was speaking in the House, and I used to get all fired up – Jim Bennett said I was always wound up, but I’m not as bad as that now. But one day I was speaking and I said, Speaker, they spent like drunken sailors. When I sat down, Randy said that was an insult to the sailors because at least they spent their own money, and I never forgot that.

L. PADDOCK: As a former sailor, I concur, you did.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: So, Speaker, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, I’m not even going to indulge. I have the floor right now and I haven’t heard anybody on that side tell us how they feel about the direction that the Premier is taking the Future Fund. Maybe the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay can get up and tell us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: This is the second time I’ve heard him shouting this morning.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: They’re not allowed to talk.

L. DEMPSTER: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: They’re not allowed to talk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I don’t appreciate it when I lose my time from the other side. We all have to respect each other here in the House. It’s an important part of democracy.

Speaking about the Future Fund, it’s really about stewardship. It’s about how a government manages today’s revenues with tomorrow in mind. I’m going to make some pretty practical remarks. I talked about the changing world that we are living in, the different climate, the unexpected things that happen, the changing weather.

I spent from May to September down in Forestry. I went down on May 9 and, on May 7, we had our first forest fire. Over those next four months, we had over 200 forest fires. It was a very challenging time. We were very, very fortunate that we didn’t have big fires last summer in Labrador because with the great distance from Labrador to the Island, it would have been a different outcome. We have an inter-agency agreement where we’re able to look to other regions for resources but with over 800 fires burning in Canada, we had to look beyond Canada to places like Utah to bring in resources.

That’s why I’m so pleased that the Liberal administration spent $14.8 million in planning to bring the water bomber back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: It was $14.8 million in the spring of 2025 and I am so pleased that we were planning for that because last summer was very uncertain times and, hopefully, we don’t go through that summer again. We almost lost communities.

Speaker, stability in an unpredictable economy – and you cannot overstate the need for stability in an unpredictable economy. In places like Newfoundland and Labrador, revenue, especially natural resource, we all know the history. They can rise very quickly. They can fall quickly. I think about places like Labrador West where a boom and bust and the impacts that that has had on that town.

A Future Fund helps smooth out those highs and lows so that public services are not constantly at risk when the market dips. We have many examples here at home in Newfoundland and Labrador where, when we have good years, they have led to short-term thinking. Let’s spend it all now. Let’s not put anything away for a rainy day. That’s not what we learned from our Elders on the coast, where they had to be resilient, where they had to improvise, where they had to plan for that rainy day because there was nowhere else to get the extra resources.

Speaker, saving non-renewable wealth is about looking forward. As my colleague from Burin - Grand Bank so eloquently put it, it’s about the future generations. When I was, years ago – I’ve been in a number of buildings here and a number of different floors through the years. But when I was on the fifth where I was going up, usually, a stairwell at a different entrance, every morning – and I still think about it – I was facing the daycare and all those beautiful little children and sometimes, on a sunny day, they’d take them out and they link them all together and they give them a walk.

Many times when I raced up the stairs or down the stairs and I saw those children, when I would go into the caucus room, I’d make a comment to a colleague and I’d say, that’s why we have to get it right. That’s why we have to make the right decisions, so that those little ones can get their education and they can stay at home and be a part of a province that they’re very proud of.

We know that resource revenues, like oil, are finite. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. What a Future Fund does is converts that one-time wealth into lasting financial assets that continues to benefit people long after the resource is depleted.

One of the things I’m trying not to do here is repeat what my colleagues have already said, but the half a billion dollars that it’s grown to now, the fund, growing year over year over year, you can see the percentage increasing, it really is baffling to understand why somebody would not want to protect the future of Newfoundland and Labrador in these uncertain times with something called a Future Fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask Members that if they’re going to have conversations, that you have them outside. All I want to hear is the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair. I don’t want to hear any other noise.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s difficult to speak when there is so much noise around you from the other side.

Speaker, talking about saving the non-renewable wealth for future generations sometimes can be described as turning natural capital into financial capital, so future generations inherit value, not just a memory of it. We don’t want people in our future to just have the memory of, b’y, we’re a have province. Money was flowing. Times were good. We don’t want them to have just a memory of it.

I have to tell you, grad season’s coming up, and I’ve got all my invitations to the grads in May, and I’m so incredibly proud. From our smallest communities, our youth are coming out, and they’re going on to make great and meaningful contributions to society. We have a responsibility.

I often feel, Speaker, in this House, our democracy is based on four-year terms, and I compare it to like a relay. Right now, we are in this relay, and we have the baton for four years, and what do we want our legacy to be like when we pass the baton on to the next one?

I can tell you, when we received the baton in November of 2015, it wasn’t a very good feeling. We went through a period where our premier at that time was writing the federal government to say we can’t make payroll. We can’t pay nurses. We can’t pay doctors. Yes, it was the richest time in our history, but sorry, there was no planning that was done. Those were uncertain, very concerning times.

I remember the Education minister turning around to me – I was Deputy Speaker at the time, there in the second row – and telling me that we were spending over $900 million a year on debt – more than the entire Education Department in our province.

We have to learn, Speaker. Yes, there’s a reason our windshield is bigger than our rearview mirror because we are focused forward, but you have to glance back. You have to glance back and you have to learn from the lessons of the past.

It’s about intergenerational fairness. A Future Fund ensures that prosperity isn’t concentrated in one moment in time. It spreads the benefits across generations so that children and grandchildren can share in the wealth created today so that it’s not just a memory, a story that someone shares with them of when times were good.

Speaker, one of the powerful, moral arguments that I think about and that I’ve had lots of conversations on through my years and that I’ve spoken a little bit about already is that we are temporary stewards. We are not permanent owners. We’re the stewards right now of the public purse. We have an obligation. We have a responsibility, and it is a responsibility that we should take very, very seriously.

Speaker, I have to wonder – and I was thinking about this last night as I was thinking I’m going to speak today – is everybody on the other side happy with the direction that the Premier is going with this Future Fund? Are their constituents happy?

I just won my fifth campaign. You only do that not by standing here and being my own voice. I am the voice of 18 communities in Cartwright - L’Anse. I love it when I get home on the ground. I love it when I’m at the grocery store, when I’m meeting someone on the Ski-Doo trail, when I’m at a public meeting like the other night in my hometown, which went for four hours, because people come up to me. I go to a fundraiser and people say, I was going to call you on this.

Sometimes I get pulled aside and someone will say, I don’t really support the direction you were going or what you said. Oh, really, let’s have a chat about it. We’re not here for ourselves, Speaker, and we need to remind ourselves that. We are here to be a –

K. RUSSELL: (Inaudible.)

L. DEMPSTER: What was that about?

I can’t believe the Member for Lake Melville is shouting again. After what we went through before Easter, I’m going to keep moving on.

A Future Fund is about protection against fiscal pressure. Without a fund, governments can become overly reliant on volatile revenues, and a well-managed fund provides a financial cushion, reducing the need for sudden tax increases, service cuts, borrowing, downturns.

I mention 2015. I go back to it a lot. The impacts are still being felt from when we inherited that $2-billion deficit and times were really tough. I do think some of my predecessors were so panicked that the pendulum may have swung too far. There’s no doubt about that. But it was really, really uncertain times.

Then it was the megaproject of Muskrat Falls. That’s not in the past when the impact is still being felt today. That is yesterday’s decisions that’s impacting today and going to impact years and years to come. We went through some tumultuous times in and out of Labrador. We were walking through protests. It was something we had inherited. If there was any way to stop it, we certainly would have, and that’s a whole 20-minute speech I could have on another topic.

Speaker, economic confidence and credit strength, that’s what a Future Fund does. Strong savings signal to investors, credit rating agencies and the public that government is managing its finances responsibly. They can improve borrowing costs and overall economic confidence. I think about sometimes in life when people fall on hard times and now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m having difficulty, once again, to hear the hon. Member.

L. DEMPSTER: I think I should get two or three minutes added on the clock this morning, Speaker, for the disruptions from the other side. It’s terrible.

I think about when people fall on hard times, vulnerable people, and they got no money put away and they don’t have good credit ratings, so they end up getting money from lending agencies, paying very high amounts, 28 per cent, 30 per cent. They need it and they got to do that.

Speaker, what message are we sending to bond rating agencies? That it’s okay to spend millions and millions and millions on interest? It’s like all of us with a credit card. You know you have to pay down your credit card. If not, you end up paying more on your interest than you’re paying on your principal.

So bond rating agencies are watching, and we have a responsibility. It’s about a tool for long-term investment. Some Future Funds are not just for savings, but they can be used for other purposes.

I’m running out of time and I want to get to what’s near and dear to my heart. Sometimes, in the more urban areas, you can see folks that are really in tune with the finances of the province and they say, you know, we got to worry about our bond rating agencies. We got to worry about our debt. We got to pay it down. In rural, we have needs for transportation. We have to get in and out. We have needs for roads. We have needs around health care. How do you balance the two? So how do you square putting money away and, at the same time, meeting the needs in rural communities, in particular?

But, Speaker, good fiscal stewards, you can do both. You have a responsibility to both. I hear the concerns from our rural communities, and their needs are real. They are urgent and they deserve attention. That’s what I have spent my last 13 years is being a voice for those communities, but the choice before us is not either/or. The choice on the floor of the House today is not about spending all today or putting it all away. It is about both.

We have a responsibility to meet today’s needs, but we also have a responsibility to ensure we don’t find ourselves back into the same positions that we have, like many of the stories that I alluded to. We don’t want to be there tomorrow, facing the same pressures with fewer resources, and that is why the Future Fund matters.

Even while we invest in infrastructure, improve access and support our communities, we must also set aside a portion for today’s revenue. Particularly when we know that these are temporary, so that we can provide stability and security in the years ahead.

I don’t know if there’s a time in our history, uncertain times, across provinces, territories, the country and the globe – we are facing uncertain times. Never before has it been more important to save for a rainy day. Because if we spend everything today, we risk leaving those communities that I reference more vulnerable in the future. But if we strike the right balance, investing now while saving for later, we give them not only the support they need now, but the certainty they deserve for tomorrow.

Speaker, I’m going to end with a quote: A Future Fund is more than a financial tool; it is a statement of values. It says we believe in tomorrow, just as much as today, and that the wealth of this province –

SPEAKER: The hon. Member’s time has expired.

L. DEMPSTER: – belongs not only to us but the wealth (inaudible) long after we are gone.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

M. KING: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s certainly great to be back in the House of Assembly after two weeks away, many of us in our districts. It’s always great to get back to my district, back to home, and to speak with many residents in the district on different issues that are concerning to them and to bring those here to the House of Assembly. It’s always an honour to stand here in this place to represent the good people of Burgeo - La Poile.

I was thinking towards the end of the week, and, of course, being home, it seems like spring is back in the air which is great to see – probably not so much out there today, but standing on my patio, looking out over the cove, as many harvesters prepare for the lobster season ahead, especially in my area, I want to wish them a safe and successful season, and the many harvesters throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, I thought it was important to rise as one of the younger Members of this House of Assembly. I think my hon. colleague from Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde has me beat for the youngest, but our generation is preparing for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and what that future looks like. The Future Fund, I think, played an important part of preparing for the future of this province.

When we look at that, I think it’s incumbent on all of us here in the House of Assembly – and to think, when we’re in these positions, we’re not here forever. At some point in time, we will either move on or may even lose an election, but we’re not here forever. It’s incumbent on all of us here – and I think it’s something that’s a sentiment that probably sits with most everyone here – to leave the province a little better than when we got there in the first place. I think that’s our goal is to look towards the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and what we’re leaving behind for our children and our grandchildren.

In my friend circle, my age – turning 31 in four days, just to let the Members of the House of Assembly know. I know the Member opposite is a bit shy from me from there, but it’s important in my friend group, and they’ve certainly taken a bit more interest in politics with me being involved. That seems to be a conversation we’re having more and, especially, a lot of issues globally, we are seeing people pay more attention to the political world.

They talk about representation of folks in elected positions and representing them. Sometimes, I think, they feel lost in the cycle. We always talk about our seniors and we talk about low-income families and families. Every one of those groups that I mentioned, and others are certainly important to the province and the makeup of our province.

A lot of my friend group, of course, starting out careers, planning for families, planning to have children, they’re looking towards their government and they’re looking towards their elected officials to help them prepare to leave this province in a little better place than when we got here. And to leave it a little better place for our children and our grandchildren to come. I know probably many Members here have younger children, younger grandchildren, and that’s the goal, as I keep mentioning, that we want to do, we want to leave this place better.

It’s very disappointing to see some of the changes that are being implemented into the Future Fund Act , Bill 9. That’s the one that we’re discussing here today. The original concept of the act was very simple, and I think it was very proactive. I think a lot of governments, no matter what kind of government is here now or the ones that were previous, have been accused a lot of times of being reactionary to things, reacting to today’s news or an issue that’s happening.

But I think this was actually a step taken by a previous government to be proactive, to prepare for the future, to put in safeguards that protect the province and communities throughout the province. That was the goal of it. That was a very simple goal. When we receive windfalls from resource revenues or major asset sales, we shouldn’t spend it all today; we should save some for tomorrow.

I think that it’s not just a single vision of thinking as well, as when we’re addressing some of the concerns here. We know we have a lot of challenges with debt and deficits here in this province. Many speakers before have talked about we’ve seen two surpluses in as many years before – my colleague from Virginia Waters - Pleasantville mentioned before. So these changes are also depending on surplus here, but we know the volatility in our economy here. We’ve seen that over a time in our history.

This was an opportunity to start, while addressing some of the serious concerns that we have, but putting some money aside for more significant events or extraordinary events that may happen in the province where we see changes with oil prices now. They’re on the rise. But that’s not always the case, Speaker. We’ve seen those prices dip and the challenges that have been faced by governments to address the concern of not only residents, but the Treasury of the province as well.

As I mentioned, you can do two things at one time: Addressing those issues, while saving money in the Future Fund Act . We’ve seen how much that has progressed. I mean, currently there’s $533 million in the Future Fund, and we were advised that $18 million was earned in interest just in this calendar year alone. Even more than that, it consistently earned more than it has cost. In 2024-25, 5.6 per cent earned, 4 per cent cost; in 2025-26, 7 per cent earned, 4 per cent cost. So we’re seeing that money being invested into the Future Fund paying off and doing exactly what it was supposed to achieve to do.

Setting that timeline of 10 years, not giving governments the ability to withdraw whenever they want to, just because they want to, I think that was also a proactive approach and helping future governments prepare for the future. I would say this is a bit of a short-sighted decision, Speaker. I was hopeful that any government that was elected was planning for the future of this province, but I’m not seeing that in the actions of this government. I’m not seeing that in the actions.

We hear a lot of words, we hear a lot of slogans that they’re using, which is fine, but in the actions that they’re taking, we’re seeing many decisions – not all, of course, because we’ve seen some great legislation come forward here that we’ve collaborated on and approved here in the House. But we’ve seen a lot of decision-making on repealing and taking away things that have been done in the past here in the province.

Other short-sighted decisions on not giving communities the potential to look to the future and what the future could look like and diversifying their local economies, those are short-sighted decisions, to me, in my personal opinion, that are not preparing this province for the future. It’s not preparing our communities for the future and it’s not looking at where we want to leave this place, where we want to leave it a little better than when we got here.

My fear is that the actions that are being taken are going to be – I’m hopeful it’s not, but it seems it could be consistent over the time that we are here. I think the decisions to change the Future Fund Act is another part of that because maybe it’s a chance – we hear a lot from the Minister of Finance that a lot of their platform is going to be introduced, whether in this budget or over the next few years that they are here, but I think it’s also a matter of the cost of those decisions that they want to implement.

Were those costs in their platforms under costed? Did they not actually cost enough for what they were, or were they costed at all? I think that’s half of the challenge as well that this government is being faced with now. They want to do all their promises, which is fine and great, but they have to pay for those promises and they’re looking for those revenues to pay for those promises.

I think changing this is giving them the opportunity to have access to those funds that are meant to protect the province in extraordinary circumstances, especially. I know Members have also mentioned different natural disasters that have happened in this province. I think of Hurricane Fiona that happened in my district. I was personally affected; my family was personally affected by that as well. It was a very devastating event that took place in our community and the surrounding communities there. Unfortunately, we lost someone in that disaster as well.

We’ve also seen the wildfires this past season in Conception Bay North. Those are significant challenges for any government that is in place to help the people who have been affected. We’re seeing extraordinary costs because the disasters are also getting worse. They’re getting more intense. They’re being more significant. It’s a lot of challenges to face those. We’ve seen houses destroyed and communities uprooted with people trying to get back together and find a way forward.

They’re looking to the government and it’s been, in the case that we’ve seen, that governments have helped those people. We have insurance issues with homes in many rural communities in our province. It’s incumbent on the government to be there to help the folks of the province in those circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m really finding it difficult to hear the hon. Member for Burgeo - La Poile. He has the floor. I would ask that if Members have conversations that they want to have, have them outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: Thank you, Speaker, very much.

I think those challenges that we’re facing, we’ve seen costs significantly increase and those are costs that could be borne by the government of the day. As I mentioned, we see volatility in how the Treasury is. We could be in significant financial troubles or we could be in a surplus, of course, but we’re not sure how those things will happen or how they will go.

Those are the challenges that this fund, I think, is also there to address in extraordinary circumstances where the government needs to step in. COVID was another one that was mentioned by another colleague of mine. I think those are some of the challenges that this fund was setting up for the future, as well, to address in those extraordinary circumstances, for the government to be able to be there to rely on the funds to help the people of the province.

That may not be the case now because we know it is not mandatory to contribute to the fund. The fund may be depleted. Where are we going to be to in the future when something drastic happens that the government needs to step in? That’s not being proactive. That is not preparing for the future in this province.

It’s very disappointing to see a lot of these changes happen. I think the Member for St. John’s Centre spoke and mentioned about they were here – obviously, I’m new; I wasn’t here for the debate on the original act. They had some issues with the Future Fund. That’s fine, of course. We, obviously, don’t all agree on things and move things forward just casually, but we have good debate.

These changes that are being made – and I think he mentioned this as well – are weakening the position of the Future Fund. We could make changes to the legislation to strengthen the Future Fund. If the government felt that it wasn’t as good as they wanted it to be, as well as the position, we could have certainly made changes to strengthen the act; but to weaken the act and to not prepare for the future is certainly something disappointing,

As we mentioned, the purpose was designed to protect long-term financial stability and ensure that windfalls, primarily from resource revenues or major asset sales, were saved for future generations. I think that’s been mentioned here a number of times on asset sales. I think it should also be noted that there were no sales of assets over $5 million that contributed to the fund since its inception. That was one of the points, I think, that was critical of the government that was previously in Opposition during the time. But that remains in the act as well. So I’m not sure why that certain point was so critical, but now it remains in the act currently.

I think, once again, of my generation and preparing for the future. We have certain needs that we need to meet in the present, but once again, it’s also about preparing for circumstances in the future. With that also, this bill, it needs a higher level of transparency in place on how the direction of the usage of the funds are going to be used.

There is no requirement in the act to be public about any withdrawals made from the Future Fund. Withdrawals will be noted in the budgeted Estimates, which is very plainly noted and was mentioned by the Minister of Finance as well. But if any withdrawals are made during the year, they are not required to be disclosed publicly at the time.

So we don’t know when the government would be using those funds, unless they do indicate to the public at that time, in which that’s a decision that they would have to make at that time. Then it would be included in the budgeted Estimates, but, of course, that’s a yearly process.

How will we see those funds being withdrawn at certain circumstances, at certain times in the future is to be known. I think it would be incumbent on the government to be very transparent on this, because this is a significant amount of money. Half a billion dollars is already in this fund that the government is changing the rules to be able to use and not be there to save for the future. It has been mentioned multiple times, of course. In the ’90s, I think, the Norway sovereign fund was made. There are trillions of dollars in that fund there now, $2.2 trillion – $2.2 trillion is in that fund now to be used at certain times when they probably see shortfalls in their economy, when they –

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-nine billion in Alberta.

M. KING: Thirty-nine billion dollars in Alberta alone. Alberta is also taking a very active approach to prepare for the future. They probably know just as good as anybody in this country about the volatility in the oil industry and how things fluctuate for provinces and the Treasury.

Those are significant investments that are there to protect the future of this province, to protect the people of this province in those circumstances.

So it’s very disappointing. I think over the years, as we’ve seen, it’s been mentioned half a billion dollars in that fund, where that could have went in the 10 years, especially. Before, obviously, we would have access to the funds in the original legislation, it would have been interesting to see how much interest would have grown on that, how much of that money would have been included in that fund and what we could have preserved in the Treasury for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Future Fund, to help them in those extraordinary circumstances that may happen.

As I mentioned, there are a number of changes that are going to be made to this bill. I think this was, as I mentioned, weakening the position of the bill, not strengthening it. Removing the definition of extraordinary circumstances; removing the definition of non-renewable resource royalties; removing the mandatory contributions; removing restrictions on withdrawals; removing regulation-making authority – that’s another significant part of weakening the bill, removing those regulation-making authorities. That’s affecting the future decision-making and weakening the position for government to use those tools to strengthen or clarify the funds in the future, as I mentioned.

So we’re removing the tools that can provide those opportunities for future governments. It talks about surplus years. When governments are in a fiscally surplus position, it goes back to also spending, of course. Do we want to see extraordinary spending measures to address some of the measures that they had in their platform that they want to address? I think that, once again, ties back to – I hope I’m wrong, as I mentioned, but it’s perception, of course, of what seems to be happening. But to use those funds to fund some of the initiatives that they are trying to do.

I understand that it’s important to do some of the things in the current time, of course, because we want to address a lot of the challenges that individuals in my district and across the province are facing, but I still think there are other ways to do that. Instead of focusing on tearing down things, repealing things, decisions made in the past because – I know, Speaker, when you’re in the Opposition and government, you don’t always agree with decisions that have been made, but some decisions do have a positive impact, and we hope that all decisions that government would make would have a positive impact on the people of this province.

We don’t need to just repeal those or take those away because we were in Opposition at one time and we didn’t agree with them and now we’re in power, it’s opportune political time to do that. That’s not what we should be preparing for in this province.

As I mentioned different opportunities, the Churchill Falls MOU is an amazing opportunity for the future of this province. I hear from so many people my age that look at that as to say, holy moly, look at the revenue that we could be getting in this province. Look at the job opportunities that we could be creating for the people of this province, the legacy that we could be leaving in this province. That is something that the government should be focused on, to make sure that they deliver.

I’m not sure if that is the priority of this government at this time, as we’ve seen from the actions that have been taken by this government. I’m not sure that that is a priority to see that we see billions of dollars, Speaker, come into this province through revenues through that project that will provide the spending for our health care, our education and our roads – those are things that we should be focusing on.

We should be focusing on here in the House of Assembly building the future of this province, not just focus on repealing and taking things away that have been done in the past. Because if we are going to live in the past – it is important to reflect on the past and to reflect on decisions being made to help you improve in the future. But if we are going to focus on the past in this House of Assembly and the government is going to focus on the past, we are never going to get ahead in the future of this province.

So those are the things that folks my age are worried about. As I mentioned, as my time winds down, those are the things they’re concerned about. They want to see their government, they want to see their elected officials preparing for the future, creating new opportunities, looking at other industries. Our foundational industries here will be around forever; we know that. The oil and gas industry is extremely important to this province, and we certainly support that on this side of the House.

But it’s also incumbent on us to look at diversifying; look at new opportunities to bring in new revenue; look at new opportunities to support communities. When we talk about tourism, we talk about other industries, rural communities are looking at so many different options, and it is not for us to be limiting those options. It is incumbent on us and the government to support communities, to support the people of the province, to build for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to see a successful future. We want to see a prosperous future.

Using the Future Fund, putting money away is a proactive approach to prepare for the future, and I believe the position this government is taking is wrong on this bill. I believe the changes that they are making is weakening that position. It is not a proactive approach. This is not what we should be doing. We should be strengthening the Future Fund, if anything, and we should be encouraging governments to do the same.

I thank you, Speaker, for the time that I had to speak on Bill 9 today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

In remarks today about this bill, I wanted to start first by revisiting the establishment of the fund. I wasn’t here at that time; I was paying attention at that time, so I’ll just take us back to October 2022 and the previous administration, and this is what was announced.

“Today, the Future Fund Act will receive second reading in the House of Assembly. If passed, this Act will require government to invest revenue from one-time sources and non-renewable resources to strengthen finances, pay down expensive debt and lower the cost of borrowing. These actions are important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as they will benefit us now and into the future.”

Speaker, continuing on this release: “The intention of the Future Fund is to have a positive impact on the province’s financial position through increased savings and income from long-term investments. A longer term impact of this legislation, if passed, is to strengthen the financial standing of the province to relieve the debt burden.

“Required contributions to the Future Fund would include: net proceeds of tangible and intangible assets sold for greater than $5 million; and a portion of non-renewable resource royalties received in the previous fiscal year.”

Mr. Speaker, when the Future Fund was brought in, it was announced that “an investment policy will guide the investment of funds in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Future Fund will be managed by the Department of Finance, with a Board of Trustees to provide oversight.

“The performance of the Future Fund will be transparent to the public, as the trustees will prepare three-year activity plans and annual reports as required by the Transparency and Accountability Act. These reports will include annual financial statements of the Future Fund, audited by the Auditor General, and would be tabled in the House of Assembly.”

So under the proposed legislation brought in in 2022, “money may be withdrawn from the Future Fund to service the public debt or pay an amount required due to extraordinary circumstance, as described in the backgrounder below.

“Through responsible financial management strategies such as the Future Fund, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador” – again, Mr. Speaker, this from the release in 2022 – “is addressing the province’s financial challenges ….”

So when the Future Fund was put together and envisioned, some of the things that the Future Fund looked to address and some of the challenges at that time: “By fixing Muskrat Falls with a $5.2 billion deal, government is taking major steps forward in providing secure and clean electricity to the province, while minimizing the financial burden on ratepayers.” Of course, we refer a lot to rate mitigation.

“Through prudent fiscal governance, we are keeping government’s expenditures responsible, continuing transformational initiatives, and ensuring that we maximize the value of every provincial dollar spent on public services; and through responsible debt management, we will continue to reduce our debt load, lower the cost of debt servicing, and enhance government’s treasury management expertise.”

Mr. Speaker, I’ll quote from the deputy premier and minister of Finance at that time, who ushered in the Future Fund, the hon. Siobhan Coady, who said: “Our plans for savings and debt management through the Future Fund will work together to ensure we are investing our money prudently on behalf of the people of the province – to strengthen finances, pay down expensive debt and lower the cost of borrowing, all of which will benefit us now and into the future.”

When we consider Bill 9 and the revisions that it will make, back again to October of 2022: “New legislation is being proposed” – as we know now – called the Future Fund Act. This Act if passed will established the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund.

“In addition, the Act would amend the Financial Administration Act to allow for the transfer of money between the Future Fund and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

“The Future Fund provides a mechanism for investing resource revenues and proceeds from major asset sales.

“More specifically, required contributions to the Future Fund will include: net proceeds of tangible and intangible assets sold for greater than $5 million, and, a portion of non-renewable resource royalties received in the previous fiscal year.

“Money may be withdrawn from the Future Fund to service the public debt or pay an amount required due to an extraordinary circumstance.”

Speaker, as I reflect on that legislation, when it was brought forward, as a piece of the backgrounder and again, not having been here, but having read up and studied on this: The performance of the Future Fund, as the Future Fund was established, stated it will “be transparent to the public, as the trustees will prepare three-year activity plans and annual reports as required by the Transparency and Accountability Act. These reports will include annual financial statements of the Future Fund, audited by the Auditor General, and would be tabled in the House of Assembly.”

So reflecting on the proposed changes, thinking about contributions to the Future Fund and well-established mechanisms for withdrawals from the Future Fund, there are strict rules currently on withdrawing any money from the Future Fund. Any withdrawals from the fund must adhere to the current budgetary and decision-making processes and controls over public money, as with any government spending of public dollars.

Permitted withdrawals from the Future Fund include the following purposes, which also require Treasury Board approval prior to withdrawal, except for the last two items that I’ll share, which require approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Withdrawals can be made for servicing the public debt; paying the expenses associated with the sale of Crown assets; paying amounts related to abandonment and decommissioning activities associated with an oil project; funding government strategic priorities; paying an amount required due to an extraordinary circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, what really drew my attention is that money shall not be withdrawn from the fund until at least 10 years have elapsed since the coming into force of the Future Fund and the balance of the fund is at least equal to government’s financial obligations relating to the unfunded long-term debt maturities for the subsequent 10-year period.

Speaker, so just having revisited, again, the history of the Future Fund and how it came into being, I just wanted to reflect now, as someone who is in the House of Assembly and who will be choosing to vote no to this bill. The Future Fund was created to ensure that the benefits of what we all know, our finite resources, would not be consumed entirely by the present generation. It was the commitment to generational equity, and it was a promise that our children and grandchildren would inherit not just debt, but assets.

As a parent with children in the school system who are old enough now to have conversations about the state of the world, our economy, our province, the Future Fund means something to me.

Bill 9 changes the deposit and withdrawal rules in ways the critics say undermine that commitment. Many of my colleagues have referred to the analogy of a RESP or a RRSP that never grows. A family that sets up a RESP but never contributes consistently, because something always comes up – again, some of my colleagues have referenced to car repair, a home renovation, a vacation and people make different priorities, just as government makes different priorities and, suddenly, when the child turns 18, that RESP is nearly empty.

Critics argue that Bill 9 creates exactly this scenario. By loosening the deposit rules and expanding withdrawal options, the fund will never grow to its intended size,

Speaker, my husband and I often reflect on a time when we had two children in daycare. This was prior to $10-a-day daycare. So for six years, my husband and I paid $1,400 a month for daycare. We both worked and, every month, writing that cheque, sending that EMT, we thought, wow, $1,400 a month; we could have been purchasing a second house for that amount of money.

I tell that story because, maybe in our naivety, we thought when we no longer have to pay daycare, that’s when the money would be there. We were going to find ourselves so flush with cash and additional discretionary income because we’re no longer having to pay daycare.

Speaker, I can assure you, as I think anyone who’s a parent in this hon. Chamber will tell you, that money that we paid in daycare soon got tied up in registration fees for sporting, purchasing musical equipment – I mean, these are privileges that we were able to provide for your children, and I appreciate that not every family is in that position; but the daycare money, very quickly, got sucked into our regular household budget and wasn’t, therefore, being consistently put into a RESP. I think there are hundreds of families across Newfoundland and Labrador – thousands – who see that.

That’s what I see with the Future Fund. The Future Fund was providing government with a disciplined approach. Although we know there are other needs. Yes, there are other issues that need our financial attention, but financially this makes sense to plan for the future.

Speaker, as well, the looser deposit rules mean less money saved. Removing the link between non-renewable resource royalties and mandatory deposits means the fund will receive less money during strong revenue years – the very years when saving is most important.

Allowing withdrawals for Crown asset sales and decommissioning costs may address short-term needs, but critics argue these should not come at the expense of long-term savings. There’s a lot of expert commentary and advice related to this, Mr. Speaker.

The Fraser Institute, for example, emphasizes that the Future Fund helps decouple budgets from oil volatility. I know that the Members opposite spoke a lot about oil volatility when we spoke about our amendment to the gas tax legislation. So the Future Fund helps do that. It decouples the budget from oil volatility, a critical step toward financial stability.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, as well, highlights that a strong Future Fund could finance renewable energy transitions, which I know other parties have referenced and spoke about, and incubate local research and development.

As a new MHA, I do have to say I’m perplexed by this government’s thought process in some of the conversations and in some of the legislation we’ve been debating related to the Future Fund and protecting the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and our financial stability. The government is potentially letting a $220-billion deal slip through our fingers. I’ve heard, Speaker, in the campaign and in the House, that the reason why they are so concerned about –

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I stand on a point of order. Standing Order 48, relevance. This is not a money bill. We’re not here to talk about Churchill Falls –

SPEAKER: First of all, I would say I have to recognize you, Minister.

I recognize the hon. Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize for the outburst.

I stand on a point of order.

Article 48, it clearly states relevancy. This is not a money bill we’re discussing. The Member is now talking about Churchill Falls, CF1, CF2 expansion. It has zero relevance to do with the amendments that are proposed in this bill. It should not be allowed.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio to the point of order.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to speak to the point of order about relevance. I’ve been looking at this page 625 of the O’Brien and Bosc. We have the right of freedom of speech, and there’s also relevance. I would also encourage you to consider that in reflection of this point of order, Speaker.

Members have the right of freedom of speech. They have the right to scrutinize legislation. I also note that in the O’Brien and Bosc book, it says: “It is not always possible to judge the relevance … of a Member’s remarks until he or she has spoken at some length or even completed his or her remarks.”

Speaker, I also note that O’Brien and Bosc, page 625, says if the rules are applied too strictly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate.

I encourage you, Speaker, to consider what O’Brien and Bosc says on page 625 in your deliberation.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m not asking you to enforce the rules too strictly. I’m asking you to enforce the rules, and the rules are laid out in Standing Orders for a reason very specifically, and if we’re talking to a bill and there is relevance not applied to it, then it should be waylaid.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: I would remind the Member and all Members of the point raised on relevance, but with that said, I’ve tried my very best to provide latitude on both sides of the House on every bill we’ve spoken to, and I’m going to continue to do that.

I do take the point that sometimes Members can stray from time to time, but I would also note that sometimes when Members stray a little, it’s in a bigger context to bring it back to the original point and it may not necessarily seem totally relevant at the moment, but a couple minutes later, it all does get tied together.

So that’s what I’m trying to apply, but I do take the Member’s point, I take all Members’ points, and I would ask the Member for Gander that we are speaking to this particular bill on the Future Fund. If you are going to stray, I would ask that you not stray too long.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate, as well, your remarks about to stick to what we are speaking about, and the relevance, for me, is that we’re speaking about the Future Fund. We’re speaking about legislation that will change how withdrawals are made and why from the Future Fund.

In bringing forward this legislation, legislation is a reflection of the government’s priorities. Legislation is a reflection of how this government wants to govern Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. FORD: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I brought up the $ 220-billion deal about the MOU is because the government has said that that deal is important to them because of the future generations of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. FORD: So the exact specific reference and relevance to me talking about the Future Fund and bringing that up is, as a legislator, to explain how I’m perplexed that the priorities of the government do not seem to match, Speaker. That’s why I brought that up.

There appears to be one priority when it comes to long-term investment and deals for future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; yet, with the Future Fund, they’re prepared to change the withdrawal and deposit rules that undermines the commitment of the Future Fund, a commitment to generational equity.

Speaker, I do want to reflect for a moment on the passage of time, because the Future Fund, just referencing the word “future,” I’ll share – and there is relevance, Speaker. My youngest son is a competitive swimmer and we had a conversation last week that he’s gearing up and wants to go to the Olympic trials. The Olympic trials are New York, 2032.

I said: Robert, 2032, like that’s the future. I mean, didn’t we all think we’d be living on the moon in 2032? I said: You’re going to be too old to make it to the Olympic trials – 2032. My son said: Mom, that’s six years from now; I’ll be 21. But it seems so far away in the future for anyone who was born before the year 2000.

So just think about that Future Fund and the commitments that were made and the spirit of it, to keep that there, to future proof the province and for the benefit of future Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I’ve heard Members opposite criticize the previous administration so much for what they have perceived, Speaker, as lack of planning. I wasn’t here. This, I would see, as an opportunity for the Members opposite to be congratulating the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. FORD: To say what a fantastic idea, what a terrific fund you put in place for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, it’s ideal. It doesn’t need to be changed. We are going to look out for future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and protect their future by protecting the Future Fund.

So critics argue, Speaker, that Bill 9 prioritizes today’s convenience. We know it would be more convenient for the government to use the Future Fund as they would like to use the Future Fund. I believe they previously called it a slush fund, which it wasn’t, but prioritizing today’s convenience over tomorrow’s prosperity is just like a family that never commits to building its child’s RESPs.

Speaker, I’ll just close by saying it’s a little bit worse, because this reminds me of a marriage, you know? There are two parts to the marriage; we have the Opposition and we have the government opposite and it’s like a husband and a wife. Maybe we don’t get along, but one of them –

AN HON. MEMBER: Step-parents.

B. FORD: And s tep-parents.

One of them going into the RESP fund and making withdrawals without telling the parter, or going into the RRSP fund and taking withdrawals and not telling their partner, that’s not transparency. That’s not accountability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. FORD: We know that you want to be accountable and transparent. Thinking about those withdrawals and how you bring that information forward to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that’s partly how you’re going to be judged on your transparency and your accountability.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m going to disappoint my colleague from Gander; there’s nobody over there I’m marrying, I guarantee you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don’t worry, there are no proposals either.

E. LOVELESS: That’s right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: You may be on your knees. I don’t need your proposal, believe me. I don’t need your proposal.

What a way to start, get everybody laughing, right? Laughing is good medicine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. LOVELESS: Absolutely.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, to the conversation that has been had on this floor of the House of Assembly about the Future Fund – and future being the key word – the original bill, we believe on this side, was a wise step forward. Unfortunately, this move by the PC government is unfortunate steps backwards.

I refer to the Future Fund, or it can be referred to as stabilization fund or even contingency reserve, there are six pillars of that Future Fund: one is economic stabilization; two, saving for future generations; fiscal discipline; paying down debt, which we know is the intent of what they’re doing – and that’s a good thing, we support that – emergency preparedness; and investment and economic diversification in currency and financial stability. So that’s the six pillars and what I’m going to be talking about falls within those six pillars that are of importance to the future.

I think putting things into perspective in terms of a Future Fund. I don’t think there are any greater examples than have already been used, I guess, our family examples or your advice to your children or your parents’ advice to you.

I know people referenced their parents and where they work. My father worked with the Abitibi-Price back years ago, and I tell you, I saw scars on his body. I always referred to them as slaves, not workers. They never had the opportunity to have future funds for them, which should have been pension dollars. When I graduated from high school, I did a presentation to the union. My dad was a few years left in the woods with Abitibi as a logger, and I made a presentation. The union agreed to give men like him some dollars for retirement. I call them dignity dollars.

It was approved and the union applauded, at the time, the presentation that I made, but it was made because they worked from week to week, month to month to draw a bit of EI at the end of the year to support their families. Again it goes back to, if it had been mandatory for them to put money into a future fund for them, then he wouldn’t have the stresses and strain.

My daughter, who is a nurse, I told her at the beginning, start investing in your future and don’t touch the dollars. It’s for your future. It’s for your future fund.

Now, the minister began his opening remarks talking about some seniors from Elliston. He said he had a conversation with them, I believe, about the Future Fund. I think it’s what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. LOVELESS: Oh, okay.

I wish I had been there if you were talking about a Future Fund to make sure you told the whole story, right?

He said, at the time, too, when we introduced the bill, they challenged us and that’s fair. That was their job to do, but now we’re doing the same and that’s our right, and we have to be respected for that.

Mr. Speaker, the original legislation establishing the Future Fund was designed with a clear and important goal, to safeguard long-term financial stability by setting aside windfall revenues, primarily from non-renewable resource development, for the benefit of future generations, for all of us.

The amendments here remove the requirement to deposit a portion of non-renewable resource royalties into the Future Fund for the long-term benefit of the province – long-term benefit, certainly, are the important words in that sentence. By removing it, the Conservative government is allowing themselves to access this oil and gas revenue for their own political purposes today and disregard our future. That’s unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say at the beginning that it’s always a pleasure to stand here on behalf of the people of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, and I know many in my district certainly would support that the Future Fund, what we introduced a few years ago, was the right thing to do. Now, many may debate and it’s the right thing to say and the direction we should have taken and many governments should have taken years ago.

The bill weakens, certainly, as was said here before, the purpose of the Future Fund. That’s unfortunate. The original act brought in, in 2022, was designed to protect long-term financial stability and ensure that windfalls, primarily from resource revenue or major asset sales, were saved for future generations. Bill 9 narrows the purpose of the fund to a point that it is almost only used as a debt servicing account. That’s your choice, and you will be judged on that. It undermines, we believe, the long-term vision of the fund and removes the flexibility originally offered in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the six pillars that I mentioned in the beginning, one of them was the pillar of discipline. I know the officials from the department confirmed that, as of today’s date, which was a couple of days ago, there has been no withdrawal from the Future Fund, which is key, very important. We know the credit agencies see the Future Fund as credit positive. That’s all good, but what’s happening is taking that away.

What is also concerning is, despite a promise of transparency from this government, there’s no requirement in the act to be public about any withdrawals made from the Future Fund.

A pillar of saving, they talked about, for future generations. I think it has been mentioned and referenced here by other colleagues on the floor of the House of Assembly that there are other provinces that have similar funds. Quebec, which refers to their fund as the Generations Fund, the current value is $16.6 billion. Over a long period of time, but certainly it’s for the future. The Northwest Territories Heritage Fund current value, $52.5 billion; Alberta’s Heritage Fund, current value, $31.9 billion. Again, over a longer period of time, but the longer period of time is in reference to future generations and for those to benefit from.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to just – because I believe it bears repeating, some of the comments made by some of my colleagues on the Future Fund. The Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s had talked about the decision today for benefits of tomorrow. That’s a very important comment. In terms of non-renewable resource, the value of the non-renewable resource, revenue from that, we want it to extend beyond the life of the resource for decades. That’s a very important statement. We believe back in 2022, to this day, that over half a billion dollars there, that it was a strong Future Fund. But now it has been weakened.

The Member for Corner Brook also talked about how we’re rich with resources, and we are. But we don’t want to rob future generations by the actions of this bill. My colleague from Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, being a father of two young girls, talked about investing in his children’s future. I believe when we talk about future, that is who we are referencing, and grandkids that any of us on the floor of the House may have or hopefully will have in the future.

My colleague from Waterford Valley, a father that talked about his children and RESPs. That’s future funds and another good example of planning for the future. The Member for Grand Bank talked about rate mitigation in 2030, $500 million, a cheque that has to be cut every year. Unfortunately, it does, but the rate mitigation keeps the power rates that people are paying in the province from doubling. He referenced save for the bad times and fund for our youth. Again, it’s all about the Future Fund.

Support for our rural communities, when he had said that, in my district and in a lot of districts in this province, coastal erosion is becoming a reality. In order to fix it, it’s a costly venture. It can be an enormous amount of money to fix it – and the Member for Grand Bank has a lot of examples in his district. I drove the roads with him many of times. It’s going to be needed, because you need to protect those communities. I believe the Future Fund could have been a tool to reach into to support such a measure as supporting those communities and, in particular, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleague from Burgeo - La Poile talked about the disaster in his community. I was minister of TI at the time; I witnessed first-hand the disaster that happened there. I call it, really, Port aux Basques disaster, but surrounding communities in his district – it wasn’t his district at the time, but I always remember going into a community centre in Port aux Basques and a lady of 85 years old approached myself and the premier at the time, to say everything I have is gone. The only thing I have left is the clothes that I’m wearing.

We did show her support that day, but the enormous cost of a disaster such as that – we hope it never happens again, but with all the concerns around climate change and what we’re seeing happening in the world today, that there’s going to be instances like that again and it’s going to cost dearly, and we have to be ready for it – we have to be ready for it.

My colleague for Gander talked about the importance of the fund. She wasn’t an elected official at the time, but certainly a businessperson and – I’m not sure if she was deputy mayor at the time – deputy mayor of Gander, but certainly looking at the Future Fund as a very important piece of legislation brought to this floor of the House of Assembly for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I moved to a little bit of a different angle, I guess, in terms of the Future Fund and departments. Being critic for Forestry and Fisheries, I wanted to speak to the issue today because it carries profound implications for two of those vital sectors – I hope it doesn’t, but it may. The government, as we know, is preparing to remove the long-standing restriction that limits certain withdrawals of public funds to paying debts and liabilities.

Some may view this as an opening of flexibility, a modernization of financial rules and considerations; but for departments and being in three different departments as minister, whose work depends on stable, predictable and protected funding, we believe this change raises serious concerns in matters for futures of our forest, our fisheries and the communities that depend on them.

Forestry and fisheries are not short-term enterprises. They require decades-long planning, careful stewardship and consistent investment. Bond rating agencies, when financial rules restrict withdrawals to debt repayment or specific liabilities, they create a stable, predicable environment. Departments know that certain funds cannot be easily redirected elsewhere. They can plan multi-year conservation programs, research initiatives and infrastructure upgrades with confidence. Is that being weakened is the concern in question here.

I think it has been referenced – and all 40 of us know in this House of Assembly that Newfoundland and Labrador has certainly weathered many economic storms. In difficult years, governments often face pressure to reallocate funds quickly to address immediate crisis. I think forest fires and the surge storm, I’d call it, in Port aux Basques that saw raging water levels that damaged properties and took a life – very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, under the current restrictions, forestry and fisheries funding is somewhat insulated from these pressures, and that’s a good thing; but if the restrictions are removed, these departments could become easy targets. History shows that environmental and resource management programs are often among the first to be cut when governments need fast cash. The danger is that short-term fiscal decisions can create long-term ecological and economic damage. Cutting forestry programs, today, may mean reduced harvest 30 years from now. Cutting fishery science, today, may mean stock collapse tomorrow. None of us want to see that.

Both departments rely heavily on monitoring and enforcement. These activities are not optional; they are the backbone of sustainable resource use. Mr. Speaker, if funds become more fluid and more easily redirected, these essential services risk becoming underfunded. Forestry and fisheries are very important sectors they are the lifeblood of many rural communities, and I know the Member for CBS appreciates that, with all the fish plants in his district.

They support – I know the Minister of Fisheries appreciates this, and the Finance Minister – harvesters in both industries, plant workers, boat owners, truckers, scientists and the list goes on, but in terms of these serious concerns, when departmental budgets become unstable, so do the jobs tied to them. That’s possible under what’s going on and the direction that this government is taking with this change in this Future Fund.

A policy change that seems like a simple financial adjustment could, in practice, undermine the economic foundations of dozens of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said about climate change, we know what brings with that, the possibility of cost.

So as many have said, I will not be supporting the direction the government is moving on this Future Fund, because I believe it weakens. The whole idea of it was putting money away for a rainy day, and that’s an unfortunate move by this government.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. STOYLES: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m always happy to represent the District of Mount Pearl North. I have to say that nobody has ever called me or my office, even before I ran and became an MHA, when I served for over 25 years on council, that I didn’t call them back.

It’s so important to look at our future and be there for the people of this province. This is what we have tried to do. Representing the people of the great District of Mount Pearl North has been a lifetime dream for me. Who would even think that I would be here standing in this House of Assembly, a fisherman’s daughter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. STOYLES: A fisherman’s daughter.

I grew up in a small fishing village in Bay de Verde. I’m the youngest of 11. My father, I remember growing up hearing words like the dirty thirties, the hungry month of March, because my father was a fisherman and he worked all summer. There was no unemployment back then. He had to save for the winters, and the winters were cold; especially, when you lived on the ocean, and we lived on the ocean overlooking Baccalieu Island. Our family home is still there today.

We grew up – not that we didn’t have anything. We had lots of love and lots of respect, and I grew up in a wonderful family. When you grow up and you don’t have a whole lot, when you move out on your own, you realize what life is about.

I left home; I was only 15 and I moved into Mount Pearl with my sister. She had a baby and I moved in to babysit. It was that or go to work in the fish plant. I chose to come in to Mount Pearl and that’s where I stayed. I was supposed to go back and finish high school and it didn’t happen. I wasn’t going back. I was saying in town because I fell in love with Mount Pearl.

To stand up today, and all my colleagues have said everything, because some evenings I go home from here and I say, yes, it was good day; some days I go home and say, what a waste of time. I don’t mean it’s a waste of time for the people, I mean it’s a waste of time because nobody is listening. When I go home today, I’m going to say today was a waste of time, because I don’t feel anybody is listening.

In my opinion today, their minds are already made up.

Back on October 12, 2022, when we brought in the Future Fund, division was called, and guess what? It was only the government of the day that voted in favour of the Future Fund. Like I said, division was called. Barry Petten, Helen Conway Ottenheimer –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’ll remind the Member that you can’t say people’s names here in the Chamber.

L. STOYLES: All the Opposition –

L. PARROTT: Speaker –

SPEAKER: One moment now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, two things here. The first thing is that the hon. Member across the way just started mentioning names over here.

SPEAKER: I just addressed that.

L. PARROTT: Yes, but secondarily to that, Standing Order 49 clearly says, “No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.”

Speaker, we’re not allowed to go backwards in time and talk about how people voted in this House. It is clearly in

article 49. It’s there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: I say to the hon. Government House Leader that I –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will review that matter. I don’t know it off the top of my head, and I don’t want to make a quick ruling. So I will review that matter and just give my ruling later.

I would say to the Member for Mount Pearl North, again, you can’t use people’s names when you’re speaking in the hon. House, Member’s names.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Thank you, Your Lordship – that’s what it used to be in council.

Thank you, Speaker, and I hear what you’re saying.

I will go back then to talking about after I left home; I moved in here. When I got married, we built our own home. My husband built our home. We decided to stay in Mount Pearl and we raised our family. At the end of the day, we had to plan for our future.

I couldn’t afford to go to work after we had our third child, because I couldn’t afford daycare. I couldn’t afford to put three children in daycare so I decided to stay home. I had the first licensed daycare in Mount Pearl. I paid $1 for it, Speaker. For $1, the government came, an inspector came and inspected my house and gave me a permit to start a daycare, and for 12 years I ran a daycare out of my home.

We succeeded because we saved. Every time we got our paycheque, we went out and bought our groceries, paid our mortgage and we’ve done very well for ourselves over the years, because we worked hard for everything we have. Over the years, when I’ve been out knocking on doors and campaigning, one family comes to mind this past election when I was out campaigning. I had somebody with me that really wasn’t into politics. They were just a friend of mine, out knocking on doors with me.

I got to this gentleman’s door and, actually, it was summertime. He was out sitting on his step and he put his hand up and said, I don’t want to hear nothing about politics. I worked my whole life and go away, type thing. With that, I said, is there anything I can do to help? What do you need? He said: Well, my cable is cut. My power is getting cut. I’m getting kicked out of my house and all of this stuff. I said: Well, maybe we can help you. No, nothing you can do for us.

As I was starting to walk away, his wife came around the corner and she said, oh, we’re just having a bad day. Don’t mind him. I realized who she was. It was somebody I knew. I didn’t recognize him right away because I hadn’t seen him much. He was never around much anyway. I realized that he had worked his whole life. He had a good job, but he didn’t save. He spent everything he had. He didn’t have his own home. Lots of people can’t afford to have their own homes.

I said to her then, do you need a food hamper? There is lots of stuff you can do, but you’ve got to be able to save so you can prepare for the future. If we don’t prepare for the future, we’re not going to have anything. We’re going to be like that gentleman that I ran into this summer. You’ve got to prepare for the future.

Speaker, like I said, we worked hard our whole life, and I’m sure everybody in this House of Assembly did the same as we have done. We’ve got to look out for our families and our future. At the end of the day, the government of the day made a commitment to listen to the people.

I hope people will reach out to them and say at least bring everything back here to the floor of the House of Assembly. Every time money is taken out of that Future Fund, bring it back and let the people know exactly what you are doing.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s West.

I think he’s the last one.

K. WHITE: I am the last one.

Speaker, I rise today to speak to

An Act to Amend the Future Fund. Legislation that, in theory, deals with technical

definitions, deposit rules and withdrawal authorities but, in reality, speaks to something much larger. It speaks to how we manage the long-term financial future of Newfoundland and Labrador. It speaks to whether we are planning for stability and transparency and whether this government understands the purpose of the Future Fund in the first place.

Speaker, the Future Fund is never intended to be a convenient account. It was never intended to be a flexible tool to smooth over short-term fiscal pressures and has never been treated as such. It was designed very deliberately to capture value from our non-renewable resources and preserve that value for future generations. That is the principle at the centre of this discussion today and it’s that principle that we must measure this bill against.

These updates remove

definitions that previously structured how the fund operated, including extraordinary circumstances in non-renewable resource royalties. It introduces a new concept of surplus cash position, which becomes a key trigger for discretionary deposits. It modifies when and how money is deposited into the fund. It removes an exception to required deposits. It expands and clarifies the purposes for which money can be withdrawn. It removes restrictions on withdrawals and it repeals certain regulatory authorities and provisions outright.

Now, on paper, some of this may appear administrative but, taken together, these changes represent a shift in the purpose of the Future Fund, and that is what concerns us on this side of the House. The introduction of the term “surplus cash position,” which the bill defines as the situation where the province has cash on hand beyond what is required to meet operational and capital expenditures, at first glance, that may sound reasonable, but the reality is cash on hand is not the same as long-term fiscal strength. Cash can fluctuate. It can be influenced by timing, borrowing or one-time revenues and cash does not necessarily reflect structural balance.

Speaker, it is important that we do not confuse short-term liquidity with long-term fiscal health. A province can appear to have cash on hand at any given moment, but that does not mean its underlying financial position is stable or sustainable. When we base deposits into the Future Fund on something as variable as cash surplus position, we introduce uncertainty into what should be predictable and a disciplined process. That uncertainty has consequences because if contributions to the fund are inconsistent, then the long-term strength of the fund itself becomes uncertain and it is future generations who, ultimately, bear that risk.

So when we tie Future Fund deposits to a surplus cash position, we are moving away from rules-based disciplined framework and towards a discretionary one – a framework where deposits are not guaranteed but conditional.

Speaker, when something becomes discretionary, it becomes vulnerable – vulnerable to changing priorities, short-term pressures and political decision-making. That is not what the Future Fund was meant to be.

This brings me to another key concern: the removal of the structured deposit requirements. The original intent behind the fund was clear: to ensure that a portion of our resource wealth was set aside, not spent, not deferred, not reallocated, but protected. The changes proposed today weaken that clarity and purpose. By modifying deposit triggers and expanding its discretion, the government is giving itself more flexibility to decide when and whether to contribute to the fund. While that flexibility may sound like a positive, in public finance, flexibility without discipline often leads to inconsistency and inconsistency leads to erosion of trust and a lack of transparency.

Let’s talk about the withdrawals. This bill explicitly allows funds to be used to service public debt or to cover certain expenses related to Crown asset sales. Now, let me be clear, those are legitimate financial pressures. No one in this House disputes those pressures exist. The question is whether the Future Fund should be the tool used to address them.

Because once we normalize using the Future Fund for these purposes, we fundamentally change what it represents. It becomes less of a savings method and more of a financial management tool. Because the Conservatives think that the Future Fund is just a fancy label for a rainy-day jar that they can dip into whenever their budget starts to leak at the expense of the province’s future.

We also see in this bill the removal of restrictions on withdrawals. That should make every Member in this House stop to think, because restrictions exist for a reason. They exist to ensure that funds intended for long-term stability are not drawing down too easily, too quickly or too often. When those restrictions are removed, we are relying not on legislation but on judgment. While we all hope that judgment will be sound, good governance requires more than hope. It requires safeguards, regulations and transparency.

There is also the matter of repealing sections of the act entirely, including provisions related to withdrawals and regulations. Now, the government may argue that these provisions are outdated or unnecessary, but again, the overall effect is what matters. Each removal, adjustment or expansion of discretion all point in the same direction: toward a fund that is less constrained, less defined and ultimately less protected.

I wanted to take a moment to remind this House why the Future Fund exists in the first place. Newfoundland and Labrador is a province rich in natural resources, but we all know those resources are finite and can fluctuate. Oil revenues rise and fall, markets change and production declines. The Future Fund was a way of acknowledging that reality. It was a way of saying we will not spend everything today to protect the future and to promote intergenerational fairness. It was about ensuring the benefits of our resources extend beyond the life of those resources. That principle still matters and, in fact, it matters more now than ever.

On this side of the House, we are not opposed to modernization. We are not opposed to improving legislation where needed and we are certainly not opposed to ensuring that the fund can operate effectively. But modernization should not come at the expense of purpose. Efficiencies should not come at the expense of discipline, and flexibility should not come at the expense of accountability.

There are real questions that this bill raises: Will deposits into the fund be consistent year over year or will they depend on the fiscal pressures of the day? Will withdrawals be used sparingly and strategically or will they become a routine tool to manage government finances? Will this fund continue to represent long-term savings or will it become another line item in the budget?

These are not abstract concerns; these are fundamental questions about fiscal management and responsibility.

Speaker, we also cannot ignore the broader context. This province has faced significant fiscal challenges over the past number of years. We’ve made difficult decisions. We’ve taken steps to stabilize our finances. We have worked to rebuild credibility. Part of that credibility comes from having clear, disciplined frameworks in place. Frameworks like the Future Fund. When those frameworks are weakened, even if done unintentionally, it sends a signal that long-term planning may be taking a backseat to short-term flexibility.

I also want to address the issue of debt servicing being included as a permitted use of the fund. Again, let me be clear, serving the public debt is critical, but it is also a core responsibility of government, funded through regular revenues and fiscal planning. When we begin to rely on a future-oriented fund to address present day applications we risk creating a cycle –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It’s starting to get a bit too loud here again. I want to hear the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Thank you.

A cycle where we draw from the fund to manage debt, which reduces the fund’s capacity and weakens our long-term position, which increases pressures in the future. This is not a sustainable approach.

There is also the inclusion of costs related to the Crown asset sales and offshore decommissioning. These are complex and important areas, but they are also areas where planning, regulation and financial accountability must be clear and transparent. Using the fund to absorb these costs raises questions, questions about predictability and questions about planning, and questions about whether we are shifting financial responsibility rather than managing it.

Speaker, at its core, this debate comes down to a few simple questions: What is the Future Fund for and how are we protecting it? Is it a long-term savings mechanism designed to protect wealth for future generations or is it a flexible financial tool designed to support the Conservative government operations when needed?

This bill moves us closer to the latter and that is a shift we should not take lightly. On this side of the House we believe in responsible fiscal management. We believe in planning, not just for next year, but for the next generation. We believe that the rules governing that fund should reflect that purpose.

So today, we are calling for clarity; clarity from the government on how it intends to use the fund; clarity on how deposits will be determined; clarity on how withdrawals will be managed; and clarity on how the long-term integrity of the fund will be protected. Without the clarity or transparency, we are left with uncertainty, and uncertainty is not a foundation for sound financial governance.

I want to reiterate this: The Future Fund is not just a financial instrument or slush fund for the government. It is a statement; a statement about how we value our resources and how we plan for the future; a statement about the kind of province we want to build. We can choose to strengthen that statement or we can allow it to become diluted.

This bill, as it stands, raises serious concerns about that direction. It is our responsibility as Members of this House to ensure that these decisions we make today do not compromise the opportunities of tomorrow.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this debate now be adjourned.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this debate do now be adjourned.

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Seeing the time of day, I move that we recess.

SPEAKER: This House is now recessed until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we proceed with today’s session, I would like to introduce a new Page who is starting with us today, Karsen Best. Karsen is from Holyrood, but he resides in St. John’s. He is currently enroled in his third year at MUN studying political science and is planning on pursuing a law degree when he graduates.

Welcome, Karsen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Today in the public gallery we have several guests from the Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s 50-plus club, which is the subject of a Member’s statement today.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we’ll hear Member statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Burgeo - La Poile, Burin - Grand Bank, Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair and Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Burnt Islands Recreation Committee, a dedicated group whose work strengthens the well-being of youth, seniors and families throughout our communities. Their commitment to creating opportunities for active living, well-being and belonging reflects the best of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The committee’s volunteers give countless hours to ensure that programs, events and recreational spaces remain vibrant and accessible. Whether organizing activities for children, supporting healthy living for seniors or bringing residents together through celebrations, they demonstrate what community leadership looks like.

I want to acknowledge the individuals who continue to drive this important work: Joylene Carter, Julia Chaulk, Norma Chaulk, Isabella Herritt, Faye Munden, Leah Munden, Anne Rae, Christina Sack and Angie Thorne. Their dedication ensures that Burnt Islands remains a place where people of all ages feel supported and included.

The impact of their efforts is seen in the joy of children at community events, the engagement of seniors who gather for social and recreational programs and the steady use of our local recreational facilities that bring people together across generations.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking the Burnt Islands Recreation Committee for their outstanding service and unwavering commitment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to celebrate a remarkable volunteer, Wayde Rowsell, whose service to the Town of St. Lawrence and the Burin Peninsula has spanned nearly half a century.

A lab technologist at the US Memorial hospital, Wayde devoted 28 years to municipal government, including five terms as mayor. He also served nine years on the Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors, and seven years as a director with WorkplaceNL.

Wayde has been a tireless advocate for the miners and families of St. Lawrence, making numerous presentations during statutory reviews and appeals on behalf of those affected by the mining industry. He was also instrumental in fostering a lasting friendship between St. Lawrence and the United States Navy, particularly in honour of those impacted by theUSS Truxton and Pollux disaster of 1942. His efforts led to invitations as a special guest of the US Navy, including attending the Lone Sailor Award presentation alongside his friend, Dr. Lanier Phillips.

In retirement, Wayde authored Waves of Courage , preserving the history of shipwrecks off St. Lawrence and Lawn. Wayde Rowsell’s legacy is one of dedication, compassion and unwavering pride in his community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde.

R. BALSOM: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Kiwanis Club of Carbonear for hosting their 53rd Annual Regional Music Festival. This cherished event, once again, brought together talented performers from across our region, showcasing their dedication, passion and love for music.

From vocal performances to instrumental pieces, the festival highlighted not only the incredible skill of the performers, but also the strong community support that makes events like this possible. Teachers, parents, volunteers and organizers all played an essential role in creating an environment where these artists can grow, gain confidence and ultimately shine.

I would like to extend a special congratulations to Carbonear’s very own Liam Rowe, who was this year’s Senior Rose Bowl winner. This is an outstanding achievement and is a result of his dedication to his craft of singing. He, on several occasions throughout the festival, brought the house to its feet from his performances.

The Kiwanis Music Festival continues to be a celebration of culture and community spirit, whilst giving people the chance to grow.

I ask Members of this House to join me in congratulating all participants and thanking the Kiwanis Club for their continued commitment to our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Welcome, Liam, to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPE