Supplementing the 2016 supplementary budget

Key points of the debate

During the consideration of the supplementary budget, the key dispute was that the proposal included no additional appropriations for employment measures and pay subsidies as unemployment worsened. In addition, recapitalising the Terrafame mine and the associated financial and environmental risks sparked heated debate. The proposal sharply divided opinion between the Government and the opposition.

• –Should the supplementary budget increase appropriations for employment promotion and pay subsidies?
• –Is it justified to support the loss-making Terrafame mine with additional funding?
• –How should the balance sheet items and recreational forests of Metsähallitus (the state forest enterprise) be managed?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The National Coalition Party backed the proposal and pointed out that winding down the mine would be extremely expensive for taxpayers, which is why the operational prospects should be seen through to the end. The group also stressed the importance of infrastructure investments in creating jobs.

  ”Niin kuin täällä on todettu, katsotaan tässä jonkun aikaa, onko kaivoksella edellytykset kannattavaan toimintaan.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The Finns Party supported the proposal and considered keeping the mine operational for a potential sale a better option than a costly immediate closure. However, the group emphasised close monitoring of the mine's financial and legal situation.

  ”Eli hyväksymme tämän, mutta olemme kriittisiä ja seuraamme hyvin tarkoin ja edellytämme, että selvitykset ovat huolelliset, kun jatkopäätöksiä harkitaan.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party supported the proposal and took the view that Terrafame must be given more time to stabilise its operations and safeguard jobs. According to the group, employment measures and their funding will be returned to in subsequent supplementary budgets.

  ”Miksi Terrafamea pääomitetaan? Sen tähden, että sille annetaan vielä kesään asti mahdollisuus ja samalla varmistetaan niitten ihmisten työllisyyttä, jotka siellä ovat.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The Social Democrats opposed the proposal and sharply criticised the fact that no funds were allocated to pay subsidies and employment measures in the supplementary budget. According to the group, the Government's austerity line deepens unemployment and particularly worsens the situation of the long-term unemployed.

  ”Tähän esitykseen sisältyy myös sosialidemokraattien vastalause, jossa kannamme jälleen kerran huolta työllisyysmäärärahojen riittämättömyydestä.”

• GreensAgainst

  The Greens opposed pouring additional funding into the unprofitable Terrafame mine and demanded that the recreational areas of Metsähallitus (the state forest enterprise) be transferred off the business operations balance sheet. The group considered that the funds should be directed directly to employment and the environment.

  ”Mitä pidempään tuo piikki on auki ja mitä enemmän sinne rahaa pumpataan, sitä vähemmän jää rahaa ympäristöön, työllisyyteen, yritys- ja elinkeinotoimintaan ja kainuulaisten tukemisiin.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The Left Alliance opposed the proposal because it failed to address the rapidly worsening unemployment situation. In addition, the group considered the process and environmental risks of the Terrafame mine too great to justify continuing additional funding.

  ”Lisätalousarviot ovat juuri niitä, joilla voidaan ja joilla pitää reagoida sen kyseisen budjettivuoden tilanteeseen ja tässä tapauksessa vaikeaan työllisyystilanteeseen.”

This digest was generated by AI from 53 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.