PDF Version

April 21, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 16

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to welcome to the public gallery David Fong and his daughter, Christina Fong, from Quidi Vidi Brewery, who are the subject of a Member’s statement today.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: In the Speaker’s gallery I would like to welcome Mr. Philip Pratt, recipient of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and the subject of a Member’s statement today.

Welcome, Mr. Pratt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we’ll hear Members’ statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi, St. John’s West, Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, Waterford Valley and Windsor Lake.

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise to recognize Quidi Vidi Brewery, a trailblazer and proud ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador’s craft beer industry.

Perched along the rugged cliffs of Quidi Vidi Village, in the heart of the St. John’s Quidi Vidi district, this brewery has spent over 30 years perfecting its craft, growing from a former fish plant into the province’s largest craft brewery. Founded in 1996 by David Fong and David Rees, it sparked the vibrant beer culture we celebrate today.

With over 150 employees, Quidi Vidi Brewery is a cornerstone employer, strengthening our local economy. Just as importantly, it is woven into our cultural identity, offering over 25 beers year-round, including its iconic, blue-bottled Iceberg beer. Its breathtaking taproom welcomes visitors to experience the very best of our province.

Honoured with the 2023 Hospitality NL Tourism Corporate Partner Award and the 2024 St. John’s Legend Award, Quidi Vidi Brewery continues to elevate our profile at home and across the country and the world.

Through award-winning beers, immersive tours and strong industry partnerships, it showcases the creativity, resilience and spirit of this province. Their innovative marketing strategies and partnerships have put St. John’s on the map as a bucket list destination for beer enthusiasts and travellers alike.

So I ask my hon. colleagues to congratulate Quidi Vidi Brewery on 30 years of a very successful business in our community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, I rise today to recognize Big Brothers Big Sisters. Big Brothers Big Sisters has been committed to igniting the power and potential of young people in our community for more than five years.

Each year, more than 450 children and youth ages six to 18 are matched through a range of community- and school-based mentoring programs. In 2025, Big Brothers Big Sisters supported 479 young people and achieved the highest number of one-to-one mentoring matches in its history. These developmental relationships are built on trust, consistency and care, helping young people build confidence, improve mental health and reach their full potential.

This incredible milestone has been accomplished under the leadership of executive director, Kelly Leach. Kelly is stepping down from her role in June after more than 25 outstanding years. Kelly has had a front-row seat to the organization’s growth. She has developed programming, strengthened partnerships, navigated challenges and witnessed the powerful impact mentoring has had on young people and families in our community.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Big Brothers Big Sisters and Kelly Leach for their commitment to expanding access to mentorship, strengthening our communities and ensuring that every young person has the opportunity to thrive.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour a constituent whose creativity and dedication has shaped the cultural and architectural identity of our province, Mr. Philip Pratt, who was invested into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, the highest honour our province has.

Philip Pratt has devoted his work to architecture that reflects both our past and our present, creating spaces that resonate deeply in our province. His designs are rooted in the respect for place, blending contemporary vision with historical and environmental context to craft buildings that tell a story of the people, heritage and landscapes.

Among his many achievements, Mr. Pratt was also the lead architect of The Rooms, the iconic building, home to the provincial museum, gallery and archives. Beyond The Rooms, his influence reaches into heritage restorations, adaptive reused projects and community-focused spaces that strengthen our sense of identity. His leadership in heritage planning has guided preservation efforts across our province, ensuring that treasured historic environments endure for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I congratulate Philip Pratt on his investiture into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and thank him for his contributions to our culture. His legacy will continue to enrich our province for generations to come.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate an extraordinary woman, Madeline Piercey, whose life reflects resilience, community spirit and a deep love for family and activity.

Born on Carter’s Hill, Madeline spent her early years in downtown St. John’s, living on Livingstone Street and, later, at Howe Place after her marriage. She dedicated many years of service to the St. Clare’s Hospital, working as a school nurse and as a house mom and in administrative roles before retiring at the age of 65.

A lifelong lover of sport and recreation, Madeline embraced rowing, skating, curling and bowling and spent countless hours at Bowring Park, where she became a familiar and cherished presence.

She raised her family in Waterford Heights for nearly 60 years and now resides at Littledale, still enjoying visits to the park she loves.

She met her husband, Joe, at 14 while roller skating. They married in 1947 and shared nearly 75 wonderful years together. A proud Legion supporter, she continues to live life fully, often the first on the dance floor and the last to leave.

I ask all Members to join me in recognizing an amazing lady, Madeline Piercey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Row4Heart event, held on Sunday, April 19, which brought together community members, health care advocates and supporters in a shared commitment to advancing cardiac care. Participants took

part in a rowing challenge that promoted physical wellness while raising critical funds for heart health initiatives.

My colleagues and I were pleased to attend, and it was especially nice to see so many constituents from Windsor Lake in attendance, reflecting the strong community support behind this important cause.

Events like Row4Heart highlight the connection between community engagement and health care improvement. Every inch on those rowing machines symbolized hope for enhanced patient care, improved equipment and continued innovation in treating heart disease. The energy throughout the day was inspiring with participants united in their efforts to make a meaningful impact.

The Health Care Foundation plays a vital role in supporting front-line health care services and Row4Heart demonstrates what can be achieved when communities come together in support of heart health.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the organizers, participants and volunteers at this outstanding event and in continuing to support initiatives that strengthen heart health in our communities and our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

I am honoured to rise today to recognize April 19 to 25 as National Volunteer Week in Newfoundland and Labrador. Guided by the 2026 theme, Ignite Volunteerism, we are reminded of how each of us can spark positive change through our time, talent and empathy.

National Volunteer Week celebrates individuals whose generosity strengthens inclusion, well-being and resilience in our communities. This year’s observance is especially meaningful, as the United Nations has proclaimed 2026 as the International Year of Volunteers for Sustainable Development, highlighting the critical role volunteers play in times of both challenge and progress.

Volunteers are the heart of countless programs and services across our province. They support community centres serving youth, families, seniors and newcomers, while also providing leadership through volunteer boards in non-profit housing and homelessness initiatives. Their commitment helps people overcome barriers, find stability and build better lives.

Speaker, for me, volunteerism began at an early age. Alongside my mother, I volunteered with the Vera Perlin Society, where I learned early on the power of compassion, service and community. That experience has shaped my understanding of how even small acts of kindness can make a long-lasting difference.

To volunteers across our sector: thank you for your extraordinary service and unwavering commitment to our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, I rise today to join in recognizing National Volunteer Week and, most importantly, to recognize the thousands of volunteers across Newfoundland and Labrador who give their time, energy and compassion to strengthen our communities.

Volunteers are the backbone of this province. From community centres to food banks, youth programs to senior supports, volunteers are often the reason services can exist at all, especially in rural and remote communities; but, Speaker, while we celebrate volunteers, we must also be honest about why their role has become so essential.

Too often, volunteers are stepping in to fill gaps in services, supports and resources. Their generosity should never be treated as a substitute for strong, reliable public programs. We owe it to those volunteers not just to thank them, but to also support them.

That means ensuring community organizations have stable funding, reducing administration burdens that make it harder to operate and recognizing that volunteer burnout is real, especially when expectations continue to grow without the necessary support in place.

Speaker, volunteerism is about compassion –

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to thank every volunteer across our province for the time they commit to improving lives of our communities. Like the minister, I know the value of being a volunteer.

We, therefore, ask this government to provide stable, robust operational funding to the grassroots organizations that support volunteers and our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: Speaker, this week we recognize National Tourism Week, celebrating the important role tourism plays in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With the theme Canada: Powered by Tourism, this week highlights tourism’s vital contribution to our province’s economy, its role in strengthening our communities, and its ability to showcase our unique cultural identity to the world.

Tourism contributes over $1.4 billion to our economy, supports over 20,000 jobs.

It helps build vibrant, thriving communities by supporting cultural activities, enhancing public spaces and creating opportunities that benefit both residents and visitors alike. Our tourism operators are the heart of this success, sharing our stories, culture and history while delivering authentic experiences.

Our government remains committed to building a stronger, more accessible tourism sector. That means advancing affordable quality tourism so more people can experience all that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer and expanding tourism beyond the traditional peak season.

Thank you to the government staff, Hospitality NL, Destination Management Organizations and many tourism associations, partners and operators who continue to grow and promote tourism across our province.

Speaker, we will continue to support this vital industry as we work towards our goal of making Newfoundland and Labrador the tourism capital of Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

Our caucus is very pleased to join the government in recognizing National Tourism Week and celebrating an industry that brings so much energy and economic strength to communities right across our province.

Our tourism operators, those in the private sector and also those attractions operated as non-profits by volunteers, are what makes Newfoundland and Labrador such a special destination. Their passion and vision help shape both resident and non-resident visitor experiences.

I also want to acknowledge the provincial Tourism Industry Association, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, the Destination Management Organizations and all the stakeholders that work tirelessly to promote and advance the tourism sector.

We look forward to hearing the minister’s plan to improve air access, as promised in the blue book, and the steps she will take to make Newfoundland and Labrador the tourism capital of Canada.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

We all appreciate how incredibly important tourism is to our local economy and our communities, as we acknowledged earlier with Quidi Vidi Brewery and architect, Mr. Philip Pratt. Much of what lures tourists here is our rich and vibrant culture, our heritage and our art scene and, of course, keeping an eye to the gateway of our capital city, the Battery.

That is why, in the interest of strengthening our tourism industry, we ask that this government commit more adequate, stable and secure funding to our artists so that they may continue to create the works that make us so unique.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Churchill Falls MOU is set to expire on April 30, just nine days away; however, it can be extended by Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec if they agree in writing.

I ask the Premier: Have there been discussions with the new Premier of Quebec to extend the April 30 deadline?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I have had a discussion with the new Premier of Quebec. I phoned her up to congratulate her on her new role, and we talked about the review that is currently under way. She respects the review process that is currently under way in Newfoundland and Labrador. Once our review is completed, we’ll have a series of recommendations by the end of the month and our way forward will be clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By the end of the month, the MOU will have expired.

So I ask the Premier: During his conversations with the Premier of Quebec, who said that she still had hopes that this could be a negotiated deal in the weeks and months ahead, will the deadline for April 30 be extended before the panel gives its decision?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, as I had said before and I will continue to say it again, we have undertaken an independent review process to review this particular MOU. That process is taking place, it will be completed by the end of April and we look forward to the results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: We’ve picked up right where we left off: two questions and no answers.

The premier – not this Premier, but the former premier has claimed victory. Danny Williams said that the MOU is dead and, not only that, it is his greatest political accomplishment. The current Premier continues to spend millions of dollars on this biased review panel.

So will the Premier tell Newfoundlanders and Labradors who should we believe? Is the deal dead or not?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, many people in Newfoundland and Labrador have raised concerns about the MOU, including former leaders of more than one party.

What we had done, we said we were going to do exactly what we did, which was to set up an independent review to have a total look at the MOU. That process will be finished at the end of April. We look forward to the results, but I would also like to remind the Member opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition, what he said back on September 15. We must – and I quote – make sure that the deal we sign, if it’s the right deal, is the right deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

“If it’s the right deal” are the key words here, and that’s exactly what we’re going to find out through this review process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I did say that and I would only sign a good deal if it’s the right deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: But I had the courage to review the deal myself and tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where I stood on it.

So I ask this Premier: Finally, after over a year and a half of when the deal was signed, can you tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: – where you stand on it? Do you agree with former Premier Willaims, or do you want to give your own opinion on this MOU right here in this House of Assembly?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’ve been quite clear on this MOU right from the time it was first announced – calling for an independent review to be completed on the review, calling for independent experts to be allowed to come into the House of Assembly. That never happened.

We went on election, we turned around –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: We turned around and asked for an independent review. We’ve got an independent review going. It will be completed at the end of April. I look forward to the results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, just because you didn’t vote on something, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: The fact of the matter is we debated this MOU very publicly in this very House of Assembly a year and a half ago, and the Premier is doing anything but being clear. He will not tell Newfoundlanders where he stands on this. He’s only let Premier Williams speak for him –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: – and he’s delegated his responsibility, as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, to a biased panel to tell him what to do.

Why won’t this Premier stand up and say if he agrees with the MOU or not?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: What we have done is exactly what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve. We will not sign up for another 50 years unless we get (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – until we do an actual independent review. That’s what’s ongoing. When he talks about a biased committee – two members of that panel were members of their committee. The difference is that they had handcuffs put on them. We’ve removed the handcuffs and the shackles. They were free to talk to anyone they wanted, get all the information they wanted, which they have done, and I look forward their report at the end of April.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I say to the Premier, I know he looks forward to it so he can have someone tell him what he should think on this deal because he can’t think for himself.

It’s been two months since the Premier announced the Bay du Nord deal. Two months of his government expecting the workers of this province to believe a one-page press release that they put out.

When will he make the Bay du Nord agreement public?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, we are working through that process with the parties involved in the agreement and look forward to making it public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: We look forward to it too, but we’ve been waiting for two months.

Speaker, we need to see the agreement because there are still so many questions. A report in allNewfoundlandandLabrador cites the Energy Minister as saying the drydock the Conservative government is supposedly going to build will cost $425 million plus 25 per cent, which would bring it to over half a billion dollars.

So I ask the Premier: Who is going to pay for this extra cost?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, we sit here and listen to the Members opposite talk about the releasing of deals. We have said we’re going to release the deal. Ten years, they never released one deal – not one. Not the ones that they gave to their buddies who donated $72,000. Not the ones that they gave to their buddies who funded their campaign promises. Not one deal in 10 years, and that leader was a part of it.

So we will release this deal after it’s scrutinized by all parties involved, but these guys didn’t release one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I ask the minister: Who’s scrutinizing a deal that’s already been signed? The parties should have been on the same page when they signed this deal. So who is scrutinizing it and when is it going to be released?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I would say that’s the best question that the Leader of the Opposition has ever answered. I’ll go back to last year, January 6, when they brought an MOU in here that they already signed and they wanted to debate, but it was okay then.

Just another example of them saying do what we say, not what we do. They signed an MOU; it was done. Then they wanted to debate it. No different.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: We did. We signed an MOU, which was a memorandum of understanding, which is due to expire in nine days, as we talked about here at the top of Question Period. So it was not a binding deal for any Newfoundland and Labrador government with regard to Churchill Falls.

The Premier made a big fuss about the fact that when he signed the Bay du Nord agreement, it was a final, legal agreement. So it is absolutely different, and we will not see it, and it hasn’t been to the House of Assembly. As we know, the Minister of Energy said, why would we debate anything in the House of Assembly?

So I ask the Premier: In all seriousness, is there actually a signed deal on the Bay du Nord agreement?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I will say is I’ll repeat exactly what I said a few minutes ago. Parties are going through the agreement right now, making sure there’s no commercial sensitivity to be exposed, and this deal will be released publicly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I’ll ask one more time. I’m not sure why it takes two months for two parties to go through one agreement before it can be released to the public.

Premier, when will the document be released so the public can see what you’ve signed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: It’s disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t put himself up to date on this file. We have clearly said – clearly – on multiple occasions, there are four parties involved in this. There’s the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there’s OilCo, there is BP and there is Equinor, and he stands in the House and says two parties – dead wrong again.

Always wrong. What’s good for them is not good for everyone else. We will release it once it has been scrutinized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I remind the Energy Minister when he did a scrum out there, he actually forgot that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was signed onto that agreement as well. He said it was between private entities.

I’ll move to another topic because again we’re not getting any answers on important questions on the economy.

Early childhood educators, Speaker, play an important role in child development and $10-a-day programs play an important role in education and our economy. It’s at risk because the Conservative government will not publicly say whether it will live up to their election commitments.

Will the Premier commit to pensions, paid sick leave and an updated wage grid for early childhood educators, some of whom are sitting in the gallery today, like he promised or will they continue with excuses and delays?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

No excuses, we value, as far as being our greatest resource, the children of which would be in our system. We know that they are our future, much the same as the students who are visiting today from Gonzaga, I believe. They are our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: We know that the earlier that we can catch children in early childhood education the better we are as far as our path forward. We will do everything within our power to make sure that we have an agreement with the association.

The fact that we’ve got a Committee struck now, that the Minister of Education had stated to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that will yield our actions –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Well, Speaker, it was a yes or no question and we didn’t get an answer. All we got was talking about our resource of our children. We all agree, but we do want them to commit to what they committed to in their blue book, and they haven’t done it yet. Our government created more than 11,000, $10-a-day child care spaces with plans to create more.

Will the Premier commit to expanding the number of spaces so children and families can benefit from this program? I remind the government it’s an area of provincial responsibility, their responsibility, not the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I tell the story about my first Finance Minister that I attended in Ottawa, then we had other finance ministers from other provinces who were railing against the federal government, because they thought that they didn’t adequately support financially the $10-a-day program.

They said that it was flawed from the start. Many worked out different agreements, but all I would say is: Do we value it? Yes, we would like for it to be no charge, but they undersold and they under supported what this program does.

The previous government were the first signatory of that program, and I would say, other finance ministers would say, that was flawed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I’d suggest the Finance Minister read the constitution. Education is the responsibility of the provinces and this government. So regardless of whether you agree with the federal government or not, it is our responsibility and it is your responsibility to provide funding for early childhood educators.

So my question is: Will you live up to the commitments you made to early childhood educators in your blue book or not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Will we live up to our commitments in our blue book? Yes – an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Yes, we will, but one thing I would say, Speaker, is that we need to plan efficiently within our fiscal envelop.

Do we value the work of our teachers, our educators in the early childhood education? Without a doubt we do. They’re of great value. We’ve got to make sure we get it right within that signature, the program and the agreement that was signed onto, it’s our responsibility, but we’ve got to look at the financial envelope to make sure that we’ve got the future covered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I’m sure the ECEs here today are glad to hear that the commitment has been made and will be lived up to, but, more importantly, they want to know when. They need the help now. They need the benefits they were promised. They need the wage grid they were promised. They need the pensions they were promised. They can’t wait, so kicking it down the road by forming a Committee, when everybody already knows what they are asking for and what will help the system, only does one thing, delay.

So I ask the Finance Minister: Will what he has promised for ECEs be in the budget next week or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to have to wait until Wednesday the 29th to find out what would be contained within the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I’m not surprised that he’s here trying to sneak out some information in advance of it, but I know that we’re going to have some early announcements as well that will be forthcoming prior to the budget.

Again to state, we have a working committee. The Minister of Education has said that. We have a working group, and I would think we will prioritize as far as within the financial envelope what we can do in this very, very valuable resource that we’ve got.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: So, Speaker, it’s not about me in here waiting for the budget; it’s about the ECEs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: We are asking questions on their behalf and they do not want to wait and they cannot wait – the system cannot wait for the promises that were made to be fulfilled.

When the Finance Ministers says I think they will be prioritized, it certainly doesn’t sound like he has contemplated it for next week’s budget.

So I say to the Finance Minister: Why are you making ECEs wait in our province when they so desperately need – and you have promised to deliver on those commitments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance, in my last commentary, I probably ought not to have used the word “think.” I know we will prioritize all those that would be involved with the education of our youth. It has got to be a priority. I think we all agree, all 40 reps in this House, that education, going forward, has to be a priority.

Everyone in this House would know that the earlier we can catch a child to make sure that they’ve got sound program is where we ought to be. We will make it work – not I think, but we will make it work.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, to mark Tourism Week in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts posted a photo of herself in front of The Rooms. The photo was either AI generated or doctored. The impressive artwork of the caribou representing the Royal Newfoundland and Labrador Regiment on the main entrance was removed with an unknown logo replacing it.

Why is the minister, in her Facebook post, redesigning the entrance to such an iconic tourism landmark?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: Speaker, I’m not sure what she’s talking about, so I’ll have to go back and look at the picture and get back to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

We’ve been sent the images and have heard from artists in the province that are disappointed that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts is using AI or editing tools to replace the work of artists and designers that she should be advocating for.

Can the minister explain to these artists why she feels using doctored photos in this context is acceptable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. FORD: The images can be found, Mr. Speaker, on the minister’s Facebook page.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: Like I said, Speaker, unaware of what she’s talking about, so I’m going to have to go back and have a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: So will the Premier finally do the right thing and commit to actually cutting the provincial gas tax, even if temporarily, like the prime minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: To answer that question, you often refer to levers, and when we look at levers, there are many opportunities to put money into people’s pockets.

On Wednesday, the 29th, the Opposition will rightfully challenge us on the money and the affordability measures that we have in our first budget as a government. Rightfully so that they’re going to challenge it. We believe that we’ve got a good budget to address affordability measures, and we will put money in people’s pockets to reduce the affordability. Going forward, if we find that the affordability is still high, it’s still strong for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we will do more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

We look forward to challenging the budget and asking questions about the budget, but I want to hold them to their words because, during course of the debate on the gas tax, the reason they wouldn’t do it is because it was permanent, yet the Premier went out and literally used the words: We support the temporary cut of the federal gas tax.

So why did they say one thing one day and do something different the other day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, we went after the prime minister’s office to do something about their tax. They certainly had more levers to pull, as my minister said. They decided to pull one of those levers and turn around and do a temporary date of September.

We’ll certainly be talking to the prime minister’s office again about making that permanent, but it was a good first move.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: I can assure the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that the action we’ve taken is a permanent reduction in legislation, and not only that, I will assure the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that they will continue to have the lowest provincial tax on gasoline of any province in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I ask the minister: Why did he say it was temporary?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I would think that most things rolled out are temporary in nature, during a time, Mr. Speaker, where affordability costs are high.

The government reducing or eliminating the excise tax is temporary; Labour Day it goes off. A lot of things that roll in are temporary. The only thing, in saying that, is that if we look at the revenue or the taxation we have coming into the coffers, we have to make sure that the affordability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is looked after.

That is where we need to make sure that we pivot in order to do it, but we didn’t use that lever. We used other levers that you’ll find out next Wednesday.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

The Minister of Government Services also said in his post, that it was a last-minute amendment. I would like to correct the minister that we introduced it at our first opportunity, during the first speech of Committee stage.

So I ask the minister: Why did you incorrectly say that it was last minute?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I think, with all the gallery full here, it hurts me to even stand to answer the question.

Maybe the hon. minister thought that when you were looking at three cents of gas coming off propane forklifts, he might have thought that it was rushed. He may have thought, when a Member stands up and says, well, this is going to help us out for the fishermen out there with the gas savings on the tax, well the hon. minister may have thought, well, they don’t pay tax on their gas.

So to understand that it might have been rushed, I can understand where the minister was coming from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I would love to hear from the Minister of Government Services, and I’d also like to remind the government that they shut down the House. We had other amendments; we would have been happy to come up with a friendly amendment to change the gas tax, but the government shut down the House and we were not able to do that.

I ask the Minister of Government Services: Would he correct the record and correct the public comments that he made?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: We would say that the amendment was flawed. Could you have brought another amendment in to say that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: – to say that all of a sudden we’re going to have not only the lowest but we’re going to lower it further.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: I think the government here have stated –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are you finished?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Yeah? We’re going to have order in this House of Assembly one way or the other. I’m going to remind all Members that I will not be putting up with any disruptions. If we want me to start naming out Members and taking away speaking privileges, I have no problem of going down that road, on either side, I will add.

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

C. PARDY: Just to finish, Mr. Speaker, I would say the amendment was flawed from the start. The Leader of the Official Opposition has used levers numerous times in this House. We are saying that we’re going to use our levers in our budget to make more targeted approaches to help affordability in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Urgent Care Centre in the east end of St. John's closed early on Sunday, cancelling appointments and leaving patients with nowhere to go.

Why was it closed, and why weren’t the public told about this closure or why it was closed? This doesn’t sound like openness and transparency, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, the Member is right. We are struggling at times to keep the Urgent Care Centre open on certain days, especially in the evenings.

Speaker, this is unacceptable to me, as Minister of Health. In actual fact, we were not going to be reducing the hours. We should be trying to expand hours, but as the new Minister of Health, being sworn in in October, one of the things that I’ve learned is that there are a lot of problems with recruitment and retention, the way recruitment and retention has been allowed to go on under the direction of the last government.

We’re going to address those problems, and we’re going to recruit. We’re going to keep the Urgent Care Centres open –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

With the MOU panel report deadline fast approaching, will the Premier commit today to making the report public immediately upon completion and, for the sake of transparency, will he guarantee a full debate in the House of Assembly so all Members have the opportunity to respond?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I look forward to receiving the report from the Independent Review Committee by April 30. It is our intention, as I have said before, to make sure that the public of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in this House of Assembly will have an opportunity to review it for sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, a former PC premier who donated almost $47,000 to the PCs’ election campaign boasted about stepping in to stop the Churchill Falls MOU. The Minister of Mines and Energy claims that the people of the province voted to reject the MOU on election day.

So will the Premier admit that his government never had any intention of negotiating a new deal, that the conclusions of his independent panel are pre-ordained and that on this issue, at least, he is not the Premier driving the bus?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, w hat I have committed to, and we committed to, we’re continuing to do it, was an independent review process that was truly independent, and lots of people have had opinions about the MOU.

The former leader of the NDP spoke out against the MOU. Other people have spoken out against the MOU, but this independent review committee will turn around and present its report on April 30. We’ll follow the recommendations of that report, but we will not sign up to anything that commits people of Newfoundland and Labrador for another 50 years before we see that review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, a former premier stated that stopping the MOU was his greatest achievement after leaving office.

In light of this situation, will the current Premier commit to capping individual donations, as we proposed, to ensure this kind of influence cannot happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

While the Leader of the Third Party is up on the mainland supporting the guy who wants to turn taps off on oil, and while their party is receiving over $80,000 in donations from unions, not necessarily located in this province, all of a sudden, they found their moral compass and they want to come in and shut everything off. They need to understand what is good for them is good for every other Member in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, we know where the Liberals stand. Last year, 70 per cent of their donations came from corporations. During the election, Fortis donated over $15,000 to the PCs and now government refuses to address the skyrocketing energy rates facing people on the Island. The system is broken.

Will the Premier prove they are different from the Liberals and finally ban corporate and – listen – union donations, as we put forward, to ensure fairness for all parties?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, this Premier has always said that we are going to be very transparent. It’s funny how people only become transparent after the election is over. $82,000 in the last two years they have taken from the unions. This is the same individual who has stood up and said they don’t take corporate donations or any of the like – $82,000.

Now, because it doesn’t s uit him, he wants to stand in here, up on his soapbox, and preach to us about what they have done themselves. This is not something they should be doing for the benefit of their party. They do it. They accept it. They like it, and now it’s a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Well, Speaker, I, at least, know one MHA who didn’t bother to read our platform at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: So, Speaker, the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development announced a new ECE Steering Committee to establish priorities. ECEs and their families cannot wait.

I ask the minister: While yet another Committee is establishing priorities, what actions will his department take in the interim – in the interim – to recruit more ECEs and to make sure those already in the system don’t leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I got to address the

preamble there on platform.

This is a party that puts out a platform that’s going to pay for absolutely everything, one day. The next day, they go to Ottawa to support a leader who has very openly said he would turn off the taps for oil and gas immediately. So tell me how effective their platform is? Are they going to pay for everything with love and buttons? Because if they shut down the oil industry here in Newfoundland, there is nothing left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65 and the motion of referral passed on March 9, 2026, I am pleased to present the report of the Striking Committee for the 51st General Assembly.

SPEAKER: Are there any other reports?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in the House today and table the 2024-25 annual report for the C-NLOER, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator.

I’m further pleased to stand here today and table the Department of Energy and Mines mineral incentive programs 2024-25, junior exploration assistance program performance measure and evaluation.

SPEAKER: Are there any further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Yes, Speaker, may I have leave to present documents?

SPEAKER: Does the Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I’d like to table documents that I referred to in Question Period earlier today.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Okay.

Any further tabling of documents?

In accordance with

section 19(5)(

a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby table minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held on December 9, 2025; February 19, 2026; and February 23, 2026.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 22, but shall continue to sit for the conduct of government business and if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

Speaker, I give further notice that pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 23.

SPEAKER: Any further notices of motion?

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice of the following private Member’s motion, which will be seconded by the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi:

WHEREAS the cost-of-living crisis has put enormous strain on household budgets because wages have not kept pace with inflation; and

WHEREAS this situation puts unprecedented strain on working families, as they try to cover the cost of essentials like food, heating and electricity; and

WHEREAS the price of electricity on the Island-interconnected system has risen by about 25 per cent in the past five years; and

WHEREAS the new policy at Newfoundland Power is to cut people off from services if they cannot pay, even in the dead of winter, offering customers little leeway and no mercy; and

WHEREAS the majority of executive pay at Newfoundland Power comes from money paid directly by customers; and

WHEREAS it is morally indefensible for the providers of a basic monopoly service, whether public or private, to make a profit off the misery of people, those they serve;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the provincial government to introduce amendments to the Public Utilities Act to cap the salaries of Newfoundland Power executives at rates comparable for deputy ministers and mandate that any funds provided for bonus pay come from shareholders rather than ratepayers.

Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 63(3), the private Member’s motion that I reference will be debated tomorrow, Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

SPEAKER: Any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

P. PIKE: Thank you, Speaker.

My petition deals with paving and upgrading of a road from Little Bay East to Harbour Mille in the District of Burin - Grand Bank. These are the reasons for and background of this petition:

WHEREAS the road from Little Bay East to Harbour Mille has deteriorated extensively; and

WHEREAS the last time this road was upgraded is in excess of 35 years; and

WHEREAS the residents are extremely concerned with their health and safety due to emergency response times; and

WHEREAS the community will be negatively impacted by the lack of tourists that visit their community each summer; and

WHEREAS children travel daily on school buses over these very treacherous roads; and

WHEREAS the condition of the road is causing extensive damage to the vehicles that use this road; and

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Harbour Mille are seniors who need access to basic services outside the community;

THEREFORE we petition this hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allocate the necessary funding to address the concerns of the residents and provide the necessary road infrastructure by paving and upgrading the road between Little Bay East and Harbour Mille.

As I’ve already indicated, there has been no paving in this area for 35 years. We put in a four-year plan, which involved four phases of paving between Jacques Fontaine and St. Bernard’s. We completed the first two and we have two more –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m having difficulty hearing the Member.

P. PIKE: I’m having difficulty speaking.

Thirty-five years since it has been paved. We decided that it would be done in four phases due to the number of kilometres required to finish this project. This was addressed with the communities in the area and they were satisfied with our plan. As a matter of fact, they were excited about our plan. If you haven’t had pavement in 35 years, I think you’d be excited as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: It only got bad in the last six months.

P. PIKE: No, it didn’t get bad in the last six months; it got bad over 35 years. I guess, if the Member across was trying to pay attention, he missed the fact that I said it was going to be done in four phases. So these were the last two phases to be done. So just –

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I listened to the Member opposite. I don’t respond to every petition but when I hear these petitions come up and they take great interest in the roadwork, the last time I checked there were 40 districts in the province. Right across the way, there are 15. There are 21, and over there makes up the remainder.

Every district deserves roadwork, theirs included, but for the last 10 years, they’ve been in power, they had the ability to do all of this roadwork and then some. They took great pride in spending a lot of money on a lot of roads in a lot of districts. To stand in your place and say this road has been in bad shape for 35 years and after 10 years in power, to be lecturing me and our government after less than six months in power, how come we haven’t paved the road, I think it’s disingenuous to this House and to me and to this government and to the people of this province and to the people of his own district.

We will pave roads as the money becomes available, as assessments are done, as our people go out and do the work, because there are a lot of good people in my department that have put a lot of pride into their work –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: – and they give a lot of recommendations. Unbeknownst to Members opposite, I actually listen to the staff in the department. I take the lead from a lot of the staff in the department and I will make my decisions in close consultation with the staff.

Right now, that’s not on our list. Will it be on our list? Of course, it may be on a list down the road. But it’s disingenuous to stand in this House after 10 years in government and cry that your road wasn’t paved. It’s just totally disingenuous.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, thank you.

These are the reasons for this petition – and is to implement the GPS ankle bracelet monitoring system.

Intimate partner violence numbers in Newfoundland and Labrador are unacceptably high and immediate action is needed. Women live in fear and some have died. Those accused of violent IPV crimes are often released on bail with few conditions.

When arrested for breaching, they are released again on similar conditions. This pattern increases danger to victims and our community. Last year, Provincial Court Judge Wayne Gorman e xpressed his frustration in the judgment saying, why are release orders so spectacularly unsuccessful in protecting women from their intimate partners when those partners are charged with assaulting them?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, electronic monitoring is currently used only in a pilot project for convicted offenders on parole or probation. Ankle monitoring for bail release is used in Quebec, PEI, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba and in some places specifically to protect women from their abusers and is proving to be effective.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement an active GPS ankle bracelet monitoring program immediately as an option for the courts when those accused of seriously violent or repeat IPV offences are released on bail conditions. To ensure its efficiency, the program should include GPS-based zones of exclusion around dwellings, workplaces and schools and GPS mobile zones of exclusion for victims who request this.

I will table this. Speaker, if I could just have a moment to reflect on – the minister has spoken to the support of this endeavour. Obviously, time is ticking and in that period of time we have seen, of course, a terrible, terrible circumstance happening in Grand Falls-Windsor. In the States, we see examples in Louisiana, where we know that people who are victims of domestic violence can be saved in situations where monitoring systems can be implemented.

This is something that can happen, that can happen now and we have seen success in other jurisdictions. I call upon the minister to act fast in this regard, because we are seeing further and further violence go ahead.

Thank you, Speaker. I will table the petition.

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

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. colleague with respect to this serious issue of intimate partner violence that we see as a blight, really, on our society.

Since I became Minister of Justice and Public Safety, I’ve had the privilege of meeting with a number of stakeholders who have informed me, specifically, about this issue as well as others. End Sexual Violence NL, Iris Kirby House, I’ve met with them. I’ve also met with Janet McNaughton of Act Now NL. I also have another meeting scheduled to further discuss implementing electronic monitoring for the pre-conviction stage of matters. I can say that I’m meeting with Olivia Lynch as well. We’ve scheduled a meeting with her, with the Avalon Violence Prevention.

It’s important that we look at this as an important tool to help with respect to intimate partner violence. We are exploring the feasibility, and I can assure the Member that this is something that is a priority to us. We are looking at the various components of implementing electronic monitoring for individuals on bail, but, of course, we have to ensure that our efforts are coordinated with our important stakeholders and that we are informed when we do proceed with this tool.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

The reason for this petition is as follows:

While we appreciate the paving and repairs completed in 2025, many sections of Route 100 remain in very poor condition. Route 100 is a vital roadway used daily by residents commuting to work, to the grocery store, ambulance and emergency services, patients travelling to the hospital, tourists visiting the Cape Shore and many local businesses.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure to finish the work that was started on Branch country and the Cape Shore road, Route 100, during this construction season and prioritize further improvements this year including additional paving, infrastructure upgrades and necessary bridge repairs to ensure the road is safe and reliable for everyone who depends on it.

Speaker, it’s becoming a pattern in the House of Assembly that any work or phases of work that was predetermined has been cancelled. I have 304 signatures on this petition. There are people here from Branch, Point Lance, St. Bride’s, Cuslett, Angel’s Cove, Great Barasway, Freshwater, Whitbourne, Dunville, Admiral’s Beach, Harbour Breton, St. John’s, Chapel Arm, Mount Pearl and CBS.

These individuals go to the Cape Shore for work or they go there for tourism, or they go for their cabins or they actually use the road to get to the hospital and get to the store. While I understand and the minister has said prior in this House of Assembly that a significant amount of money has been put into the District of Placentia - St. Mary’s, he also is very well aware that the work was started, the culverts were put in the ground and the work wasn’t finished and now it’s cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, the people have asked me to present this, so I table it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

M. KING: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for and background of this petition :

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allocate funding and undertake comprehensive road improvements on Route 480 including paving, shoulder upgrades, draining improvements and any other repairs necessary to bring the road to an acceptable standard of safety.

Speaker, I will note that I have a number of signatures from residents of Burgeo here, which as I’ve stated multiple times in the House of Assembly so far, that Route 480 is the vital connection to the community, to the rest of the province, and to access other services that are necessary. We know this time of year is very challenging with a lot of potholes after the winter season.

We know the announcement that has been made for the roadwork this year, and I certainly do want to thank the minister for taking the time to meet with me, and his staff, to talk about a lot of the issues that we’re facing in the District of Burgeo - La Poile. I certainly look forward to working with him and his staff to make sure those issues are addressed. I will continue to stand up here and present any petitions and bring these issues to the forefront, because they’re very important to the residents that I represent and their issues are certainly my issues to bring here to the House of Assembly as their voice.

So I will continue to bring these petitions forward. As I mentioned, I know that the announcement has been made for roadwork this year, but we’re starting to see some significant deterioration. I’m hearing from residents on the route. You know, I travel that route as often as I can to visit those communities in my district. A lot of areas of concern. It’s a very challenging route, especially in the dark, when you have to travel. With our summer tourism season just around the corner, it’s especially important to address a lot of the issues where we’ll have a number of visitors visiting Burgeo and the other surrounding communities that you have to access on Route 480.

I know the decisions have been made for roadwork this year, but I certainly encourage the minister and his staff to make sure the staff that work in that area have the tools that they need to address these concerns and to address them as soon as we can because we have a lot of people travelling on that route. Now, as I mentioned, residents and visitors are starting to increase as well.

I certainly appreciate the residents for bringing this petition to me, and I urge the minister to address those concerns that they’re bringing forward.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Orders of the Day.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn on, today, Tuesday, April 21, 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, Bill 12.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the MHA for Cape St. Francis, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act, Bill 12, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act, be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act,” carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act. (Bill 12)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

L. PARROTT: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I move, seconded by my friend and colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and Public Procurement, that this bill be read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Future Fund Act.” (Bill 9)

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

C. PARDY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

This bill pertains to the Future Fund. I know that those that may be watching from home, there may be some complicating issues surrounding this fund as to what it’s all about. I know watching today from Elliston, the viewers from Elliston, they’ll be most interested in this Future Fund. In particular Fred and Joan Cuff – friends of mine that I had the pleasure of visiting not that long ago – they are most in tune with the bills and the proceedings of the House of Assembly.

This Future Fund was introduced by the previous government. Those Members who were here when the Future Fund was presented to us all in the House will know that there are some things that we, in Opposition, challenged on that Future Fund.

I harken back and go back now and test the memories of those who were here at that time. Number one, it was an investment into the future of our province. Nobody has a problem with that. That is sound. Nobody has an issue with that. There was a clause there that allowed for, after 10 years, extenuating circumstances that could not be defined, there was grey area. So, really, you put money into the Future Fund, but it was grey, that it could be a political decision after 10 years, that you would withdraw the money out.

When I get into my address here and share with you, it’s based on the premise of these two areas. Number one is that there had to be a mandatory contribution to the Future Fund. We’re going to change that to discretionary, and I’ll explain that. Remember, the mandatory we had to borrow in order to pay for the Future Fund. Keep in mind that now when we withdraw from the Future Fund, no longer extenuating circumstances, now whenever we withdraw from the Future Fund, it will be for debt only, including in the debt only could be some liabilities that we would have, nevertheless debt.

So I’m pleased to present the amendments to the Future Fund to the House today and look forward to speakers on that and questions related to. We feel very positive about the fund and what the intention would be, and I know that the Opposition’s challenge is to raise some issues that might be questioning what our intentions would be in the bill.

Again, these changes will restructure the fund, aligning with our government’s priorities of creating a stronger, more resilient Newfoundland and Labrador for all of us – a stronger, more resilient.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund, again as stated, was originated in 2023 by the previous government. It was to invest revenue from one-time sources and non-renewable resources. Again, for the benefit of future generations.

We proposed the amendment to the Future Fund Act to remove the requirement for annual mandatory contributions and limit the basis of which funds can be withdrawn to ensure that the funds set aside are truly maintained for debt and liability of repayment. Any withdrawal would have to be for debt.

Key amendments to the act: The requirement for mandatory contributions based on non-renewable resource royalties will be removed. As a result, the Future Fund regulations are no longer required and will be repealed. Secondly, discretionary contributions will be limited to when the province is in a surplus cash position, excluding funds raised through borrowings. And I’ll repeat: Discretionary contributions will be limited to when the province is in a surplus cash position, excluding funds that we will need to borrow to contribute.

Thirdly, the ability to withdraw funds pertaining to strategic priorities and extraordinary circumstances will be removed. By this bill, again, any withdrawal will be for debt, and that would include the liabilities. To repeat: The permitted use of the fund will now be exclusively for paying down the province’s debt and liabilities.

Due to revisions on the permitted withdrawal uses of the fund, the restriction to only use the fund to service public debt during the first 10 years of the act is no longer required. Because starting now, whenever the bill is passed, to, at a time in the future, any withdrawal must be to address the debt of the province.

We do not anticipate any contributions to the fund as it stands now during the province’s current five-year forecast, unless a sale of a Crown asset were to incur greater than $5 million in net proceeds or a decision is made pertaining to a discretionary contribution. Contributions can be made on a discretionary basis subject to the approval of Treasury Board.

The province currently has $23.7 billion in debentures outstanding. Debentures are just debt rolled out to years in the future when they will become due to be paid upon. We have $23.7 billion in debt coming due in the future years, and we’re probably pushing out to 2056. Some years, no debt coming due. Some years, larger amounts than others.

But attached to the debt are sinking funds. Sinking funds are investments attached to each of those debentures and those debts, or most of the debt, that that is going to build, that when that debt comes due in 20 years, 15 years or 30 years, we’ve got that portion of money in that sinking fund that can be used to pay off that debt when it comes due.

I know my hon. minister here of TI and Public Procurement is wondering, how much exactly do we have in sinking funds today? That’s what you were thinking, wasn’t it?

B. PETTEN: Oh, absolutely.

C. PARDY: Absolutely. I can read him so well.

We have $6.2 billion in sinking funds. That means money that is invested anchored to debt that when that debt comes due, we can pay on that debt so when it’s rolled over it’s less. So, really, with $6.2 million in sinking funds, what figure do we have –

AN HON. MEMBER: Billion.

C. PARDY: Billion, sorry, $6.2 billion – I do get tangled up in millions and billions. Never before I got in this position and now, I do, sometimes.

We’ve got $17.5 billion in outstanding debt, outside those sinking funds. So instead of $23.7 billion, we have $17.5 billion that would be outside the sinking funds that are working while we sit here to pay off the debt.

The cancellation of mandatory non-renewable resource revenue contributions to the Future Fund is projected – I’m going to start that again because that is an important part.

The cancellation of the mandatory non-renewable resource revenue contributions to the Future Fund is projected to reduce the province’s current borrowing projection by $1.9 billion over the next 10 years. Eliminating the need to borrow to put into the fund is projected to reduce our borrowing over the next 10 years by $1.9 billion; including a reduction of $184 million for ’26-’27. A little sneak piece about what’s coming out next Wednesday, just a little tidbit to pique your interest on that.

So without the mandatory that we’re looking at, $184 million and that is all based on the fall projected update that was provided.

I want you to pay attention because there’s some good stuff coming here now in this fund that we have. This will provide government with additional financial flexibility to address the current priorities of the people of the province without the corresponding increase in the size of the borrowing program that we would have to embark upon.

During the fiscal 2022-2023, the Department of Finance received approval to reinstate the creation of a sinking fund for all future debt issuances – we don’t propose to change that because, I would think, on this side we agree, good thing – at an annual contribution rate of not less than 1.5 per cent of the aggregate principal debt issued. So you need to borrow $2 billion, you borrow $2 billion, 1.5 per cent of that must start a sinking fund to be attached to that debt that is going to help pay it off when it comes due.

For those viewers at home, Mr. Speaker, I think they’re catching on now to those sinking funds, because this might be all new to them, we put money attached to debt, when it comes due, it’s going to help us pay it off. It’s like a savings account that we put in to pay off the debt when it comes due.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

C. PARDY: You’re going to speak soon now, but listen.

Going forward, Mr. Speaker, part of the amendment here, we are seeking approval for an additional –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

C. PARDY: I’d like for the Member to pay attention to this now; this is good because he’s going to get a chance to speak to this one now too.

Going forward, we are seeking approval for an additional 1 per cent on new debt issued, commencing now; not 1.5 per cent of the debt, 2.5 per cent of the debt be anchored to that sinking fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I know that you’re wondering about an example. If such changes would have been made for the ’25-’26 fiscal year, if they were made last year, it would have resulted in an additional $38 million in sinking fund contributions that would be exclusively held to repay the province’s debt. That’s fairly significant.

Add on 1 per cent further, instead of 1.5 per cent anchored to the debt for that sinking fund, we’re now going to have it 2.5 per cent. If that were done last year in ’25-’26 – keep in mind I can’t use this year because we haven’t seen it yet, so I go back to the previous year – it would have resulted in an additional $38 million in a sinking fund that is exclusively used to pay off future debt, and that we can be proud of.

Additional sinking fund contributions and associated earnings will allow us to place funds aside toward the repayment of debt as it comes due. If a debt is fully funded – keep in mind, add on that extra per cent and go over 20 years – it is going to be possible that in 20 years out that debt that we borrowed is going to have a large amount against it that, conceivably, if the amount is right, could have it paid off.

What do we do with the extra money that would be in the sinking fund? If it pays off the full debt coming due, say in 20 years time, any unused earnings or excessive earnings shall be used toward other unfunded debt, no extraordinary circumstances – none – debt only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: No political gamesmanship at all, totally removed, debt only for the extra per cent.

So we anticipate, at least I do, as the Minister of Finance, these amendments will be viewed as credit positive by the credit rating agencies as compared to liquidating the balance of the fund. Keep the fund, have it work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have it pay off debt and liabilities and we think we’ll be in a better place.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time. It was a pleasure.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

This has been a bit challenging, Speaker. This is an incredibly important bill and amendment, $550 million importance. I’m not as prepared as I would like to be because we had a briefing at 9:30 this morning and I’ve had three hours to print and highlight as much as I physically possibly can in the time between 10 a.m. and 1:30 when we went into this House.

This is an incredibly important bill. I’m not going to do it the justice that I would like to do it, but I’m going to certainly try my best. With this bill, government is changing this, essentially, to a debt servicing account.

I cannot tell this House or anyone watching how proud I was – I know I can’t speak about Cabinet things – in Cabinet and we first started going through the Future Fund bill. I guess how proud I was to think about the fact that, as a government, we were going to be putting money away for the future.

I know when people manage their household debt and household assets, people have RRSPs. I should be putting more money than I do away. I think this generation, my generation, newer generations, we probably don’t put as much money away as we should. People have RRSPs, they have investments, they have mortgages and they also have car loans. The balance of those interest rates is incredibly important in people’s overall financial situation. If I’m financing a car at 0.9 per cent, that’s quite good, Speaker.

If I’m getting a lot more money return on my money that’s in investments, it doesn’t make sense to take all my cash and put it on my car when I’m making a lot more money on interest on my money that I’ve invested than on my car payment.

So I’m very disappointed by the changes that the government’s making to the Future Fund today. We don’t know for sure, but the way the minister is speaking and the sense I got from the briefing this morning which, again, was 3½ hours from when we’re debating this bill in the House – we had 3½ hours to prepare. I’m getting the impression that the government will be spending a chunk of the Future Fund in this budget, which I find incredibly heart-wrenching and disappointing.

The team confirmed for us this morning that the Future Fund had not been touched. So no money had been withdrawn from the Future Fund since it was started. There’s over $550 million in the Future Fund. That’s not a lot. That’s not billions. But those Future Funds, those sovereign wealth funds have to start somewhere. While I speak, I’m going to talk about Alaska’s fund, which has over $100 billion in it, which started at $700,000 US first when it started, Speaker.

The Future Fund has been earning interest pretty well. In 2024-2025, 5.6 per cent interest, and in ’25-’26, 7 per cent interest. Those are not bad interest rates. I find it incredibly disheartening and irresponsible that the government now are bringing forward this bill for us to debate in advance of the budget in which they will spend it, Speaker, or in advance of the budget in which they will spend a portion and we don’t know how much. We don’t know how much they’re going to be spending of this Future Fund.

If they’re not planning on spending it during this budget, then there’s no reason why this bill can’t wait until after the budget. But right now, we are debating this five sitting days before the budget, Speaker, and I understand that we’re going to get it today and we’re going to stay here and I hope we’ll see if the government invokes closure to get this bill because –

L. PARROTT: Point of order, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader..

L. PARROTT: Speaker, Standing Order 48 clearly says relevance. This is not a money bill. This bill is about amendments being made to previous legislation. Now the Member is over across the way, she’s not talking about the amendments that are made to this bill. She’s clearly talking about the timing in which she received it, which has been the norm. We’ve always received bills the morning of, no different. Now she’s going on about other things that are outside the scope of this bill.

It’s not a money bill, Speaker.

SPEAKER: I don’t find that there’s a point of order, but I would remind the Member to try to stay to the point of the bill.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

I’d be happy to the speak to the point of order as well, but I’m finding that’s not necessary.

I’m very frustrated with the transparency of the government bringing in this amendment in advance of the budget. The budget is next Wednesday. They’ve just announced that, and now we are debating changes to the Future Fund, which will allow the government to spend money in the Future Fund. So that is now coming in advance of the budget.

C. PARDY: Point of order, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

C. PARDY: I’m sorry, but for viewers at home, I never ever said in my

preamble and in my introduction that money from the Future Fund will be spent, only on servicing debt. Nothing will be spent from the Future Fund that exists.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

C. PARDY: I am just saying for the clarification –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the minister, there is no point of order. There could be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation about what the bill is doing and you can clarify that in debate but, as far as a point of order goes, it’s not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

If we look at how much the government is spending in their budget, if they’re taking a certain percentage of that instead of getting debt, they are using the Future Fund, then that is six in one, half a dozen the other, using the Future Fund to pay for the priorities and the announcements in the budget. We can agree to disagree but if you have a pot of money and it’s so many billions of dollars and you put some of that on your credit card and you pay some from your chequing account and you pay some from another account, it’s all just money that you’re spending, Speaker.

We don’t know, and it is suspect that we are now debating this five days before the budget and we have had 3½ hours, after our briefing – I will talk to the notice a bit further, because I will remind the Members, using their own words, that they had very little tolerance for when we had briefings the day before and the night before. So I will remind them of their words in the House shortly, Speaker.

This is one example where we have $550 million that has made a reasonable interest rate. I would argue, in many instances, we’re making more on that money than it costs to borrow on other debts. Maybe not all debt. I don’t have the breakdown of all of the debt because I’ve had 3½ hours to prepare for this speech.

I would ask the Finance Minister to tell us about what percentage of interest on the debt that’s due, that this will cover, and is the interest rate more or less than the interest rate being earned by the Future Fund.

I would like to talk about the Alaska Permanent Fund. That was started in 1976. It has now over $100 billion Canadian. It was started in 1976 with $734,000 US and now up to $80 billion to $90 billion US and, in Alaska, they had the idea that at least 25 per cent of the oil money was put into a dedicated fund.

Now, that’s a long time, about 50 years, but now Alaska uses that money to give everyone a dividend. So everyone in Alaska, every year, gets $1,600 US as a dividend for the Alaskan sovereign fund. That’s kind of the long-term strategic thinking. Again, I guess, on that point that a Future Fund is strategic and it is optimistic, it is ambitious, I’d like to quote the now Premier from April 19, 2021.

He quoted, “James Freeman Clarke was an American theologian and author who lived in the 1800s. He stated, and I quote:” – again, this is the Premier’s words – ‘The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while a statesman thinks about the next generation.’ Those words are still true today.

“Let all 40 Members of the 50th Assembly work hard and commit to becoming stateswomen and statesmen and not simply politicians.

“Thank you.”

So those are words of the Premier, which I fundamentally agree with. I would challenge the government that in spending a Future Fund or a part of it – and we don’t know and we’re not debating this and I believe they have to have it before the budget is introduced next Wednesday is not being statesman-like. I would challenge the government that they are being politicians, in using the Premier’s own words in the quote that he spoke on April 19, 2021.

I would be more organized in my thoughts if I had more than 3½ hours to prepare.

I would like to talk about the Fraser Institute. They really like the idea of a Future Fund, and they argued recently, on November 19, 2025, that the government should increase the contribution rates to the Future Fund. “Increasing the contribution rates (ideally to 100 per cent) will set the fund up for robust growth and could help force the government to be more responsible with its spending….”

Then, I also note, the Fraser Institute says: The province should emulate Alaska’s approach and eventually provide ongoing dividend cheques to residents. You can’t provide dividend cheques to residents if you’ve spent the money in the Future Fund, I have to say. “This model would allow residents to share in the fund’s success and create a strong political incentive for politicians to maintain the fund’s strength.”

If they want to lock it up, that’s great. If they want to add more to it, that’s great, but spending it is not appropriate, Speaker.

So I will move on. I’d like to now talk about the amount of time we’ve had to prepare for this, as I know Members in government spoke about and they’ll know about how much time we had prepare. Again, this is all I could find –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m finding it difficult to hear the Member and I would ask the Member to stick to the substance of the bill. I’ve already heard you say about the time to prepare. Try to stick to the bill, not the preparation time. You’ve made that point a number of times.

S. STOODLEY: I do think, Speaker, the preparation time – and I can show you from past examples – is critical to the debate. I am not as prepared as I would like to be. A bill worth $550 million and having 3½ hours to prepare, I would argue is not rational, not responsible.

I know it’s allowed in our system, and I would like to highlight some examples. On January 23, 2023, the Minister of Health talked about, “But the Leader of the Official Opposition just sat down, and just before he closed he was talking a bit about the rushing of this legislation. It’s a common theme we have: Why is this being rushed? The technical briefing was 8:30 last night.”

They had evening briefings; I would have loved to have a briefing on this at 8:30 last night, I have to say. We had a briefing this morning at 9:30 and now this is 3½ hours later.

The Minister of Health also mentions, on January 23, 2023, “Bringing it in, throwing it at us, getting us to look through it, try to make sense out of it and debate it.” The Members when they were in Opposition made numerous debates and point of orders and point of privileges about the time that they had to debate. I understand that those were found not to be valid.

I do think this is important use of my time so – I can hear the sighing. This is a $500-million bill for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I also want to go back to the fact that we are debating this in advance of the budget. I understand, as the critic for Finance and the MHA for Mount Scio, I will not see, nor will anyone in the province outside of the government and the staff here, the public servants, how much of the Future Fund is being spent on the debt until we walk in here and there is an Estimates book on my desk next Wednesday at 1:30 or 2 o’clock, whatever time the budget is. So I’m going to walk in and then I have to go to

Schedule I, I believe it is, and there will be a line item to tell us and tell the public how much of the Future Fund is being spent to pay off the debt in this budget toward spending on the government’s priorities. I think that that is incredibly important to know.

So I would argue that this government is not leading up to their transparency cornerstone of their election platform. They love to talk about transparency, but yet here we are debating changes to the Future Fund five days before the budget is introduced. We don’t know the impact of what we’re debating.

I would challenge the government: Let’s do this after. Show us how much you’re going to spend of the Future Fund as per this bill and let us debate that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep you election promises.

S. STOODLEY: Keep your election promises. Let’s debate the Future Fund after we find out from

Schedule I of the budget Estimates how much is being spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Because it sounds like, it feels like – just like the gas tax – the government needs Royal Assent on this before the budget is introduced. To me, that’s not being transparent. That is not being accountable to people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I’d also like to talk about when the Future Fund act came in originally, Speaker. The Members opposite, the government, made numerous amendments and they were voted down but I would like to highlight some of them.

In this bill, the government are taking away the ability to use the Future Fund in an extraordinary circumstance. Fine, that is their prerogative, but I do want to note that the Premier himself, on October 12, 2022, when we were doing the Future Fund amendment in the first place, brought in an amendment so that any extraordinary circumstances had to be in a resolution in the House of Assembly.

Fine, that’s great. We would certainly support an amendment for the Future Fund Act as per the Premier’s previous amendment of this exact bill, that any use of the funds for extraordinary circumstances come to the House of Assembly. That would be an excellent amendment, a friendly amendment that we would certainly support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, I have 44 minutes so I’m going to try my best to fill up this time. I have a third of the amount of time to speak as I’ve had to prepare, so it’s not the easiest thing to do that.

I’d also like to note that the Premier also brought in another amendment when we were speaking to the Future Fund last time on October 12, 2022, “a friendly amendment to clause 2,” that was seconded by the Member for Terra Nova, that the Future Fund be amended by adding after the words “Lieutenant-Governor in Council” the words “at the discretion of the House of Assembly by way of a resolution.”

So the government, when they were in Opposition, put in another amendment that any spending to the bill had to be done by the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: So I would encourage them to take their own advice, to take their own amendments that they put forward. We voted against them, but we didn’t spend the money in the Future Fund, Speaker, okay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: The Future Fund has not been touched. The money in the Future Fund has not been touched.

B. DAVIS: And it won’t be for eight years.

S. STOODLEY: And it wouldn’t have been for eight years, Speaker. You don’t get a large sovereign wealth fund by spending the money in the Future Fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: Oh, Speaker.

Okay. I’m working my way through my notes. It is really challenging to talk for an hour when you’ve had 3½ hours to prepare.

So I will now talk about the bill. I’m going to go through the original bill, the Future Fund Act ,

an Act Respecting the Establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund, because what will be on the website are the changes. You have to go back to the

Schedule to look at the full bill.

So the explanatory notes, on the bill we’re debating today, “remove the

definitions of extraordinary circumstances and non-renewable resource royalties; add a definition of surplus cash position; modify the circumstances under which deposits are made into the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund; remove an exemption to a requirement to deposit into the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund that is no longer required; limit the purposes for which money may be withdrawn from the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund to paying debts and certain liabilities of the government of the province; remove restrictions on withdrawals from the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund; remove regulation making authority.”

Speaker, if the government is going to tighten up the rules, I think I, and we, would certainly support that, but not removing money from the Future Fund to pay off debt. I would challenge the Minister of Finance to be transparent with us about the interest rates. If the Minister of Finance can show us that the interest rates of debt they need to pay off is higher, maybe I could think about that. But then also we have to think about the long-term value to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Like, when my child who is five now, when he’s 40, if Newfoundland and Labrador is disciplined and puts money away – it doesn’t have to be a lot of money; it doesn’t have to be every year, but puts money away and does not touch it, then when your grandchildren are entering the workforce, when your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren are retiring, they can get cheques, just like they do in Alaska today. This is about financial discipline; this is about putting money away; this is about the future, not using it right now.

It is getting reasonable interest rates. There is $550 million in the Future Fund. We’re not talking about $70,000; $550 million is a very healthy amount for the short amount of time that we’ve had it in the Future Fund, Speaker.

I think it is extremely suspect that the government are bringing in this Future Fund now. We had a briefing 3½ hours ago – or it’s probably a bit more. I had 3½ hours to prepare this morning and now I understand they need it today. So we’re going to be sitting here until they get second reading. I don’t know if we’re going to finish Committee today –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: My understanding –

AN HON. MEMBER: We’re going to go until we get it.

S. STOODLEY: We’re going to go until we get it. Okay, maybe I misworded.

I have the impression that the government really needs this before the budget. So if they don’t, then I challenge them to give us more time to prepare rather than having the briefings the morning of. We could have had the briefings yesterday; we could have had the briefings last week.

This is a $550-million bill for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for our future generations, and I really do not have any confidence that the government – how much are they spending of the Future Fund? What will be the balance in six months’ time?

C. PARDY: Zero.

S. STOODLEY: The balance is going to be zero?

C. PARDY: No, we’re spending none.

S. STOODLEY: Okay. Well, I’m glad to hear the minister say that they won’t be spending any. So when I get the Estimates next week on my desk and I look through, it won’t be there, then I would challenge the government, why did you give us 3½ hours to prepare for this debate? I challenge the government, let’s do this after the budget. I’d like to see the Estimates book and see that there’s no money coming out.

Speaker, on that, I will say that there’s no requirement in this legislation for disclosure. We asked the experts, this morning, in the briefing, how will we know that the government is using the Future Fund to pay down debt, assuming this bill receives Royal Assent?

So if it’s during the budget time, then we will see it in the Estimates book but if the government does not do this during budget time, then there will be no public visibility. It’ll be a Cabinet decision. There may or may not be in Order-in-Council. There is no legislative authority for the government to disclose to the public, at the time, that they are taking money from the Future Fund to pay down debt, let’s say, as per this legislation.

There is no legislative requirement to inform the public until either the next Estimates or if, at a future time, they decide to update the website. Because I put in an ATIPP to find out information about the Future Fund and that was deemed too politically sensitive to reveal. They’ve since provided that information, but it is obviously not something that the government thinks is relevant to be in the public domain. The website is not updated on a timely basis.

I think it’s very concerning that there is no disclosure requirement. I’m not going to take the Minister of Energy’s word for it that they won't be spending in the budget and I would challenge the government, let’s do this after the budget. If they don’t need this for the budget, then why are we rushing it through? I don’t understand, Speaker.

I don’t think I can talk much longer, if either of my colleagues are ready. I would plead with the government, fine, if they don’t need this, why are we doing this right now? Why did they have the briefing this morning?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: Oh, well, thank you very much for your very helpful verbal cues there, Government. I should put my earplugs in before I spoke and I kept them here –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member –

S. STOODLEY: I kept my earplugs right here. I was going to put them in and I didn’t. I should have. Next time, I’m going to do that. I’m going to put my earplugs in. I do find it distracting being heckled. That’s it. I represent the people of Mount Scio and I don’t have a super skill that I could block out all other noise and I’m not going to apologize for that.

I will conclude my comments. I look forward to hearing from everyone else. If the government is not going to spend the Future Fund in this budget, then I would like them to tell us or move this until after the budget so we can see what’s in the Estimates book. This is not a good decision. I fundamentally believe that they should be adding more money into the Future Fund, not taking money out of the Future Fund. This is not good for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate it. It’s always a pleasure to get up and speak on behalf of the residents of Conception Bay East - Bell Island. Not just about issues related to my constituents, but constituents all over Newfoundland and Labrador, and this is one of those times where this is a decision that’s made by 40 people in this room, or 39, that will impact everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I appreciate the Finance Minister’s words; I listened very eagerly a little while ago to try to figure out where we’re going with this. I was at the briefing this morning as well, and I appreciate the officials who answered the questions that we asked.

For some context to what we’re doing here today, to residents who may be watching at home or who will listen later and watch as this is recorded, the Future Fund was brought about by the former Liberal government, the idea was floated back in October of 2022 and it came into effect in March of 2023.

The concept of the Future Fund, the intention of the Future Fund was 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 the legislation, if passed, would have strengthened the financial standing of the province to relieve the debt burden, which it has done. Money is in the bank there. It is in that Future Fund.

It was to be focused on non-renewable resources. Because we know, since 1997, when the first oil flowed from Hibernia, off our shores, we have had billions and billions and billions of dollars in royalties, not the expenditures by the companies, not the taxation of people who work in the industry – none of that. That’s all separate, but just in royalties alone, in excess of $20 billion, perhaps as high as $25 billion.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, for context, there is, according to the Finance officials we met with this morning, $533 million in the Future Fund; $108 million was contributed to the fund last year and we obtained $18 million in interest as a result of that investment.

The average person at home today might be thinking, how is it that a province that has this much debt is saving? The analogy that could be used is if you were in your own household, why would you put away any money for your retirement if you still have a mortgage? Well, the answer is obvious, because you’re going to still need to live somewhere at the end of paying off your mortgage, but you will not have saved any money, so you try to do both.

There are many levers that have to be pulled, as the Finance Minister has alluded to many times, no matter who is sitting in his chair. There are many different areas that have to be funded and paid for to provide the services that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provides on a yearly and daily basis, I should say.

So to talk a little bit about the amendment to this act, I want to first of all mention something that the Finance Minister did say, and it goes back to the point we tried to make when we put in the amendment for the gas tax. I do often get a chuckle when the minister talks about the propane forklifts. I still really don’t know where that analogy is fitting into any of this, but I will talk about oil revenues because there are a lot of them.

What we’re trying to do here today, and the fund which was established in 2023 which, as I mentioned, has $533 million in it, is to remove the

definitions of extraordinary circumstances and non-renewable resource royalties; add a new definition of surplus cash position, as the minister alluded to; change the rules for when deposits must be made into the Future Fund, not mandatory anymore from our offshore oil royalties but discretionary, if there’s a surplus. So if we don’t have a deficit and we’ve got a surplus and we’ve got some money we can put in there, we can, instead of, like, a forced savings account, which is basically what’s there now.

While the minister didn’t say it when he was referring to the sinking funds, it was the former Liberal government that brought back the sinking funds to attach money to debt that will be serviced. When we chatted with the Finance officials this morning, they told us – because we asked, when is the next round of debt up for renewal? It’s in June and it’s $1 billion – $1 billion in debt.

So when we talk about rushing this and finding out today, while it comes really as no surprise to me that we’re here having this debate, that the Future Fund, given the position of what’s happening in the province and the deficit, that the current government is looking at this, perhaps, as a way to take that money out and pay down debt; structure it so that it will just be going toward debt and not any discretionary spending from any government of the day, tightening up that rule.

The deposits are what also concerns me because we continue to reap a benefit from the offshore oil and gas industry on a yearly basis. The Future Fund is supposed to be a mechanism for investing resource revenues from the assets that we have offshore. I also chuckle when I hear the Premier talk about how we’re back in the oil business. I chuckle every time I hear it.

Today I heard the Minister of Energy and Mines, when he was talking about the Leader of the Third Party, saying how they were trying to endorse some leader who wants to turn off the taps, that if we turned off the taps down here, he may as well shut us down. Well, he’s right. Do you know why? Because we have a huge oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have had one for decades. We’re not back in the oil industry; we’re still in the oil industry.

It was the Minister of Energy and Mines who cited today the C-NLOER report, which came out for 2024 and 2025, and it was interesting because I had a look at that too back, I think on the 8th on my notes here. That’s the year that 2.374 million barrels of oil up to that point in time in March of 2025; 1,975 people were working offshore. The C-NLOER employs 105 staff; they’ve got a $28-million budget. The operators spent $4 billion on offshore related work, $81 billion cumulative since 1966.

In 2024, 4,500 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians were working in the offshore. In 2024 alone, $1.6 billion in royalties came to Newfoundland and Labrador, just royalties, and if you look at from 2018 to 2024, it was $7.2 billion.

In 2024, the oil industry was $9.2 billion, 22.5 per cent of our GDP, the provincial GDP. Not bad for an industry that apparently wasn’t around in 2024 or 2025. So we’re not back. We’re still there, and we’re not chugging along; we’re roaring along. We have a great industry. As a matter of fact, we have a Crown corporation known as OilCo, and they help manage all this, a Crown corporation, including the three projects which we are partners in, that we own between 5 and 8 per cent.

My point is that these are projects which are contributing. This is where the money is coming for the Future Fund, to pay for things in the future like schools, like roads in Harbour Mille, like a new hospital. Some of that money can go into the Future Fund and some of it can go towards expenditures and providing services to people who need it, education, paying salaries.

Quebec has a Future Fund; they call it the Generations Fund. Hard to compare anything we do here in Newfoundland and Labrador with Quebec because they’re a bigger population with more money; they get $13 billion a year in transfer payments. We don’t get anywhere near that and haven’t for many years. Their Future Fund has $16.6 billion in it. The Northwest Territories has a Heritage Fund with $52.2 million, and Alberta, of course oil-rich Alberta, $31.9 billion in their Heritage Fund.

It concerns me, as well, that we are rushing this, and we’re rushing this to get it done before the budget which has been announced today that it will be next Wednesday, April 29.

The government, when they were in Opposition, said we were rushing the MOU on Churchill Falls. We’re 15 months, 16 months since that was announced down at The Rooms. We had lots of time to debate it. We had a debate here, a special debate in the House, and the expert witnesses sat at the end of the aisle here, first time ever it’s ever happened. Lots of time to look at it.

I want to talk a little bit about what the Finance Minister had said during his notes, and just make some references there if I may, Mr. Speaker. I would agree with him on his very first point where he said he has no issue, and he doesn’t think anybody in this Legislature either sitting now or sitting back in 2023 – and I wasn’t here at that point in time, but I wouldn’t have had an issue with saving for the future. It’s always a good idea. Do we have debt? Absolutely. Do we need to service that responsibly? Absolutely, but can we also save a little bit while we move forward?

The fear in this is that given the new government and the fact that they’re maybe staring down this $963-million deficit and wanting to bring that number a little bit lower, may dip into that right away, and that’s why we’re here today, in a rush, to try to do this, to take this money. So I do agree with the minister that it’s a good idea to save, and I think it’s a good idea to continue saving.

I’m also concerned with not having the mandatory contributions and just have the discretionary. That is political. That could be a political decision made by a government, whoever it is, in the future.

The minister talked about how everything is temporary. You’re right, it is, because we can come back here in six months’ time and change this again. None of this is permanent – or in two years’ time, a different government can come in and change it, or four years or eight years or 12 years, any time. This is always a revolving and evolving document, every document we have here. No bill, no act, nothing is permanent, and that’s why we’re here to debate it.

So I agree with you. It’s too bad you didn’t agree with us on the temporary reduction in the gas tax, because we would have come back when the price of oil comes down, as we hope it will when the war ends. We would have come back. But your government did agree with the prime minister on the temporary reduction of the excise tax.

The Finance Minister referenced the $23.7 billion in debentures and the fact that if you add in the sinking funds, which are valued at about $6.2 billion, the actual debt that we have is $17.5 billion, a lot of money. That is a lot of money for a province that has just about 530,000 people. If you look at our geography compared to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI put together, we’re four times bigger and we’ve got a quarter of that population.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a difficult province to service as a government because we are a few people spread out over a large area, and everybody, no matter where you are, deserves the same service in education, in health care and transportation. Many would argue that doesn’t happen, and one of the beauties of being able to stand in this House and debate and talk about things from all over Newfoundland and Labrador – and I’ve always enjoyed this in my former life as a reporter – is learning about Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, when the Members opposite stand up and speak about their districts, I’m interested as well, because we are a whole. You know, obviously I’m here because of Conception Bay East - Bell Island and the voters there who decided to put their trust in me, but they also did the same to every Member of this legislature.

What we do here today or over the next couple of days to change this will impact the future. I mean it’s literally about the future. It’s in the name of the bill: the Future Fund.

So what we do here today is very important, because I think about if, in 2010 – let’s just use that as an argument – the minister said over the next 10 years, by doing what we’re doing and not tying us to this borrowing, we’ll save $1.9 billion over 10 years and a reduction of $184 million in borrowing this year alone, so I think about if we had done this back in 2010, when we were really in the heyday of oil or in the early 2000s, mid-2000s, up to 2010, could we have a Future Fund right now in our province that would have $6 billion, $7 billion or $8 billion in it?

I know the average person is not driving home from work tonight, if they’re listening or after picking up the children, worried about the Future Fund. They’re worried about this week and what they have to spend at the supermarket or if their kids need new sneakers or pants or clothing or if they need some registration for school, an activity, they’re worried about that. They expect us to worry about the Future Fund, but we need to tell people why we’re tucking a little bit away for the future and why we’re changing these regulations today and why it’s happening so quickly.

Again, I will mention that the cancellation of the mandatory contribution does concern me because, when you explain it this way, the money that we have to borrow to put in the Future Fund is less than the interest we pay, so it’s net positive. The bond rating agencies, when the Finance Minister goes to borrow money – he knows this, I’m explaining this for the public – if your rating is down, if you’ve been downgraded, you have to spend more on interest. It costs you more. If your rating is up, B+ or whatever it happens to be, then you have a lower interest rate.

At the end of the day that does impact everybody. They may not think about it on a daily basis as they go about their life of getting their kids to school or getting to their doctor’s appointments, going to work, but it does impact them; because, at the end of the day, when the minister across the aisle makes decisions on what money will be spent on health care, education, roads or anything, that does impact people in their communities. It impacts Harbour Mille, where people have to go to work and they have to drive over a bumpy road. Whoever didn’t pave it or did pave it or whatever the plan was, it’s important today, and we need to have that money there.

The sinking fund, as I mentioned, that was something we brought back just a couple of years ago, and $23.7 billion and some of those debts not coming out until 2056, which is in 30 years from now, well guess what? We had a plan that would have brought us a billion dollars a year for the next 17 years and then, beyond 2041, it would continue to go up and over the life of that agreement, the 50-year agreement, it would have been $227 billion.

My biggest fear in all of this is that in 2030, when the $5.2 billion rate mitigation runs out and that money is spent and we don’t have another agreement and we don’t have a billion dollars a year coming in from Churchill Falls, if that deal doesn’t go ahead – and not to be doomsday about it, but I mean time is running out. The agreement is going to end in nine days. Who’s going to pay my heat bill or my constituents’ heat bill when it goes from $300 a month to $526.

We might need $500 million to mitigate rates for people. We might need that money to help people out. That’s one of my concerns. That’s what I think about, not just about today and tomorrow. Obviously in my own household we’re concerned with day-to-day, but in this room I think about long term. That’s what the Future Fund is about, long-term investment in people and tucking money away so that, if it’s deemed necessary at a certain point in time to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get the services they need and deserve, the money is there.

When you hear about a drydock that’s going to be $425 million plus 25 per cent – so it’s going to $600 million – Equinor is giving us $200 million, where is the other $400 million coming from? Where’s the money coming from for ferries, four ferries that are going to be one leased and three purchased?

SPEAKER: I would remind the Member to try to stay relevant to the bill here.

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate it, but these are all thoughts that come to mind when I think about taking this Future Fund and the fear of the money being spent on something else in a hurry, as a knee-jerk to make these amendments to the bill.

To my colleague’s point, you know, I expected this to happen at some point in time, but to have not a whole lot of time to create a specific speech to this today – but I’ve been thinking about this, anticipating that it would come, because it looks like low-hanging fruit that’s there. Well, there’s $533 million; let’s amend the act and figure out how we can plop it on some debt. That’s the fear. That’s what comes to mind over here.

Now maybe the minister will say something completely different next week. I hope he doesn’t, but like my colleague from Mount Scio, if that’s not the case, let’s have some more time rather than trying to ram this through in five sitting days, or three or four or however many days are available to do it given the parliamentary

schedule and allowances.

Mr. Speaker, I’m almost out of time, but I think I’ve made myself clear. I think that there are concerns here, and that they’re legitimate concerns that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have related to amending the act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

I stand today and I’m very passionate about the Future Fund. I find it very difficult, as the Member for Mount Scio alluded to earlier, that we had 3½ hours to prepare for these changes and to debate them in the House. Debate is extremely important because the Future Fund is relevant to our children and to their futures when we will no longer be in this House of Assembly.

So I rise to speak about the importance of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Future Fund, why it matters, why it was created and why the proposed changes before us today risk undermining its very purpose. At its core, the Future Fund is about one simple principle. It’s about taking non-renewable resource wealth and turning it into lasting financial security for the people of this province. That is the basis of the Future Fund. That is why we put it in place.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been blessed with significant natural resources, particularly our offshore oil. But we all know that those resources are limited and, once they’re gone, they’re gone. But the Future Fund was established to ensure that the benefits of that wealth extend beyond the life of the resource itself. It is about converting short-term revenue into long-term stability. It’s about planning not just for today, but for decades to come – decades – when we, us, every one of us will no longer be in this House of Assembly.

This is not just a radical idea. Jurisdictions across the world, around the world and across Canada have done exactly this thing: saving so they can support future generations. I find it very disturbing, the changes to this piece of legislation today, and the short period of time we had to prepare. It kind of blows my mind, to be honest with you, Speak