PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

October 12, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 4

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Good morning.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1:

THAT notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, October 12, 2022, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings and the conduct of government business;

AND THAT, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall then adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Premier, that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 5,

An Act Respecting the Establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider said bill.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We're now considering Bill 5,

An Act Respecting the Establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund.

A bill, “An Act Respecting the Establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Future Fund.” (Bill 5)

CLERK (Barnes): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.

Again, we had a good debate in the House yesterday afternoon about this particular act, but there are many questions that we continue to have. The least of not is the fact that in order to fund this Future Fund, we're going to be selling off assets. We all realize that when you sell off an asset, it's a one-time thing and unfortunately, for whatever reason, government has not seen fit to tell the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador what assets they're considering selling off or when they are considering selling them off or, in fact, whether or not there's a deal already been struck to sell off the assets of the province.

The introduction of a Future Fund at this time would imply that decisions have been made or are in the process of being made to sell off assets of this province and, again, no transparency. We have talked on numerous occasions in this House on the whole concept of transparency, especially when it comes to the people's assets because, ultimately, we all agree that the assets of the province are the people's assets, yet the almost $5-million report prepared for government under direction of what assets to be sold off and when or how remains a secret.

It is a secret to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a secret to all of the MHAs on this side of the House who represent a significant portion of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. For whatever reason, government does not seem willing to allow the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have any inclination of what's in that report that, basically, talks about selling off our assets.

I don't think I am the only one that has a concern with that. I think the majority of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have a concern with that. If we are truly going to be open and transparent and conduct business here in this House of Assembly, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then surely we should have access to the information that we need in order to make a sound decision and to vote yea or nay based on the information. Information is key and, unfortunately, we do not have that information.

We have no idea, other than the fact that the Future Fund, the principle of it is based on one of the things in addition to royalties, which we knew there's a clause in there that talks about the percentage of royalties, but there is nothing in here that describes how assets will be sold other than a dollar figure. We have no idea what we are talking about in terms of the plan for the sale of assets.

So with all due respect to Members opposite, you know, that's a carte blanche, giving you a blank cheque to sell off all the assets of the province without ever coming back to the House of Assembly to discuss it or ever talking about it because we have no idea what is in the report. I find it disturbing that a government, in 2022, can refuse to disclose to the people of the province, who elected them, exactly what they are planning on selling off or how they are going to do it. That is a big, big issue here in this Future Fund.

How are we going to talk about the sale of future assets when a report is there, it's been there now for a more than a year, I suspect, and nobody is allowed to see it?

There are big concerns with that. There are lives that could be impacted by that. The Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, for example, provides over $200 million a year in revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Is the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation on the chopping block? Is it being sold? Is there a deal already done? We have no idea.

Other entities have been mentioned as well, but, again, we, sitting here in the House of Assembly, representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have no idea what's being talked about or what's being offered up or why it's being offered up, what the rationale is, what the dollar value is; any of the details around it.

It's just not right – it's just not right. I don't care what political stripe you are, whether you're Liberal or NDP or independent or PC, keeping information, hiding information from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a failure to disclose, that is just not the way to do business in 2022. It might've been okay in the time of Joey Smallwood, but it's not okay in 2022. That time has passed and I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want their government to be open and transparent. They want the government to tell the people exactly what your proposals are.

We can all banter back and forth and debate. That's what this House is about, debate. But it's very difficult to debate when you're not given the information or you're not being told what's included in the sale or what assets are being proposed, or the simple fact that you have a $5 million report that nobody is allowed to see. That's the fundamental principle here.

So we're going to turn around and have a Future Fund and we're going to have proceeds from the sale of assets make up part of this fund. But, again, I go back to the fact that you are not allowed, as a people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to know what's being proposed. You're not allowed to know what's in that report.

That, to me, is fundamentally flawed. If we're going to have a sale of assets, I'd like the minister to tell me today what assets are on the table. What assets are you talking about selling? Where's the description? There's nothing here other than the sale of assets. Surely, somebody opposite must know what assets you're talking about, because you wouldn't put it in a Future Fund Act unless there's already a plan in place to sell off assets.

So I'm just curious as to what assets are being sold. When will we know? When will the Rothschild report be made public? When will the people of the province know what assets are being sold? Will the people of the province that work with those assets, or work for those assets, like the Liquor Corporation, when will they know if their jobs are on the line? When will they be told?

When you talk about the sale of assets and you put it in a bill, in legislation, that implies that you've already made the decision. You've already made a decision that you're selling off assets, and you've made that decision without any input. You've made a decision based on, who knows, maybe the report that you have that nobody else is allowed to see.

So, again, a fundamental problem with that. If we're going to be open and transparent, what assets are you talking about when you mention the sale of assets in this piece of legislation? Is there a list? Do you have items in mind? Surely, you didn't include it in this legislation without some kind of plan. I mean surely there's a plan. If there is a plan, how come the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador don't know about it? How come the people of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot share in that plan, cannot be informed of the plan?

Does anybody else see a problem with that? Because I certainly do. I certainly believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the owners of these assets and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to know what their government is thinking about selling off, because once they're gone, they're gone.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's make sure that openness and transparency are the words of the day and the words of this Chamber so that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly what is being sold and when it's going to be sold and the people who may be impacted by those sales.

Clearly, part of the thing in my question today is what assets have you identified that are to be sold that you could bring forward legislation that talks about the sale of assets to put into a Future Fund?

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity. I will say there's so much incorrect in what the Member opposite just said that I don't even know where to begin to correct so much.

First of all –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. COADY: Pardon me?

I was interrupted, Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

S. COADY: I will say that this legislation, the Future Fund, to correct some of the misunderstanding around what the Member just said, this legislation is to capture really a portion of non-renewable resources, resource royalties so that we can put it into a Future Fund. That Future Fund will be used to pay down debt in the first instance so that we can have a more sustainable and self-sufficient future for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member opposite is conflating a number of issues when he talks about the Rothschild report and he talks about what assets are we selling. This legislation –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Order, please!

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

This legislation merely allows that if – if – an asset is sold – if an asset is sold – instead of it going to general revenues where it goes today, it could go to the Future Fund. So if, for example, we sold a building or we sold something, instead of it going to general revenues, it would go into the Future Fund. This act is merely allowing that to occur.

The discussion around assets, around what assets, if an asset, that is a different discussion. This is merely an option of capturing that revenue so that the government of the day won't go off and spend that money without due consideration to putting it down on debt, or saving to ensure that we have a very strong future here in the province.

I spoke yesterday about this and I want to again acknowledge the Member for Lake Melville because he spoke about seven generations. I did use a quote yesterday, I think it was very apropos, that really did speak to the fact of making sure that we are responsible to future generations, that we are responsible for paying down our debt.

So I think the principles of what we're talking about here, how we're capturing some of the revenues from our non-renewable resources, putting them into a Future Fund and making sure that we pay down, using that Future Fund, especially now, to pay down debt, to lower our cost of borrowing, to really substantiate some of the work that we've being doing on building a stronger, more financially able future. I think this is what we have to do in this province.

I said yesterday, again, that this is part of a strategic plan that we have on financial management. This is one of the few times, I don't know if it's but the only time the province has had a strategic plan on financial responsibility of making sure that we – and it's three-part plan as I outlined yesterday. I won't repeat myself, but it's a three-part plan. We have exercised a number of points in that plan. We are making progress. We are really starting to see some benefits of some of this implementation of the strategic plan.

Another piece of that plan and effective debt management is the Future Fund. It's taking some of the monies that we receive, as a province, from non-renewable resources – non-renewable resources – things that future generations don't have access to and taking that and putting it aside, putting that in a fund so that it can grow.

As I said yesterday, this fund, the Future Fund, very importantly in the first 10 years can be used to pay down debt – can be used to pay down debt. The mechanism for doing that is you take the money from the Future Fund, you put it in your sinking fund and then you pay down debt. Very important, Chair, that we are disciplined enough to do that.

Imagine – imagine if 20 years ago we had been disciplined enough to set this up. We would be in a tremendously better place, at least $3.2 billion and that's just in principle. Then when you put the compounding interest on top of that, we could be a $10 billion fund.

Imagine – imagine the strength of this province if we had a $10 billion fund to pay down on debt, to lower our cost of borrowing, to secure our future for ourselves.

This legislation is about that. It's not about other things, don't conflate, don't try and make it more so that you can stand up and pontificate about what may or may not be something the government may or may not be thinking.

It is about what the legislation allows, capturing the non-renewable resource, capturing a portion of that – I tabled the regulations and I can read them into the record if so desired – capturing the non-renewable resources, 2 per cent of an amount of non-renewable resource royalties received, up to $250 million. It goes up to 75 per cent of the amount of non-renewable resource royalties received that exceeds $2.5 billion.

Now, I can tell you in times past there have been moments in this province when we were collecting an enormous amount of money. I can go back to – let me just think – 2009, Chair, we collected, as a province, $2.5 billion in offshore oil royalties; not one cent put away – not one cent put away.

Do you know what was done? It went into general revenues and disbursed. Now, imagine if we had some discipline around that in 2010, $1.9 billion.

Now, on average in the last five years, so in 2016, we had $573 million. From there, we had about $1 billion. So in the last number of years, except for this year, in budget we weren't anticipating $1 billion, but for the last number of years it has been $1 billion. A tremendous sum of money and we should be disciplined enough to put some money away in a Future Fund to help pay down debt to secure a stronger future for this province. We should be disciplined enough. It's too bad we weren't disciplined enough back in 2009 when we had $2.5 billion.

So when I hear the Opposition trying to make political points on this it is frustrating for me because, of course, –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. COADY: I won't be interrupted, Chair. This is an important discussion –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Order, please!

S. COADY: – for the people of the province.

I will say, again, this is very important that we start to pay down this debt. We are spending $1 billion a year on interest. We just throw it out the window, Chair. We give it to the banks; here, have $1 billion. We need to pay down on our debt. This is one way of securing an amount of money, for the next 10 years, to pay down on our debt plus other things that we may be doing under the strategic plan that I talked about.

We are also capturing, should there ever be a sale – right now, if there is a sale of an asset that goes through tomorrow, it goes to general revenues. It goes into general revenues, Chair.

Now, I'd prefer to see, and I think the Members Opposite, if they were financially prudent, would say I'm going to capture that money, put it into a fund and start growing the interest on it and pay it down on debt, start paying it down on debt.

Now, I think that this is going to be a very important point going forward that we have to get our fiscal house in order. This is one way of doing it. Again, I'll say that we have a full plan of all types of measures. We have already passed pieces of Legislation in this House, changes that I have asked for that everybody supported – everybody supported it. The reason why they supported it, it makes good financial sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: It makes good financial sense. This makes good financial sense. We need to start recognizing, in this province, if we can have the discipline to say that we are going to take a percentage on the lower – if we are only taking in $250 million in offshore oil royalties, it will be a smaller amount of that because, of course, we are already needing some of that offshore oil royalties for what I'm going to call our base budget.

But if we get up to $2.5 billion, which is where we were at peak oil – where we were when the previous government was in place. If we are at peak oil, capture 75 per cent of if and put it away. Make sure you pay it down on debt. Allow compound interest to work its magic. Make a stronger province.

I will keep saying it until I'm blue in the face, literally, blue in the face where I'm going to say we need to be a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable province. It's the reason I stand here today. It's the reason I put myself forward in politics to make sure that we have that as a goal –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: – that we are working towards that, Chair.

I listen to the Opposition trying to, you know, make political points out of this when they should be saying we should be doing this. This is something we should be doing. This is important to the people of the province. This is important for future generations. It's important that we pay down our debt. It's important that we free up and make sure that we lower that cost of borrowing so we can free up those revenues to put it in the needed, necessary programs and policies for the people of the province.

They should be celebrating the fact that we are bringing it forward. They should be working with us to make sure this happens. They should be celebrating that we are saying that the discipline is required. Instead, they want to make political points.

Well, I'll allow them, Chair, they can stay here for the next month and make political points on this, but I can tell you the people of the province will see through it. The people of the province understand that we need to pay down debt. We need to have financial discipline. We need to get to that stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable province and this government is doing everything to make sure we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was quite the rant but, coming from me, I appreciate that and I don't shy away from it. I think it's great, I think we need more of that in the House. Whether I agree with what she said, that's a separate thing, but I do acknowledge a good rant and I appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, when you listen to this pontification, and the Opposition, I look around here and there's no one got any horns. We all look pretty normal. But if you listen and you close your eyes, you would think on this side of the House that we're the next thing to the devil. We're the Opposition – we're His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We have a role to play. I know the Premier and I know the Minister of Finance and all the Members opposite don't like to be questioned. I get that, but the reality is that's our job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: That's what we're put in this House for. The people of Conception Bay South and Port au Port didn't vote for us to come in here and rubber-stamp and agree and clap every time the government stands up. I guess I say sometimes, and I say it with the utmost respect, it insults our intelligence.

So I said this to the Premier and I'll say it to the Minister of Finance today: There's a lot of good heads on this side of the House, a lot of good minds, a lot of good thoughts. We have a lot of great ideas. But when we say collaborate – and it's always said we'll collaborate, we want to collaborate, we want to work with government, we want to work with the Opposition, and my door is always open. Sure, doors can be open, phones can be on and we can be here all day long. So if you're not going to listen or agree, or even give a second thought to what we say, why are we wasting our time? That's what it comes down to. It's utter frustration.

We talk about this Future Fund. Nobody disagrees with the Future Fund – absolutely nobody. Alberta had the Heritage Fund out there and back in 2009, 2008, 2010, 2006, 2007 – I can't remember when the revenues started spiking up. You look back in time, you say back in those times that probably wasn't a bad idea, in hindsight. Keeping in mind there was a lot of schools falling down, the roads needed major work – that stuff still got to happen; that stuff is not cheap – hospitals, you name it.

But there's no one here in this House saying that that shouldn't have happened. The only problem is none of us was here then. None of us was here then on this Official Opposition – not one. I was in a different life. I was nowhere near Confederation Building. A totally different life. On the tail end I might have been, but I was nowhere in this to make any decision on that. I was sitting on the sidelines, like most Members of this House were – not all, but most.

I use this example a lot of times, and it irritates me to a degree. I don't spend my time – I've been in this House for a long time, as long as yourself, Mr. Chair. I alluded to this as an example. I don't get up and blame Members of the House for the Upper Churchill or any decision that happened from a Liberal administration since Confederation. Why would I do that? They're not responsible.

Their party may have been, under that banner. Things change; party philosophies sometimes change. The party shifts to the left, the right, the centre. It goes with the electorate. We're seeing a shift happening now in national politics right through.

So when I sit here – and we got important jobs to do. I listen to those rants and I appreciate those rants. A lot of it is not factual and it's not fair commentary. To make it seem like we're against the Future Fund, that's absolutely inaccurate. It's not right. My colleague, our critic, the Member for Springdale - Port au Port spoke. I heard him on VOCM this morning. I heard him on the news last night. We support the concept.

Do we think that improvements need to happen to this legislation? Of course, we do. But we're not allowed to say that. For some reason, we're offending government when we come up with solutions or suggestions, or could you do this better or could you do that better. Maybe we want to do an amendment. It's utter disgust. Where do you have the right to speak on this? Does anyone on this side of the House have a right to speak on any legislation here? Is this an autonomy?

The last time I checked it's not, but I'm beginning to feel that way. If I sat down, closed my eyes and put myself in another place and listened to what's been said here by a lot of the Members in this House, I feel that way, and it's not fair. It's not fair commentary, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: It's not fair commentary whatsoever.

I'll listen to any Member –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: – when they get their opportunity, they can get up as well. I'll listen to any Member and they can rant; they can rip me up. I have big shoulders. That's never bothered me, but be fair about it. Be fair.

You get up here and I'll have my times here, and I know it don't always sit well with government opposite, but be fair about it. I'll sometimes use my humour to try to enforce a point, and that's fair enough too. That's fine.

Sometimes, even the Liberal government decides to take liberties of the parties, tries to take liberties for some of my comments on carbon tax, and I found that quite humorous actually and I compliment them for doing it. There's a lot more in the archives if you want to dig up. Feel free.

But one thing in my time – and I'm probably going to speak more on this Committee, Mr. Chair. I was thinking driving in this morning, when I look at this bill, we all agree with the Future Fund, but it's the way things are coming out lately. You have a $500 payment which is $200 million to come out to everyone last week. Now the week we get the Future Fund. We still haven't got a fall fiscal update.

But on the check box, the list of things to do, they're checks. You're checking a box; you're getting it done. Okay, one more done, that's another one and that's another one done. But it's balancing the scales, because when you get the Future Fund, most people would feel good about a Future Fund. It's a feel-good feeling when you're going to put your money in a bank and you're going to save money and people are going to say, well, b'y, we're finally on our feet.

But it's like a smoke and mirrors effect, Mr. Chair, because we're not on our feet. Two short years ago, two or three years ago the former premier wrote the prime minister, didn't think we could make payroll. The former minister of Finance painted a really bleak picture of not meeting payroll. We were that bad.

I don't see where things have turned so much in the last two years. They've improved, no doubt, based on our oil, that PC governments were accused of spending too much and we we're too supportive of the oil industry and we were not in favour of the green economy. But now all of a sudden, as of yesterday, the government are on our side. They don't like the carbon tax anymore either.

So where are we really when we look at it? Where are we really? We're about a government that's looking for good news to balance the scales of public opinion. So you put the Future Fund, you put the $500 in this one; you're balancing her out a bit. Where's the fall fiscal update? That may help them too. They're doing everything backwards. It's like government by the seat of your pants. But then when the Opposition on this side offer suggestions, we're ridiculed. You're actually ridiculed, you're laughed at, you're mocked – you're ridiculed.

And I have to be honest with you, and I can spend a lot of my 10-minute intervals on this going on that story, and I don't think I'm wrong when I say that. That's not what we should be doing; that's not what the public wants. I know government gets there and they're in power there now and they think that's fine. And all governments do it, not just this government, it happens over time. It happens when you're in that bubble.

I'm not in that bubble, Mr. Chair. I'm in the real world and people out there telling me, do you know what? That is a good idea; the Future Fund is a good idea. I like the fact I'm getting $500. I don't know where they're getting the money, but I'm getting $500.

But they'll ask the question of, how can we afford this; where are they getting the money to? And I'll go, excellent question. That's what we'd like to know. And we're going to come out and we're going to ask those questions, and we're going to continue to ask them and continue to ask them and continue ask them. Do we get an answer? We may never get an answer. But that's our role. And it's incumbent on government to give answers, otherwise they answer to the public. And I guess the court of public opinion will decide on their fate.

But we, as the Opposition here, have that job to do. And we're going to continue to do that job every single day we get an opportunity to stand in this House and represent the people who elected us. But not only the people who elected us, Mr. Chair, the people of the province. Because as roles – and we all play roles here, as my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port is the shadow minister for Finance. He has an important role in our caucus, but we all do collectively. We're all residents of this province; we all care about this province. We don't have a problem.

It's not like us against them on the Future Fund, I say to the minister. We agree on the Future Fund, but we don't agree with certain concepts of the Future Fund. Better still, maybe we will agree if we get enough answers to questions given. But to stand up in your place and rant and rant and rant about how terrible the Opposition are for questioning government about a Future Fund and what we did wrong 13 years ago, when nobody on this side of the House was here, it's offensive.

I will get in my place and I'll stand up and I'll speak. If she wants to be here until next month, I'm good for that. We're good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: I have no timeline. If anyone wants to question my resolve, go right ahead, but I don't give up easy, Mr. Chair.

On that note, I look forward to future speaking this morning, this evening, tomorrow and next week. Whatever it takes, I will speak.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I know the Member opposite is good at speaking on his feet. He's always eloquent and he oftentimes adds a bit of levity to the discussion. I think that's important in this House of Assembly.

Allow me to say a couple of things based on some of the nuggets I was able to glean from what he said. I will say on the financial update, it will be one of the earliest times that we'll have a financial update in this House of Assembly. We plan to have this in the next couple of weeks. We will be bringing forward our financial update. We have indicated that we're having a good year in terms of our revenues.

I will say this, Chair, and I reminded everyone yesterday, normally you get a financial update sometimes around the end of November or early December. So it would be taking up a little bit extra time, making sure that the numbers, because they're projections, of course, to the end of March. But I'm happy to provide that.

I'm going to say this, Mr. Chair. However the financial update or when it comes forward, I would argue and debate that we need to do this whether we can afford it or not. This is about having the discipline to ensure that we capture the revenues of non-renewable resources.

So whether we're having an incredibly good year or we're not having an incredibly good year, the amount that we have to put in the fund is based on oil royalties, it's based on our economic generators of non-renewable resources and it's according to how much we're gathering. That's why it's incremental steps that we're putting in there.

But I will say, Chair – and I'm sure the Member opposite would agree because he said no one disagrees with the Future Fund. That's music to my ears because it is essential, in my opinion, that we have that discipline. So if we're having a very good – and I've already said that – financial year, a good revenue year, that may mean we'll have extra monies to put into the fund and the legislation does allow us to do that.

I will say if we're not having a good year, then we have to put less money into the fund. That's why we have it on a sliding scale. The less money we take in, in royalties, the less we have to put towards the fund. But it's about the financial discipline of ensuring that a portion of non-renewable resources goes to the fund, and it goes to the fund in the first 10 years to pay down debt. Following that, there are some other options that you can spend with the money. I take the point yesterday; a Member opposite did suggest some strengthening in that area. I think we need to strengthen in that area. I think as we move forward there's always that opportunity.

I will say today it's incredibly important that we start to have that discipline to take a portion of non-renewable resources – we're having a very good year in our oil and gas revenues, we're having a good year in our mining. We need to start putting that money aside to pay down on debt to ensure that we are taking care of not only today by paying down debt, lowering the cost of borrowing, but also building for tomorrow.

I think yesterday I used a quote, and I wanted to use it again, but I can't seem to put my hand on it – quote: “Let us be the ancestors our descendants will thank.” I think future generations will thank us for this. As I said, and I know it's a sensitive point for the Members opposite, but if we had started this at the beginning, we would have possibly as much as $10 billion in that fund now with the power of compound interest.

Imagine what we could do with that. Imagine if we had that money to pay down on debt or in extraordinary circumstances. A Member opposite mentioned about what Alberta was able to do during the pandemic, they were able to take some money. Norway was able to take some money out of their sovereign fund and assist because they were in the middle of a pandemic.

That is what we're talking about here today in this House of Assembly. I suggest that if everyone is supportive of the direction of a Future Fund, that's what we need to focus on.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.

First of all, before I get into my 10-minute discussion about Bill 5, I feel it's incumbent that I have to address the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's description of our questions and our discussion of this important bill as an attempt to make political points. That is offensive, Mr. Chair. That is offensive and it's too bad that the Minister of Finance is frustrated by our questions and our discussions. Welcome to democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Chair, I'd just like to review some of the important elements of this bill that we, in the Opposition, have some concerns about. But before I do that, I just want to describe for the people who are watching just some of the important points about this bill.

It establishes a Future Fund. For the record we believe in the concept in the Opposition. We believe in the concept of the Future Fund. So we are not disputing that, but what we are disputing are some of the elements of this legislation.

First of all, when we look at the intent of this legislation, and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has indicated that it's to pay down the province's debt, to pay unexpected expenses, to pay expenses related to our share of the offshore decommissioning costs and, in essence, it's to lower the cost of borrowing and to relieve debt burden. It's all about responsible debt management.

We agree with that, Mr. Chair. We have no problem with those concepts and those concerns, but what we do have concerns about are a number of things. First of all, what assets are being sold? What assets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be sold?

Now, the Minister of Finance, when we raised this earlier, my colleagues raised it, she said, well, it's if the assets are going to be sold. Well, presumably the legislation intends for the possibility that assets will be sold; therefore, it's a legitimate question for us to ask. What assets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be sold?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That is a vital question for us to ask and we are asking it.

This is a concern because we know what happened with the hidden Rothschild report, that cost the people $5 million and we still don't know what's in it. So how do we know if the right assets are going to be sold, Mr. Chair? Do we know that they're going to get the best price? These are all legitimate questions that we have to ask and we should ask as responsible Members in this House of Assembly, because I need to remind and we need to remind the government here that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own these assets.

So will the government, if they do plan on selling off these assets, will the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have all the information that is available about the assets which may be sold? So this is important information that we need to have; it is about having information about our assets.

Mr. Chair, one other factor that we're concerned about is with respect to who makes those decisions. We have heard from this legislation that it is Cabinet who will make these important decisions. We need to understand that this is very important. The fact that there is vast legislative authority and power that is given to Cabinet. They are the ones that will decide what amount of offshore royalties, for example, will be deposited into the Future Fund. It is Cabinet; it is a group of people – perhaps 12, 13 or 14 – that will be making this important decision.

What concerns us, in the Opposition, is what oversight is happening here – what oversight with respect to it coming back to this hon. House of Assembly. There is no oversight by the House of Assembly with respect to this legislation. So we're going to have a dozen or so – a handful of elected Members of the House of Assembly in Cabinet making these very important decisions without that proper oversight.

Why is that a concern for us, Mr. Chair? It is a concern for us because we have talked about accountability and transparency. Now, those are nice terms but if they're not put into play, they are meaningless. But accountability and transparency are central; they are vital to democracy. We have to have those principles in play. They are what will measure government's performance. So the merits of any legislation, it has to be accountable, Mr. Chair. It has to be transparent. It is vital.

Why is it vital? It is vital because it guards against the possible misuse of power. It guards against the possible misuse of public funds. So we cannot allow that to happen. We have to ensure that there are protections in place and so, therefore, we need to have these principles, not just lip service paid to them. We need to have accountability and transparency to hold a government responsible.

They have to be responsible to the people, and that is the problem that we have with what we've heard with this legislation. We do not see that that has happened. We do not see that people are going to have the information that they need to have, with respect to the handling and the transfer of potentially very vast amounts of money – of the people's money. I need to remind them.

The other concern that we have had, and as my colleagues have indicated, is we really don't know what the fiscal reality of our province is. Yes, we hear from the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board who says we're doing it earlier than most. That is not the point. The point is that you're pushing through this legislation before the people know what the fiscal reality of our province is. We don't know. Perhaps they know and haven't revealed to us that they're projecting a surplus and it's going to be a surplus that is going to allow for this fund to take place, but government has failed to show us this reality.

So, Mr. Chair, these are some of the concerns we have. They're legitimate concerns, they're legitimate questions, there's legitimate debate going on here to question these actions and decisions of this government and we're not going to be stopped in doing that. We're not going to be told that we're trying to make political points. Really? Imagine that. Because we are exercising our right to free speech and to speak.

I see the minister is shaking her head there now. I mean, surely we're allowed to raise these concerns. This lack of transparency, Mr. Chair, should not only worry us in the Opposition, it should worry all of the people of the province because this legislation is not being open to scrutiny.

Thank you.

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Chair.

I will address a couple of points that the Member opposite did make. One of them was around accountability and transparency. She was talking about whether or not there is appropriate accountability and transparency. I will say to the Member opposite that the board of trustees will have to ensure that the performance of the Future Fund is transparent and public. That's a requirement under the Transparency and Accountability Act. They will have to table three-year activity plans and annual reports.

The annual financial statement of the Future Fund will be audited by the Auditor General and it will be tabled here in the House of Assembly. That is the requirement of the board of trustees. I will say it is the same requirement that we have for the sinking funds that we've had in place for many decades here in the province.

As I addressed yesterday, not for paying down on debt, you don't need to come to the House of Assembly on that, but any time if you're utilizing funds of the government, it would have to go through a budgetary process. So, for example, and utilizing the example, we just did a rebate to the people of the province because of the cost of living. We're providing $500 for those under $100,000 in income. We had to come to the House of Assembly to ask for an appropriation for that.

So that is the normal checks and balances. So the House of Assembly will receive all the reports. The Auditor General will review the reports. In 10 years' time, if there is something that you're spending money on, you have to do an appropriation. Those are the kinds of checks and balances that we do have in this House of Assembly.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

As I was walking home yesterday and reflecting on the event of the days, I was trying to think what I could compare it to, and I was thinking of Julius Caesar. Not the play by Shakespeare but that timeless classic by Wayne and Shuster Rinse the Blood off My Toga.

There's a line there where Flavius Maximus is doing the investigation and he's speaking to Brutus and he is saying: Who's that guy standing next to Cassius? Cassius looks; is he a suspect? No, but that guy next to him is. He said: But that's you. I know, but can I be trusted? That's what this comes down to, Chair. It comes down to a question of trust, and that's what's being asked of us over there, in many ways: Can I be trusted?

I've heard the comments that we're conflating the issues and that we're basically trying to confuse the issue, but here's what it comes down to. We've had the Greene report, which recommends selling off the public assets, and recommends setting up a Future Fund and a committee, and then we have, hot on the heels of that, the Rothschild report and now this legislation. It is hard not to conflate the issue, Chair, because it comes down to a case of trust. If it's not transparent now, our concern is what chance do we have of transparency once public assets have been privatized?

I will go back to what Noam Chomsky said, that the standard technique of privatization is to defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.

Let's think about the last few weeks, the last few months in this province and we've seen that with a lot of our public services and goods. It's basically if you didn't know, but the strategy was playing out.

Now, I would be inclined, I guess, to support the Future Fund if there were some questions and a few things answered instead of talking about how the Opposition is playing politics.

Well, both sides are good at that. All you have to do is look at the entourage of people going around delivering pamphlets about the $500 rebate this weekend past, if you want to talk about politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: I think both sides are pretty good at that. So let's not have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The minister speaks of seven generations responsible to the future and being responsible to future generations. Yet, we have seen from this government a number of short sighted one-offs. When it comes to decisions, however, Chair, to address some of the problems facing our province, because that's what seems to be the Future Fund, we have had opportunities to address some of the systemic problems right now; the social determinants of health and we've raised them here.

Minimum wage put off down the road; guaranteed basic income committee, haven't gotten anywhere with that, no pronouncement whether we're going to proceed with it; housing, we have a housing crisis, no long-term solution to that; no long-term solution or plan to deal with public transit; no long-term solution to deal with climate change, as such, even the opportunity to look at just transitional legislation, fall by the wayside, but here we are now suddenly concerned about future generations.

I've got more to say on this and I'm not going to speak much longer. But I will say this, if it's about building trust, then reach across.

One of the things that you've heard from both the Official Opposition and the Third Party and independents has to do with the sale of public assets: Give us some insights. Secondly, if I remember correctly, the Greene report calls for an independent external committee to oversee this fund, not the one that you're proposing right now. Third, I think it needs to be answerable to the House of Assembly. Those are things that would go far if it's about working together and building trust, that would go far towards meaningful collaboration.

Yes, it's important to pay on the debt, but it's also important to deal with the other things that are facing our province at this point in time.

And by the way, I've had my fair share of consultation. Usually it involves an hour or so in the week leading up to the budget to get: Hey, is there anything that the Opposition or that the Third Party would like to say? We have that hour and that counts for consultation.

Now, in previous roles, I can tell you consultation is more than an hour. We have, when asked here, sent emails to ministers as to where we think we need to go. They don't always get responded to and often they're ignored. That's fair enough. That is the right of a minister to do that, I guess.

But, please, to get up there and say that we are guilty of playing politics when you're pointing the finger at least three of them are pointing back at yourselves. So keep that in mind, please.

For us, show us, how can we make this committee an external committee, make it answerable to the House of Assembly? How do we frame this in the terms of an overall just transition plan? Because you've always got a plan there to fund green projects and give us that just transition plan and give us some reassurance regarding the sale of public assets.

The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands made it clear yesterday, each one should be debated. But give us something here. Because once we agree to this we're now at the mercy of the legislation and legislation that might not be totally the best and in the best interest of the people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Trimper): The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to stand and have a few words, also. I was listening to the speeches here today, and for the minister to say that we should be jumping up and down and what are we doing playing politics with this here.

I just have to remind the people why I, personally, and I know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was with me, the Opposition House Leader was with me when we went out with the sugar tax, when there was a stalemate here in this House.

So I came up with a solution, the Minister of Finance was there, the Opposition House Leader was there, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was there, I was there, and the Government House Leader was there. We went out and here's the deal that we struck at the time. The sugar tax would go into educational programs, we picked three or four, give the million dollars to go out to the schools, to go around the province doing educational programing. That was the deal. That was the commitment we all made.

That is the commitment we made and the deal was that it would be line item of what organizations the money went to for educational programs.

P. LANE: New programs.

E. JOYCE: New programs, no existing government program.

Here we are now, it was sent out in the budget, $7 million of that for a Physical Activity Tax Credit. That was never supposed to be.

I just want to explain the tax credit. You have to spend a certain amount of money to just get the credit back. You have to spend a high amount of money just to get the $150 back.

P. LANE: And who can afford it?

E. JOYCE: And who can afford it?

So the people who right now are struggling, if you go out and spend extra thousands of dollars, you may get $150 back, and they're trying to survive.

So when the minister stands here and says that we're playing politics; that we should be jumping with joy. I have to remind you of this because this is why we have to ask the questions. This is why we need confirmation of how this is going to work, because I was there. We were out there. Minister, you made that commitment. So please don't question any of us on this side of this House of Assembly who wants to say we need more information.

And when you say you have to stand up and you have to build trust among the Members, it has to be trust. It has to be trust. But when that happened last year, and when I read this here, and there was a commitment of no new programs, it was why I'm standing here today asking questions.

P. LANE: And the helmets, too.

E. JOYCE: The helmets were another good example.

What's the extraordinary? I saw the minister last night on the news talk about cataract surgeries for the West Coast. I was taken aback. I was actually taken aback and wondering: Here we are now going to build and get money for a Future Fund and there are 800 people on the West Coast waiting to get cataract surgeries on the wait-list and the minister stands up publically and says there's no wait-list. I'm just astonished.

I could give you the phone number, Minister, to call to get the numbers. I can give you the letter. For the minister to stand up in this House and say they could do surgeries out in the hospital. There's a letter from Western Health, they haven't done them in Stephenville, and you guys say trust me. Blessed Lord.

I mean, there's no doubt getting a rainy day fund is a good idea, but all of a sudden we're saying okay, we can decide if we need to spend it. We don't have to bring it back to this House of Assembly. That is wrong. It's wrong.

If you want accountability, if you want people on this side of this House to be involved, if you want to say we're going to do this as the legislators in this House and all the Members involved, have consultations; come up with the best way that we can do this. Because I'm sure, and I've said it before with other issues, if the Minister of Finance sat down with the Opposition, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and the Third Party and said how can we do this here to make sure it's ironclad, that it's put there for what we intended to do, I guarantee you you'll come up with a piece of legislation in this House and there'll be three people speaking, maybe four.

I know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands may not speak, but I would. But I'm sure the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands would speak on it. So there'd be five speeches – maybe four because when we speak we usually have a collaboration – and we would have a piece of legislation here in this House that would protect the funds and the future of the province for the money that goes in.

Now, people would say: Is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask to have collaboration, to come over and say let's sit down, let's work this out? Like I said in the speech I had yesterday, who knows if this government now – it might be four years, it may be two years, it may be three years – is ousted and a new government move in, who knows that they're not going to follow and they're going to, oh, we got extra money here; let's use it. We don't have to bring it back to the House.

So this is not protection from this party in office now, although we need it. This is not protection from the party in office now; it is for the future. So if we're going to look at the future, put in a Future Fund for the future, shouldn't we put in safeguards for the future? Wouldn't that make sense? Wouldn't it make sense that if there is going to be changes no matter which party is in power, no matter if there is a minority government or not, that what you need to do is to bring it back to the Legislature to make any changes or spend any of the money?

I mean, that is not an unreasonable request, I say to the minister. It is not an unreasonable request. Sometimes what happens – and I have seen it over the years – is that government knows better than anyone. Sometimes that happens because you get in your own shell and the government knows better than anybody.

So I say to the minister, why don't we just sit down, put a bit of water in all of our wine here, and let's try to work something out here. But whatever is worked out has to be in the legislation.

I know the minister said yesterday that I asked for regulation and she said that we got 10 years. I didn't ask for regulations; I asked to have it in the legislation. Because the regulations can be changed at a whim. Whoever gets in your role can change it. So that can be changed. I asked for legislation to be strong, not regulations. I just want to clarify that that is what I asked for.

Here we are, again, debating something that I am sure that if we all sat down – not even all of us because we trust those people. We trust the minister, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and the Member for St. John's Centre; we trust them. If they came out and said, b'ys, look, we got something here that we all could agree to. We would say, okay, we'll go through it. But if we feel confident that it was collaborative and that everybody was involved, that you're speaking for everybody with different views, this would be gone now. We wouldn't be here today; that would have been done yesterday. It would have been done.

So when the minister stands up and says we should be jumping up and we should be proud of it, I say to the minister and I'll say it very honestly, if you want the future taken care of, deal with the people here who can work with you to make sure no matter who gets in government, the future is taken care of for this fund. It is not a hard request; it is really not. When people come up and say, you sell off assets and you are talking about – it's right in the bill. This is not something that somebody just dreamt up and said, well what if you're doing this. It's right in the bill.

So why can't you explain or work with people here to say what are we dealing with? What are we talking about with the assets? How much would the assets be and then when you say we can put them together to equal $5 million, what are we talking about? No one in this room – the Cabinet may know, I don't know – has any idea of what you are talking about with that, yet we have got to say, trust me.

I go back to the sugar tax, with the tax on sugar and the amount of blowback you got on that. And now when I see this here, $7 million in Activity Tax Credit, when the people of the lower end right now are struggling to even put food on their table, that is why I'm asking the questions here in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

It's always a privilege to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the members of Topsail - Paradise, my constituents and I'm sure every Member in the House does the same. Listening to the debate here today, I'll start right away by saying, yes; the concept is a good concept. I agree with the concept. There are issues that have been discussed here that I won't go into detail, because I think they have been discussed in depth.

For example, the not seeing the regulations right away; not knowing what assets will be sold off; not having a fiscal update in advance; and, of course, there was some comments made about having an independent board overseeing this fund. That's all been talked about, and I am sure the point is getting across on that.

In a lot of respects we're speaking a bit blind here in that we don't know some of those details. So you will forgive us for asking questions that government may already have the answers to. I just want to bring some reality to this, of where we are.

When you're a small kid, out selling newspapers or got a little job to do – I know our parents would always say to us, you know, put money away. Save some money for a rainy day. Save some money for something you wanted to buy, and that works well when you have that opportunity to save money. But we know in this province, and you can cast blame, you can go back to Churchill Falls, you can talk Muskrat, you can blame it everywhere, but of course we're talking about today and, in a lot of respects, we're talking about the future in a Future Fund.

But recently we heard a lot on this sugar tax, and we've heard a lot on the $500 cheque that was given out. You listen to the media outlets because they're out there listening to people on the street and asking them what they thought about it. I'm sure everyone in this House of Assembly has heard from constituents on what they thought about it. I guarantee you, you heard some of the comments, people who are well off, they're not turning away the cheque. They're taking the cheque, yeah, sure. Why wouldn't I take a cheque?

But there are a lot of people out there in dire situations who take that cheque and are paying down on their debt, paying down on their debt right away. Or I think it's been touched on as well, we have people out there who do not have housing. There's no housing. This is current: there's no housing.

We hear about all the units out there that are going to be renovated. We hear about all our immigrants coming in, our Ukrainians who have no place to stay. We hear about the maxed out food banks, people can't afford to eat. We hear, oh, if you can't buy Pepsi go to the alternative to the left on the shelf, which is costing more. We hear about the cost of gas, which is affecting everyone. We hear about the lack of public transportation.

There are people out there who can't even think about a rainy day fund because they are concerned about the next day. They get out of bed, they're not thinking about how much money I can put away. They are thinking about how can I pay off my student loan? How can I afford this? People need help now.

You think about Fiona that stormed through here, all those people affected. They look for help now.

It's a good point by the minister when she talks about back in 2009, 2010 and quotes the billions of dollars. No debate, I wasn't here, I got no debate. We were doing well when times were good and when times are good it is an opportunity to put away some money, if you have it.

But let's not ignore the fact that a lot of good was done back then, as well. Money put into infrastructure, health, education; money wasn't just squandered. But I do go back and say, you know, yes, if you have the money, if you can afford to do it, yes, put it away, but many families in this province are not in that position.

You think about the Health Accord, the social determinants of health. You think about mental health, we talked about mental health and how the social determinants of health affect that, people with no housing, people who can't get food; people who have no transportation. These are people in need now – in need now.

So I try to simplify it and look at how would you run your own household? You pay for what you need now. You pay for what you have. In a lot of respects people cannot pay for what they need now.

The minister said the money will be used for needed programs in the province. That's what the money will be used for. No argument there, yes, that's great, but programming is needed now in a lot of respects.

So, again, speaking blind, I'm sure once we see the fiscal update, the financial update, we may have a different opinion on where we're going.

Again, I go back, I think of the late Mike Critch, VOCM news service, I think it was he who coined the phrase: details are scanty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: More at 11.

But you know it's true, our details are scanty in this. There are a lot of questions to be asked and we get up and we ask these questions on behalf of those people we represent. Sometimes we get up and we ask questions that we probably don't think are legitimate to ask, but because our constituents want us to ask them, we ask them, because the greatest thing you can have is information. You have to have information.

When I look at the bill and I read through it, and most of the general public will read it, they don't know if it's fit to eat really, so you sort of got to bring it down to reality. The only way to do that is look at what they do every day, what their everyday life is like. I guarantee you many of them – savings plan; many of them don't have savings plans. They don't have it. They can't do it. They're spending the money, taxes, and I feel for them, because I get the calls. I get the calls from elderly people who cannot afford the transportation to go and get their regular dialysis treatments. This is what we're talking about when we talk about budgeting money.

Again, I go back, if we have the money to put away, I don't have an issue with that, if we have it, and how we do it. But, again, I agree with the concept, would like to get some more information in terms of where we stand, how the money will be utilized. As we know, most of the details come out in the regulations and the policy. Hopefully we'll have a look at that.

But I'm sure when we look at the general public out there, I'm sure many of them are saying, yes, a good concept; I wish I could do that. I wish I had an extra few cents to put away, every paycheque. But we know a big portion of our population are living from paycheque to paycheque and a good portion of our population is on income support.

Now people will say our income support numbers are declining, but that's because we're an aging population, they age out and they go on Old Age Security. But at the end of the day, we have people out there who are suffering now and need programs and services now.

If we can address all that, if we can address what's needed today and still have money to put away, go for it. But I don't think we're in that position just yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: I thank the Member for Topsail - Paradise for his eloquent words. I thought he gave a very good synopsis of some of the issues that he has concerns around in this legislation and I'd like to address those concerns, if I may, and give him kind of an overview of why some choices were made.

I appreciate the synopsis and I also appreciate the fact that he's pointing out it is difficult for people today. We are in a situation where there is – we have difficult cost-of-living challenges in the province today and that's why this government has provided almost $500 million in supports back to people, because we recognize that.

It is difficult, and that concept of the Future Fund is difficult when you consider that you'd like to take all the money and provide it to the people of the province today. But we do have a responsibility to our future generations for non-renewable resources and we do have a responsibility to pay down debt.

I think the Member opposite said he is supportive of the concept. The thing about it is it will be challenging, it will take discipline and it's not just on good years that you have to put this money away. That's why we've made a sliding scale of how much you have to put away and on years when you're not taking in the royalty revenues that you had normally received, that you don't have to put that much towards the Future Fund.

But we do have to pay down this debt. I know the Member opposite knows this because he spoke eloquently about that. The question is: How difficult will it be to be able to have that discipline?

So there are a couple of other points that I want to address. He raised four key elements. One is around the financial update and he said: How can we make decisions today when we don't have that information? But I would say to the Member opposite that we should do this even in the tough years.

If the financial update that we will be bringing down very soon – and I have said this publicly, as has the Premier – does show favourable revenues this year but the legislation is for many, many, many, many years – it's not just for this year. Sometimes we're going to have tougher years. This was a good revenue year. That's why we've been able to assign some money back to the people of the province. That's why we've been able to invest it in those programs.

But even in tough years, we have to pay down our debt. The Member opposite I know, when he had or if he has a mortgage, would want to pay down the debt on the mortgage, not just the interest. We're paying down interest. We're not paying down our mortgage and we must. The people in the province understand that we're throwing away a billion dollars a year on interest costs.

So whether we have the financial update or not – and it will be early; it's going to be imminent. So within the next few weeks we're going to have a financial update in a general sense. I named off all the dates for financial updates. Generally, it's either late November or into December. So we're going to be early and we're going to show more revenues. But that's this year. This legislation is for many, many, many years. But it's the financial discipline that we have to have to be able to allocate some of the non-renewable resources.

The second big thing he talked about was the board of trustees and should it be independent or should it be as we've described in legislation. The rationale here is it's very similar to how we set up our sinking funds. The province has sinking funds that are attached to debt and we have a board of trustees that manages those sinking, is paid down on debt. We have expertise inside government on this.

So we can capture that same expertise that we have inside government. We're going to have, as the legislation indicates, one external member, but we won't have any additional costs. If we go out and set up a separate arm's-length, independent board of trustees, it's going to cost us more money. It won't be linked then to what we're doing internally to help pay down debt. It'll be external.

Now, the board of trustees still have to come to the House of Assembly with their reports. They still are going to be audited by the Auditor General. So it's just going to be with the principles of the board of trustees, in a general sense, will be people who are currently managing our sinking funds. They have the expertise to do that.

So I say to the Member opposite, I know he doesn't want to incur additional costs. I know he knows that the board of trustees must come to the House of Assembly with all the reports. He knows that the Auditor General has to review the financial statements. All those are checks and balances. So I hope he understands and appreciates why that is.

He asked about the regulations. I will say I tabled it yesterday. All the regulations contain is that sliding scale of how much money that needs to go into the account every year. From a low side of things, if we take in $250 million in royalty revenues, using that as an example, $250 million in royalty revenues, it'll be 2 per cent of that that would go in to the fund. A lower amount and that's because it's so entrenched in our budgeting process to use the proceeds of these non-renewable revenues that at that point it will be really challenging for us – for any government – to be able to find that money.

On the top end, if we're having a really good year and we earn $2.5 billion, we're going to capture as much of that as we can. That discipline is going to be there. Instead of spending it in one year, we'll capture it and pay it down on debt. That's discipline and it's important discipline. Spending money is easier – being a leader when you have less money, when you have to be very financially disciplined is important. I know the Member opposite understands. So the only thing in the regulation is that information and that's been tabled.

He asked about assets. We don't know which assets are being sold. This legislation is not trying to capture that. All we're saying is, today, should government sell an asset, it goes to general revenue. Now we are saying, should government sell an asset that's over a certain value, it shouldn't go to general revenues. It should go to the Future Fund. That's all.

We can have debates, discussions, arguments in this House about assets and should there be an asset sold or if there is an asset sold. That's a good debate and an honest debate, but all we're debating here is whether or not we put it in general revenues to be spent in one year or do we put it in the Future Fund and pay it on debt.

The final point – no, I think I have covered the four points and I appreciate the very important and sincere debate and discussion around the legislation. I thought the synopsis was very valuable and I thank him for his contribution.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

The next speaker is the hon. Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we can all agree that everyone in this House, on both sides, got into politics because of the future that wasn't there. I think most of us have children and most of us understand the situation that this province is in. The idea of a Future Fund, obviously, makes a whole lot of sense. Mahatma Gandhi said: “The future depends on what we do in the present.” Our present, right now, is in turmoil and we know that, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't invest in our future. We need to do that. But we need to do it transparently.

Now, what people at home don't realize is the acoustics in this building are fantastic. So as we sit here and we listen to people talk about trust and transparency and accountability, when it's not their turn to talk, you can hear the whispers and you can hear Members of government saying, we're governing. Or we can hear Members of government saying, they think we're still in a minority government. What that means to me is that they're not listening to us. It means to me that they don't even care what we have to say.

The purpose of government is to enable people to live in happiness, safety and prosperity. We are here for the people that we govern. We're not here for the people that are governing, and there is the disconnection in this House. We need to understand what we are doing for the people who we are trying to look after.

Future funds have existed all over the world for a very long period of time. The reality of it is they work and they work well. But what are we compromising when we get into a Future Fund for this province? We're giving something up.

I heard the minister say last year it would have represented $100 million. Well, I'll ask her, where would we have gotten that money? What would people have done without? What about the people who are doing without, right now? We know they are out there, lots of them: mental health crisis; people aren't eating; they aren't eating healthy, if they are eating. There is all kinds of stuff, housing, all of these issues. That $100 million obviously helped do it.

The minister boasts about the $500 million that government put back in to help people in crisis. Well, I guess if we utilized that $100 million, we would have only had $400 million to help them. That is pretty simple math. As bad off as we are right now, what would we have done?

So it's not about whether or not we support this, because people on this side of the House obviously think it's a good idea. We have said it publicly. We have said it standing on our feet in this House, which is, as my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, our democratic right to do and that is what we are put here to do, to represent the people that put us here.

We need to understand where this is coming from. This isn't about the Rothschild report, as the minister mentioned earlier; nobody has said that. Although, we should see the Rothschild report. The reality of it is, if there is a plan to sell off assets, that can be disclosed without disclosing the values. The whole purpose of not putting out the Rothschild report was the fact that government said that if we disclosed the values of the Rothschild report we're compromising our position.

You can disclose your plan without disclosing the values; it is open, honest, transparency and that is what people want. That is not the people of this House, Mr. Chair. That is the people of this province and the people of this province deserve it. They deserve a future where they understand why government is spending money and how they are doing it.

Now, we talk about royalties and stuff and, listen, there is no one bigger on the offshore oil and gas than I am. I'm hoping – I heard the minister say mining earlier – that mining royalties are included in this because we haven't spoke about it. And do you know what? We're on the cusp of greatness with mining. If we can find the power to supply to the mines, it's a great thing. It brightens our future immensely.

But we cannot sacrifice today. I understand the mess we're in, but we need to understand, if we sacrifice today, there is no future. The Member for Lake Melville said it really good, seven generations; I'd like to think about 10 generations and we've got to start doing that.

But we need to discuss amongst the people in this House what the best plan is. Is it too much money? Is it not enough money? Is it going to be annually? Is it going to be spread out based on three or four years of royalty regimes so we understand better what we're paying?

Nobody on that side of the House wants to listen to any of that and it's important that we listen. My colleague for CBS said earlier, we have a lot of good stuff to offer and certainly it's no good if nobody is listening.

Therein lies the problem with this government since day one: we talk about trust, then we get a sugar tax; we talk about trust, then we get a helmet law; we talk about trust and we have all of these things happen that we trusted. The people of Newfoundland trusted and guess what? When it left the House, it came back entirely different. So, yeah, these questions are important. They're very important and it's important for government to listen.

The biggest question for me is what is it we're compromising? Now, we know what the calculations are and we know it's going to be put away for the future. We also know that it's going to be a Cabinet decision. Regardless of what this board is, in 10 years or under extenuating circumstances, Cabinet has the ability to make a decision. That's not right. At the end of the day, Cabinet shouldn't have that authority; it should come back to the House of Assembly. It's very cut and dry.

At the end of the day, if Cabinet can make those decisions – and it's okay for the minister to say no, that's not how it works. But last Thursday we seen a $200 million giveaway that was announced in the morning, then they brought it in and held it over the heads of this House in order for us to pass it. The reality of it is, had we debated that prior to making an announcement there probably would've been alternatives put out there that people probably would've liked better.

I don't know about people in this House but I can tell you that $200 million, I've had numerous people call me and say: I don't want the $500. I've had numerous people call and say: We should have cut the sugar tax. We should've done something about milk. Government doesn't listen to that. So if we don't listen to the needs of the people, how do we know what the people need? Therein lies the problem again with government: it's all about listening.

Now, a Future Fund, there's no question, we have to start paying for our debt. It's probably one of the most important things we can do right now, but we have to do it the right way. Some of that means that the power has to come back to this House to be debated by the people that were put here. It's okay to say it's going to come back for budget and all of this, but we don't know who's going to be in power. We don't. At the end of the day, it's an awful lot of authority for someone to make a decision and then come back to debate it and hold it over someone's head.

I've heard two ministers discuss here this morning about minority versus majority government, if Cabinet makes the decision and you're in a majority decision, guess what? You can debate it all you want; you're still going to pass it. So it is up to Cabinet, regardless of what you think and the people of this province need to understand that. We should have measures in place in this bill that prevent that from happening. It's simple.

There are things that we could have done and ought to have considered, certainly when we look at royalties and new business start-ups and should new business start-ups pay more. It's revenue that we don't have. It's new revenue. Should they pay a little bit more? I don't know, maybe it's a good way to offset what we're getting right now.

There are different things that we should be looking at. And guess what? A lot of those ideas are over here. As a matter of fact, I think two of the independent Members slept at a Super 8 the night before last because they came in here yesterday and they were really smart. They offered up a lot of good stuff.

At the end of the day, if we listen and we decide that we're on the same page, we don't have to agree on everything. We don't have to like each other's politics, but everybody in this room are here for the same reason, and we have to live up to those obligations. Time and time again we don't do that.

Now, Mr. Chair, I'll say this, the idea of a Future Fund is imperative. There's no question. We need to start looking at debt, but the idea of collaboration, trust, transparency and accountability is far more important, because if we don't get that in this House, it's going to be the same old, same old. Every time we refer to the past, we just forget about our own past and that's been happening.

This government has been in power for seven years – seven years – and they don't talk about one day of it. There have been lots of issues in that seven years, instead they reflect back on 2009, 2000-whatever. We've had lots of opportunity to do these things.

Now, I'll take my chair.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

I'll just take a quick moment just to point out a portion of the act, just in an address for the last couple of speakers.

Section 8(1)(b) “the Consolidated Revenue Fund for one or more of the following purposes, subject to there being an appropriation provided under the Financial Administration Act … .”

I just wanted to point that out because it's in the act, that it's subject to an appropriation under the Financial Administration Act, which means that it had to have come to the House of Assembly in a budgetary – I just wanted to make that point, 8(1)(b).

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I next recognize the Member responsible for the District of Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

It's certainly a great pleasure to stand in this House again in the fall sitting and be able to represent the district and the province as well.

We certainly do agree with the Future Fund and the ideas behind it. It's certainly something well thought out and it will take discipline to do it, but there are clauses in this that need some tweaking and we need to question that in the House of Assembly. That's our job. We were elected here to do that. There are 40 people elected in this House of Assembly to make decisions, not 14 to go into Cabinet and make the final decision.

We're all here with some input to offer to this. It's offered but it's never listened to. I just listened to the Member for Terra Nova say the same thing.

I have a lot of trust in the individuals over there, I certainly do. I speak to them not on a daily basis, but on a weekly basis. But when you see stuff that happens – and we're dealing with stuff with housing and all kinds of issues that we're dealing with in our district. And we'd like to see some of that legislation changed and tightened up because it doesn't make any sense sometimes. Common sense is not there. This is why we're trying to ask these questions. That's why we're bringing out these issues and getting it there.

Trust, accountability and transparency, that's all you hear. Collaboration was the big word when we first started in here three years ago. That's certainly gone out the window; it has never happened. You did $194 million or $200 million you were saying as a number that you came out with last week to give all the residents of the province that qualified some extra funding to help them through tough times. There was no collaboration or no talk about where it should go or how it should it be. You just threw it out: $500 to people with a salary under $100,000.

Anybody ask any questions where else it could be used, or maybe it could be $1,000 for half the amount of people that are there. They need it a lot worse than somebody that's making $80,000 or $90,000. And I'm not saying they don't need it, because everybody appreciates it. They do; they appreciate $500. If somebody gives you $500 today, you'd take it. But it could be spread somewhere differently or some other options.

Again, no one talking about it, where it should it go. You make the decision. That's why we're asking these questions. That's why we're picking out the fine points of this to make it better for the public. We certainly agree with a Future Fund, there's no doubt about it. We certainly do agree with it. But it's got to be extraordinary events. So 14 people in Cabinet are going to make the decision on extraordinary events. Now are you telling me that doesn't have to be tweaked a bit? Don't have to tweaked. No, it's all perfect. Definitely not perfect. We wouldn't be over here questioning it if it wasn't.

Not even close. Like the trust factor, we'll give you all that. We'll give you the trust factor. You throw that out there all the time, trust.

ATV regulations: Where did that go? Didn't go the way it's supposed to. Not even close. Sugar tax: Did that go the way it's supposed to go? Definitely not. Definitely didn't. So there's our trust. So now you wonder why we don't trust. Is there a reason we don't trust? Oh, sit down, put our hands in our pocket and agree and rubber-stamp it and sign it and away to go. Not going to happen, not on our watch, I can guarantee you that. It isn't going to happen. Definitely not.

A financial update – you're in control. You're making all the decisions. It's going to come in a couple of weeks. That's pretty convenient. The House is going to close in three or four weeks. It'll be done right after we close, probably. No debate going to happen on that. You have the control; bring it in next fall before we start. Wouldn't that make a lot of sense? Then we can debate it.

No, but we'll bring it in after so we can go home and you can get your news story and happy story; can't question anything. Wait until it's all done and you're all gone home. It shouldn't happen. You got control. You had seven years here to put out the financial update, when you want to do it and you're still going to do it after everybody is gone home so you can get your photo ops, as we say.

It is just so disappointing to come in here to be elected and you think you are going to make a difference and you've got no say at times. You've got your majority government. You can do what you want, but we're going to stand here and make our points, very articulate and good examples that we gave. It is important for the people to hear this; that we're not just going to let it rubber-stamp. It is important that we get it out there because it just hasn't happened right now. Not in my mind. It just hasn't happened. It just rolls over and rolls over.

Again, individually, when I speak to people, I get very good responses and I've got a lot of trust and a lot of faith in people. Probably that's my fault, sometimes.

As individuals, I appreciate all the help I get but sometimes, as a group, the answers that we're getting or the collaboration that we're getting is not happening. I don't think there's anybody over here can say that. As a group in decisions that you made – you just put out $200 million and we didn't get anybody call us – not saying call us but discuss it in the House of Assembly. Maybe there are better avenues we could do with it. Who knows what it'll be? Who knows? It could be for more housing units – $194 million. How much more roads could you pave with $194 million?

They got the minister over there who is getting questions and petitions every day on paving and maintenance and all that stuff – $194 million – I don't know what the cost is. Well, last year I heard that it was $300,000 every kilometre. Well, that could pave a lot of roads.

Now, certainly the people that got the $500, they do need it. The seniors need it. The price of fuel right now – you're not looking at it right now in the month of September, October. It is going to get cold here now in December. To bring it to reality, these are the people that do need it. There's no question. They need the help. Maybe they need more of it and there are other people that don't need it. That was a discussion that could be had and it wasn't had. There was no collaboration on it whatsoever.

So it's very disappointing when you sit down and you come in here and you get elected and you see this come out and everybody said, well, they could've done this. There are lots of ways you could have done it. I am not saying it's not good. I will not say that. I am not saying it's not good but there could be other ways that it could've helped other people in different areas and you have to sit down and look at it.

So when you're going to have control of this Future Fund and you're going to decide between 14 people instead of bringing it back to the House of Assembly to discuss, then there it becomes an issue in my mind.

That's the kind of stuff that, as an Opposition, we're bringing it out and asking these questions and they're very important. I look over and I see heads rolling and every time you ask a question, well, you always got to be right and we must be always wrong. That's the way it seems sometimes. That's why we get perturbed over here because it's never a suggestion that you take that – it seems like you look at it and go, maybe we'll do this. Maybe we'll do it, but maybe we won't because we're the power and we got majority. We can do what we want.

So that's the disappointing part for me personally, when I got elected, because you come over here to make your voice known and maybe help the situation. We can't help. Somebody said here earlier: We got a lot of good, smart people over here as well that could offer suggestions. I'm not saying you got to take them but you could listen to them. But it's too late.

They came out with a big announcement last week, $194 million, and it's the same as us. We just hear it when it comes out on the radio or comes out at your news media, whatever it's going to be. So that is the disappointing part of being in here and trying to represent your district and your Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and not having any say in any of it. Not even a discussion on it. That's where we're trying to go with it. That's why we're asking these questions.

So hopefully we can sit down and get some more – we'll certainly ask more questions, there's no doubt about it. We're certainly going to ask more questions and, hopefully, we get the answers that we're looking for. I will say with the $5 million they just spent on Rothschild, again, you're not throwing out the numbers of where it's to or what they're worth.

I worked in a car industry. When you send a vehicle to an auction, you're hoping to get the highest price you can for it. Now, that might be worth $5,000 to her, it might be worth $10,000 to him, depends on what you want. So it's not just a number that it's valued at; it's valued at what the person wants to pay for it. That's the issue and that's why it's nice to get out there. It might be worth $100 million; it might be worth $200 million to someone else over a ten-year period. But you can't hide the numbers; that's the problem. We'd like to hear them and the people of the province would like to hear them.

So hopefully we'd be able to get to some place here that we can get those numbers and be able to look at them.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you to the Member.

I next recognize the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I did hear in the Member opposite's time a question regarding extraordinary circumstance that is, for those that are following the legislation, under 2(d). It's defined as materially impacted or is projected to materially impact the province's fiscal situation. Now, there are

definitions in accounting for material so using those standards – we have to use those accounting standards.

The Auditor General would certainly use them and that would be the requirement of this legislation. The Canadian auditing standards defines materiality as an amount that could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements.

So there are standards, there are requirements. It's not as loose as the Member opposite seems to think it is. These are requirements and standards under accounting rules.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I next recognize the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

I know that Gerald and Donna Linthorne are watching out in Bonavista this morning and I want to try to frame what we're discussing today for their benefit and all those viewers that would be in Bonavista and the province, to the best of my ability.

I would say that everyone is on board with the realization that we need to reduce our debt. We need to tackle our debt. I think that should have been a constant years and years ago. For the benefit of the Linthornes that are watching, to give them an idea of the debt, then we know that in 2016, our provincial debt grew by $2.3 billion. In 2017, it grew by $950 million. In 2018, it grew by $1,070,000,000. In 2019, it grew by $700 million. In 2020, we had a reduction in our debt of $940 million, but the Linthornes will recall that's when we had the 2019 Atlantic agreement where $2.5 billion was realized to the province, so savings.

But what happened the following year? The following year in 2021, our debt increased by a little over $2 billion. In 2022, our net debt increased by $540 million.

Now, the Linthornes are going to say what exactly is the Future Fund going to do in order to address the debt that we have that is rapidly building up? That's a good question. They're going to say what is the Future Fund going to do in 10 years' time that we're going to pay on it or utilize it to pay on our debt? If they ask right now if we have any extra revenue right now, in 2022, why don't you just pay it on the debt? That is a fair question for the Linthornes. Why put it in a savings account when we have to borrow every year in order to finance the operations of our government and our province?

If I were an individual and I had to borrow money in order to put in my savings account because I never had enough in my income coming in, then I would question that logic. The only thing that would be for the Linthornes to understand is: What is the revenue or what it the return on my savings account?

I would assume, as the minister has stated, with the expertise that would be behind her in her department, what is the expected return on the Future Fund when we put our money in there knowing that we've got to borrow to do so?

Gerald and Donna watching now are saying they'd love to know the answer to that, Minister, when you speak again. What is the estimated return on this Future Fund, while our debt continues to accumulate now and why don't we pay that now?

So we do that as private individuals, I would say if I were going to get a greater return, I suggest even personally doing it. I would suggest doing that but I really want to know what I am going to get in return for that to occur.

A couple of things that were mentioned in the – I don't want to harken back too much to the Greene report but I am assuming that's where the Future Fund gained prominence in our conversations in the House.

The Greene report mentions two things and I just want to throw out a couple of things. They mention an external advisory group. The minister just spoke up in response to the Member for CBS and said that in the external group it's going to cost more and if it's going to cost more, why would we do that?

The Member for Terra Nova talked about trust. Trust was coming up all over the House, because if we look in our history, we haven't made the most sound financial decisions in this Chamber that represents the population in our province, and it went on for decades. So I would assume that when Madam Greene put it in there and her committee, it was to make sure that there were not going to be any decisions made that would adversely affect our coffers and adversely affect the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, the residents we serve.

What would the cost of an advisory committee be to make sure that we have that security of decision making in making sure that the funds are expropriated the way that we intend them to be? So that would be a question, I'm not sure as to what the cost of the advisory committee, if it were external, would be. I know we're realizing savings now because we're going to piggyback on the existing one.

So everything we talk about in this document is talking about non-renewable resources. We would love, on this side, and we spoke about it for years, we would like to see a focus on our renewable resources like the fishery. The fishery brings in $1 billion. We believe, on this side of the House, and I'm sure the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands does as well, the fishery should be bringing in between $3 billion and $5 billion. If we realize that with a good sound plan that would be apparent, that maybe sometime we could discuss that in the House, if the government raises it, then maybe that is going to help us out with achieving our debt.

The extraordinary circumstances, I know the minister had stated that when we're talking about decisions that's going to be made by Cabinet to exercise the expenditures of money from this fund, then there's a whole lot of significance to materially impact and what the standards would be on that. I'm not too sure what they would be.

I know from a layman's sense, when I would read it in there, I would think that it rests solely with Cabinet. But there are safeguards, according to the minister, there would be standards inherent in the wording “materially impact.” What those standards would be, maybe restrictive of Cabinet deciding when they use these particular funds that would be there.

So the trustees, the minister will speak to that as far as what cost it would be and why they wouldn't be external, as Madam Greene had suggested.

I would say when we look at Madam Greene when she wrote in the Premier's PERT report she had mentioned the word “green.” She had put in the word “green” when she talked about the Future Fund. She has used the word “green” – green initiatives and that's why I guess she bridged to the Future Fund.

I would say, in our legislation, we do not have the word “green” show up. The only thing would be is that if we were going to fund strategic priorities recommended by the minister – that is in

section 8 – Madam Greene would have had to fund strategic green priorities recommended by the minister.

So I often look at that and say, why did we drop the word “green” from the PERT and not have it in this legislation when I think that the intent of the Future Fund, when she suggested it, was to finance future green initiatives. I just wonder if it was a conscious effort to leave the word “green” out of the report and I look forward to the minister's response.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I thank the Member and I thank the Linthornes for watching.

I next recognize the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that I agree with what the Member for Bonavista was saying. I share his concerns. A couple of things – I don't want to be too repetitive in what I have said yesterday but when we talk about the assets, first of all, I think it is important to be fair about this – when Members here are talking about the assets, it's because assets are outlined in this bill. I think it's fair to say that this is really not a debate about what assets are going to be sold. In fairness, it's really not. But the fact that assets are mentioned here, presents that segue to go down that road, but in fairness this bill is really not about the sale of assets per se.

But I would reiterate my point and I am sure that other Members would agree, over here for sure, that there ought not to be any comprehension of the sale of assets, of public assets, unless it is going to be debated here in this House of Assembly on the individual basis. Whether that be hydro assets; whether it be oil and gas assets; whether it be Marble Mountain; whether it be the Liquor Corporation; whatever the case might be. Before we go down the road of potentially selling any of those assets, if they are on the list and I suspect they were on the list, then it ought to be debated in this House of Assembly.

Government should not – I am not sure if it has the power to do it, legislatively. I'm not sure what legislation – for example, the Liquor Corporation, there is legislation covering that. So I'm not sure that government could just outright sell everything off anyway, without having to come to the House of Assembly. Maybe they can, I'm not certain, but I would certainly say that I would not support the sale of any government assets and Crown assets without a thorough debate in the House of Assembly, and knowing what all the numbers are and if it makes sense.

To be honest with you, I'm not quite where the NDP are in terms of you can't sell anything. I'm not there, but where I am is that I want to know all the information and whether it makes sense, and thinking about all of the potential impacts on the province and on the people that would be working there, and everyone that would be impacted before I would even entertain it.

I would say, just from the perspective of not having the information but just as a gut feeling, I think selling off the Liquor Corporation is a bad idea. That's just my thought. But I would want to see the numbers and understand everything. That's why people are talking about assets, Minister. That's the reason. But this bill is not really about assets.

What it is about, of course, is a Future Fund. I will restate, as other Members have stated in this House, on this side of the House as well, that I'm certainly in support of the concept of a Future Fund. I believe everyone in this House of Assembly is. I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would be in favour of a Future Fund, generally speaking. I don't think that's an issue either.

The issue that I have is more around – and it's not even the concept of money going in per se, because I agree with the sliding scale and all that stuff. I think that it makes sense to me. The only area I'm challenged – and the Member for Bonavista spoke about it, and I would agree with him, and this is where I'm challenged. I'm trying to make it as simplistic as I can. It would be like if I borrowed $100 from the Member for Labrador and then I said: Okay, how much do I have to pay you for loaning that money?

He says: Well, you pay me $50 for a loan of the $100, but I'm going to give it to the Member for Exploits and invest it. I said: Well, how much am I going to get a return on that? You're going to make $30. So I just took a net loss of $20. That doesn't make sense. That makes no sense to me.

So putting it in a much larger scale, it would not make sense to be borrowing money for general operations while at the same time taking borrowed money to invest in a fund that's not going to return the same amount – well, if you're only doing the same amount it makes no sense anyways. It would be a wash. Unless you're going to make more money over here, it makes zero sense.

So if we had balanced budget legislation, as an example, which I thought I heard was coming – I could be wrong; the minister is shaking her head. If we had balanced budget legislation and we could say that we were balancing the budget without borrowing money and now we've got this surplus money as a result, then it makes sense to me that you could do it. But if we're not balancing the budget and we're having to still borrow money and go deeper in the hole over here to invest money over here, it just does not make any sense. So that's where I'm challenged and maybe the minister can explain this.

The other fundamental issue I have – and I do have a couple of amendments that I will be bringing forward when we get to the appropriate section, I would say, upfront. The area I have a problem with is this whole concept of Cabinet deciding where to spend the money and to set the priorities. That's where I have a fundamental issue.

Now, the first one talks about the extraordinary circumstance, and we've talked about this. So the Cabinet is determining what an extraordinary circumstance is. While I do appreciate the minister saying there are parameters in place based on accounting principles and the Auditor General and all this stuff, I understand that. So I understand that it's not as simple as just blowing money on whatever you want. I get that and it was a bad example, I will say, to talk about the people who needed cataract surgery as being extraordinary.

It is extraordinary for them, but it would not apply to this situation based on those parameters. I understand that. I just want to make sure you don't think I don't understand because I do understand.

But nonetheless, while you are restricted to some degree, the Cabinet still decides based on those parameters. All we are saying is: Why not simply bring it to the House of Assembly? We do it for Interim Supply. We've had emergency debates in the past if it was something extraordinary. By definition, if it's extraordinary why not bring to the House of Assembly?

If what you're doing is correct – I'm saying you, but if what the government of the day is doing is correct and it's needed and it fits within those parameters, then I'm sure that all Members of the House would have no problem voting it through unanimously and we'd move on. No different than we all voted for Interim Supply in the past and emergency funding in the past. We all voted for those things and it all got passed. You have the majority anyway, in this case. But it would be a different government, I understand.

But if government got a majority, it's going to go through anyway. Why not have the process of bringing it to the House of Assembly?

The other one that's not an extraordinary circumstance – and this one is even more troubling to me – and that's the one where the minister – my colleague for Bonavista talked about that, about the strategic priorities. Not a strategic green priority. I never picked up on that part; I'll give him credit there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: He is a smart man. But strategic priorities as deemed by the minister. And I have a real big problem with that one.

So now we're not even into the extraordinary circumstance anymore. We're not into any parameters. We're into the minister, on a whim – and I'm not talking about this minister, because we're talking 10 years from now, I think. But the fact that a minister, one person, and I guess supported by the Cabinet, are going to determine what's a strategic priority.

So any government at any time can say we think it's a strategic priority to invest money in this or that or something else, and it's just going to be done. Here we are expecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be putting all the money into this fund. No doubt there are still needs out there. So if we're going to go down this road with this financial discipline, we're going to be putting money here because we know it's the right thing to do, but there'll still be needs out there not getting addressed. But then on a whim, the government of the day and the minister of the day can say this is a strategic priority and just go ahead and do it.

Again, that is wrong. If there's a strategic priority in the minister's mind, bring it before the House of Assembly and let all Members decide, if that indeed is the case, and let everybody vote on it and have their say.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you to the Member.

I next recognize the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

I appreciate the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands for his synopsis of his concerns. And allow me a few moments to address them.

First of all, what the Member opposite was referring to is what is referred to as a spread – the difference between what you are borrowing from money and what you're earning from money. And based on our modelling from the officials within the department it's very small-c conservative; it was 2 per cent. So just to let you know that the modelling that has been used by officials in the department was a 2 per cent spread. What that means is that if you have to borrow for that money – and if borrowing at, say, 4 per cent, we will earn 6 per cent.

P. LANE: You're still making money?

S. COADY: We're still making money. So that was part of the discussions and thinking about going into this because, again, the power of compound interest. I keep saying that it is so important; the power of compound interest for us will really and is why – and I'll address in your number two, around extraordinary circumstances. You are correct; there is a definition of that.

But if you are going to spend the money – so I am going to refer to again 8(1)(b). So let's just say there was an extraordinary circumstance. Let's say it is a pandemic. If it is a pandemic and the government of the day says, oh my gosh, we don't have enough revenue, we need to take money out of the Future Fund; you still need to have an appropriation from the House of Assembly.

So 8(1)(

b) reads: “the Consolidated Revenue Fund for one or more of the following purposes, subject to there being an appropriation provided under the Financial Administration Act ….” So they still need an appropriation from this House of Assembly and you would see that normally in a budgetary process. Sometimes in extraordinary circumstances with a request for Supply, as we did last week.

Your third point – and I listened intently to your concerns around strategic priorities. I was glad that you pointed out that we're talking about something that could take place in 10 years. Maybe we do need to tighten that. It is something that will take place in 10 years so maybe we could consider that maybe that should be more tightened. Again, it is subject to an appropriation from this House of Assembly.

So let's just say I think there is a strategic priority of – I'm trying to think of one – we're going to do a green project and I say we'll advance money from the Future Fund to do that; it is still subject to an appropriation from this House. You'll still get to discuss it and debate it. The appropriation would have to come from this house. But I do agree with you; it is something to consider. Maybe we need to put more around that parameter as we move forward. But again, it is not subject to today; that is at least 10 years out, but it is something for consideration for sure.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I next recognize the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress on Bill 5 and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do recess.

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.

This House do stand recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Today in the public gallery I would like to welcome Krista Stephens who is visiting us this afternoon who is the subject of a Member's statement.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands, Lake Melville, Bonavista, Baie Verte - Green Bay and St. John's Centre.

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

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of joining family and friends of Trevor and Mildred Bennett at their home in Irishtown, as they celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary.

Trevor and Mildred were married on August 18, 1952, in Daniel's Harbour. They met when Mildred moved to Daniel's Harbour in her second year of teaching.

After working as a teacher for a number of years, Mildred went on to nursing school and began working with community health for many years; retiring in 1990, after spending the last 13 years with the VON, from a career she truly loved and dedicated herself.

Trevor was born and raised in Daniel's Harbour and was self-employed for many years and, with Mildred by his side, owned and operated the Benfield Motel in Daniel's Harbour. He also served as the MHA for the District of St. Barbe from 1979 to1982.

Commitment, respect and love are important foundations for any marriage, and Trevor and Mildred have certainly shown that over the many years they have been together. They have five children, 10 grandchildren, 10 great-children and, recently, they welcomed their first great-great-grandchild.

I ask all Members to join with me in extending congratulations and best wishes to Trevor and Mildred on reaching this wonderful milestone.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I am pleased to recognize former Labrador MHA and Cabinet minister, Joe Goudie, on his recent induction into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Born in Mud Lake, Joe is well known throughout our province for his career at CBC Radio; as the first Labradorian to serve in Cabinet during his distinguished provincial political career from 1975 to 1985; for his craftsmanship in the art of canoe building; and so much more.

Joe has worked diligently to promote all things Labrador including its culture, heritage and beauty. Many decades ago, he formed the Labrador Heritage Society and was involved in the creation of Them Days magazine, a quarterly publication preserving the stories of Labradorians.

His vast knowledge and expertise continues to benefit other cultural and heritage institutions today, including Parks Canada and Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve, the Trapline Marathon and the Great Labrador Canoe Race.

You do things you are comfortable with, things that you wish to do – all of a sudden, there's that reward. You're grateful for it, thankful for it, never planned it, but it's a really special feeling to receive it.

Speaker, I ask this House to congratulate our colleague and our friend, Joe Goudie, on receiving our province's highest honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

At the Relay for Life in Bonavista on September 10th, which raised over $55,000 for Daffodil Place, Joanne Tremblett told her powerful story to cancer survivors. Joanne was 14 years of age, 34 years ago, when she had many visits to a local physician with general complaints.

After considerable time and a stay at the Janeway, she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, stage 4. Joanne and her family wept upon hearing the diagnosis, and resigned to many months at the Janeway. Joanne, at 14 years of age, began aggressive chemotherapy with much pain and, strangely enough, she vividly recalls the stress of hair loss and mentions how far we have come with wigs today.

The staff at the Janeway, in particular 3C Ward, she described as “Angels in White.” Between treatments, she was granted a wish from Children's Wish Foundation to Disney with her family, which brought so much joy.

In 1989, it was determined the cancer was in remission. Joanne decided to become a nurse and today works as an RN at Bonavista Hospital, with twin girls and a loving, supportive husband.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating Joanne Tremblett's perseverance, strength and courage in her journey with cancer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR: Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the late George Kelly, a well-known and respected mayor who passed on August 4, 2022. George was a strong advocate for Burlington, especially during his 26 years serving as mayor and councillor.

Like many communities in the mid-90s, Burlington was faced with the economic downturn caused by the cod moratorium and the declining forest industry. Although it was clear that Burlington was struggling financially, George Kelly turned things around. Burlington has become a thriving, prosperous community, with a growing tourism industry and a bright future.

I developed a personal friendship with Mayor George back in the late '80s while operating a building supply operation in Springdale. George was a fierce negotiator when shopping for lumber and plywood for the next community project. He personified the quote, “take care of the pennies and dollars will take care of themselves.”

George has given his family and his community an incredible legacy of love and support, along with a generous and giving heart.

I ask hon. Members to join me in extending sincere condolences to George's wife Doreen and son, Scotty, and all residents and friends of the Baie Verte Peninsula.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Amelia Earhart said: Each time we make a choice, we pay with courage to behold the resistless day, and count it fair.

At a time in her life when most people would be content to play it safe, Krista Stephens, who joins us in the gallery, chose to follow her heart, launch out into the deep, and complete her education.

After a 26-year absence, Krista enrolled in Adult Basic Education to complete high school. Encouraged by her success, Krista registered for Academy Canada's Office Administration and Technology Program.

At 42, and the oldest student in a class of mostly 20-something year olds – the age of her daughter – Krista felt totally out of her comfort zone. She faced very serious health, financial and personal challenges, and questioned her decision to advance her education. However, with the encouragement of her teachers, Krista chose to continue her education, driven by the desire to get off income support permanently and join the workforce.

Recently, Krista Stephens received the 2022 Council of the Federation Literacy Award from Newfoundland and Labrador as part of International Literacy Day.

Krista is a constituent in my district. Her courage is an inspiration to me and to all those who seek to behold a resistless day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in this hon. House to mark the passing of a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. John Crosbie Perlin.

Mr. Perlin died this weekend at the age of 88 years old and it will be difficult to summarize his life in a few short words here today, because as one of his relatives put it this week, he “rec