PDF Version

May 4, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 23

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, Mr. Melvin Harnum of Heart’s Delight-Islington, who is the subject of a Member’s statement, is in attendance in the public gallery; along with his daughter Angie Harnum, his son Trevor Harnum, his grandson Austin Harnum; and Doug Piercey, the Deputy Mayor of Heart’s Content.

Welcome to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the public gallery today, Lisa Wishart, who is also the subject of a Member’s statement today. She’s accompanied by her mother Makenzie Wishart.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Okay. Apparently, I have a typo here, so I will correct that. The subject of the Member’s statement is Makenzie Wishart and her mother is Lisa Wishart.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we’ll hear Members’ statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Burgeo - La Poile, Burin - Grand Bank, Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, Conception Bay East - Bell Island and we also have two ministers with leave.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Barrens to Beaches Southwest Coast Trail Association, a volunteer-driven organization whose vision is helping shape the future of outdoor adventure and coastal tourism in Burgeo - La Poile.

Through the development of the Rugged Reach Route, the association is showing the landscapes, viewpoints and geological features that make our region unlike anywhere else in the province.

Their efforts are creating a trail experience that appeals not only to local residents, but to hikers, photographers and visitors seeking authentic, nature ‑ based tourism. By improving access, enhancing safety and developing interpretive features that highlight our natural and cultural heritage, the association is building an attraction that supports healthy living while also strengthening the local tourism economy.

I want to acknowledge the dedicated individuals who guide this work: Julie Baggs, Claudette Benoit, Tyler Benoit, Marc Durnford, Glenda Dollimount, Dana Green, Freeman Hann, Justin Coley, Tom Cutler, Kathy Cutler, Jill Calder, Derrick Mercer, Skylar Skinner, Jennifer Vatcher and Brock Vatcher.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking the Barrens to Beaches Southwest Coast Trail Association for their vision, their leadership and their unwavering commitment to our region.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PIKE: Speaker, today I am honored to recognize Mayor Kevin Lundrigan of Burin for his remarkable dedication and service to the Town of Burin.

Kevin has served his community for 52 years with unwavering dedication, including 27 years as mayor and two years as deputy mayor.

His leadership has played a major role in shaping the growth, stability and spirit of Burin, and his efforts will have a long-lasting impact on generations of residents. In addition to his municipal service, Mayor Lundrigan devoted 29 years to the Burin Volunteer Fire Department with 20 years as officer, demonstrating courage, leadership and a sense of duty protecting the safety and well-being of the residents of Burin.

Kevin was also recognized with the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal, the 75th Anniversary Medal and the Governor General Exemplary Service Medal. He was also responsible for the Mina Swim Memorial site, as well as the Tidal Wave site in Burin.

Kevin’s volunteering goes beyond his community; he also served for the past 20 years on the Burin Peninsula Regional Service Board and 10 years with the Community Business Development Corporation.

Mayor Lundrigan’s lifelong connections to public service stands as an example of leadership and community pride.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

R. BALSOM: Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding milestone of service and dedication in my district.

On March 16, 2026, Melvin Harnum tallied his 50th year of service on the Heart’s Delight-Islington Volunteer Fire Department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

R. BALSOM: In those 50 years, Melvin has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to public safety, serving in every role throughout the department, including 10 years as fire chief.

Beyond his local service, Melvin has been a pillar of regional collaboration. For over 30 years, he served as chair of the Trinity - Bay de Verde Joint Fire Departments Association, supporting coordination amongst the 12 fire departments along the Trinity and Conception Bay shores. He contributed 16 years as Region 1 director with the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Services Association, representing 41 departments across the Avalon Peninsula.

In addition, Melvin worked as a driver and attendant with the Heart’s Delight-Islington ambulance service for 27 years, further exemplifying his unwavering commitment to serving and helping others.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me to congratulate Melvin Harnum on 50 years of exceptional volunteer service to our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Welcome to our Chamber, Mr. Harnum.

Thank you for your service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize an exceptional young leader from Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s, Makenzie Wishart, the 2026 PCSP Youth of the Year.

Makenzie is a level II student at Gonzaga, has distinguished herself through outstanding achievements in academics, athletics and community service, and we thank her for that. She’s earned national and international recognition in STEM as a two-time Canada-Wide Science Fair delegate and a gold medalist at the provincial regional Science Fair for her work in carbon capture and environmental chemistry. She also achieved a top provincial placement in the 2026 Canadian Association of Physicists competition.

Beyond the sciences, Mr. Speaker, Makenzie is an award-winning writer, receiving the 2025 Newfoundland and Labrador Arts and Letters Award for Poetry. She is also a high-performance athlete, representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2025 Canada Games in swimming and excels in triathlon. She earned the 2025 Premier’s Athletic Award and was named the PCSP Athlete of the Year.

Makenzie has volunteered for three years as a swim instructor with the Special Olympics, for over 150 hours of dedicated service, and raised over $10,000 for local charities. She’s also received the 100th anniversary of women achieving the right to vote and hold public office scholarship. Makenzie’s leadership also extends nationally through her work with the RCMP’s Youth Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish her well tomorrow when she takes her driver’s licence test and gives her parents a much-needed break from all the driving around.

I would like all Members in the House to rise and offer sincere congratulations to Makenzie Wishart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Does the Member for Ferryland have leave of the House for a Member’s statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you. Speaker.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to Alice Kavanagh of Calvert, an incredible woman who lived a full life and was a renowned female fish harvester.

Ms. Kavanagh was a woman who did just about everything. Whether it was providing for her family of 15, volunteering in her community or fishing on the water, hauling in and mending gillnets, seeing to the fish flakes, lobbying for women’s rights or sawing log after log at the family sawmill, nothing was too much for Ms. Kavanagh. She did all this and more, and she believed in the importance of doing one’s part, as stated in her obituary.

Ms. Kavanagh was just shy of her 95th birthday when she passed, and I think it’s safe to say she left a positive and cherished mark on this world and on many people. I’ve been lucky enough to know many of her family members.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in the celebration of the incredible and memorable life of Alice Kavanagh, a trailblazer for all women working in and contributing to our province’s fishing industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. Barbe - L’Anse aux Meadows have leave for a Member’s statement, also?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe - L’Anse aux Meadows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary bravery of a young woman from the Town of Castor River North, Ms. Shealene Bailey.

Ms. Bailey, who currently is pursuing a career change from massage therapy to nursing, displayed a remarkable courage and selflessness during a recent emergency in her community.

While attending the scene of a house fire, Ms. Bailey became aware that a young boy had fallen into icy harbour waters and was in grave danger. Despite the extreme cold and the risk of her own safety, and time not on her side, she removed her boots, entered the water and swam to the struggling child, putting his life before her own. Using a rope from the wharf, Ms. Bailey secured the boy and ensured he was safely pulled to shore. She then held him until paramedics arrived and he was placed in their care.

Speaker, this heroic act is a powerful example of compassion, quick thinking and courage under pressure. I ask all Members of this House to join me in recognizing Shealene Bailey for her outstanding bravery and service to her community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, today I rise to recognize the week of May 11 to 17 as National Nursing Week, and to celebrate nurses throughout our province.

From clinics and hospitals to care teams and long-term care homes, nurses bring a diverse range of skills and a deep compassion for the patients they serve, often working in challenging situations with the highest standards of professionalism and ethics.

Our government knows that to invest in our nurses is to invest in better health outcomes for all of us. That is why we are proud to make investments to support nurses in Budget 2026 . We are delivering on our promise to establish a provincial nursing travel team, staffed by local unionized nurses, to reduce our reliance on agency nurses. We are investing in expanding our nurse practitioner funding model to provide increased access to primary health care, with no out-of-pocket cost to patients. We are making significant investments in the recruitment of more nurses, and in supporting the health and well-being of nurses who work in our health care system.

Last month, I had the opportunity to attend the graduation ceremony of our practical nurses who are beginning their nursing careers.

Speaker, I invite all hon. Members to join me in thanking and appreciating nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, and I’d like to thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

I join the minister is recognizing National Nursing Week and thanking nurses across Newfoundland and Labrador for the care they provide every day.

Speaker, we all know that supporting nurses is not a new challenge. Pressures in our health care system have been building for years, and nurses have been carrying much of that weight. That is why this year’s budget gave an opportunity to respond to those realities; however, we are hearing clearly from nurses and their representatives that key gaps remain.

The Registered Nurses’ Union has said this budget does not adequately address retention or violence in the workplace. Those are not secondary issues; they are central to whether nurses can stay in the profession and feel safe at work. This budget missed the chance to fully meet that commitment. Nurses deserve to see stronger, concrete action to support them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

We also appreciate the nurses who we count on during some of our most vulnerable moments. Let’s show our gratitude with concrete actions. Let’s ease the strain on the system by offering nursing students a job during their first year of study, pay for the work terms of all nursing students and let’s tackle workplace violence in the system by creating a health sector safety council.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Before we get into questions, just something we can all agree on, congratulations to Alex Newhook for scoring the winning goal for the Montreal Canadiens last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I know all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud, so to all the Canadien fans across the country: You’re welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I’m a Leaf’s fan, but I’ll cheer for him anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. HOGAN: Speaker, now we’ll get to the questions, where we’ll disagree, I’m sure.

The Conservatives are finally agreeing to release the Bay du Nord benefits agreement today, but, of course, after Question Period because they don’t want questions asked here today.

The Premier knows what’s in the agreement, so can he confirm how many guaranteed jobs there are, and if they are of the same quality and pay as there would have been if they hadn’t abandoned their campaign commitment to get guaranteed topside work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I can’t not address the

preamble.

As a Montreal Canadiens fan, I am very thankful for the Leader of the Opposition to bring up the Montreal Canadiens and our own great Alex Newhook. It was a pleasure to watch that game.

I can also tell you it’s a pleasure to be able to stand up here today and talk about a Bay du Nord agreement that’s actually going to see, not only projects completed, but a new industry created. That’s one of the things that we’re going to do: create a new industry for Newfoundland and Labrador with our floating drydock and that will employ thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians long after the cycle of boom and bust is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, just so the Premier is aware, the theme for my questions will be guarantee. The word “guarantee” will be asked in all these questions, and I haven’t heard one answer where there’s a guarantee of any of these jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Now we learn today that the Conservatives are spending over $2 million on a prefeasibility study into the drydock and still with no guarantee that Bay du Nord will proceed. How did they fall for this when Equinor has said about the project – and I quote – we can never guarantee anything?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

What I can guarantee is that this deal is much better than the deal the Liberals wanted to do in 2018. I can guarantee that we’re looking at 430 million barrels and they were looking at 300 million barrels. I can guarantee from an expenditure standpoint we were looking at $26.9 billion in the life of field; they were looking at $10.9 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: I can guarantee from a fabrication standpoint, we’re looking at 15,400 tons of fabrication; they were looking at 5,000. I can guarantee under R & D, we were looking at $100 million; they were looking at $75 million. I can guarantee you from a fabrication fund, we’re getting $200 million; they were getting zero. I can guarantee you that 31.3 million person-hours is what we had; they had 23.3 million person-hours.

Speaker, I can go on with this, but I think the answers are in –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I’ll save the minister some trouble from reading from his document. I’ll ask him to table it when Question Period is over so we can all see exactly what he’s talking about.

The Minister of Energy today admitted that there’s a 25 per cent variance over his estimate for the drydock. Industry leaders say it’s likely to cost $700 million or more. Today, he said he’s hoping the federal government or other private dollars will help close this massive gap – hoping.

Does he have any guarantees for these investments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I can give a couple of more guarantees. I guarantee that our numbers are more solid than the numbers were for the new hospital they wanted to build. I can guarantee that this project is far more feasible than the World Energy GH2 project that they wanted to sign with their hydrogen and their giveaways.

Speaker, we are looking at building a drydock and we have not even gotten to feed. The EOI is out right now, as I explained this morning, and when it comes back, it will give us a clear path on the direction we’re taking with this. That feed study will help open the doors for new industry in this province, one that hasn’t been seen for many, many years. When we get that, it will be made public, no different than everything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

To summarize, what we’ve heard is they’ve signed away the topsides work that were guaranteed during an election in exchange for a partial investment in a drydock, for which they don’t know the full cost, don’t know how many job numbers will arise and don’t know if there’s any work guaranteed to flow from it.

So why didn’t the minister get a guarantee from Equinor that they will refund any of these upfront costs if they decide not to proceed with Bay du Nord?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll go back to the other guarantees: 95 per cent of all subsea work, at a minimum, will be carried out in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Life of benefits for the entire project, first time ever, is guaranteed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Speaker, this is the first of many things for Newfoundland and Labrador to come under this administration. When they get the agreement today, they can have a look at it and they’ll come back and they’ll say the same thing we’re saying. This is a good deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and it’s a good deal for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it’s a good signal that we’re sending to the rest of Canada, the rest of the world.

The federal Liberals like it, the building trades like it and the people that are going to be employed love it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As we said all along, we want it to proceed as well, and we hope we like it when we finally get the chance to read the agreement and see the details. Very interested to see how many times the word guarantee is in the agreement.

Equinor has said publicly that companies in Asia have the competitive advantage for topside construction. How can local companies who pay good wages to our workers hope to compete with that without any government guarantees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Speaker, in both agreements that the Liberals had previously, there was no topside work. We’ve got a guarantee that people here in this province have the ability to bid, and if they can meet the budget and calendar, they will get the work. We have four companies that had pre-qualified; the indications are, they are all going to be bidding this project and looking to be competitive with Asia.

We have an opportunity in this province to bring an industry forward that sat dormant for the last 10 years under their watch. We are not going to allow that to happen. We are moving forward into new industries, into deep-sea prospects and into a floating dry dock that will bring work for years to come.

Speaker, I don’t know how anyone can pick badness out of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I hope these companies are successful, but rather than having to go through the bid process, I’m sure they would have appreciated if the government guaranteed that they would get the job rather than companies in Asia.

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians dove into the budget over the weekend, they realized it’s not that deep. They’ve done very little, this government, to help address affordability.

Can the Premier explain how he thinks about $20 a month is enough to help with, in his words, the soaring cost of living?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition stated last week he was talking to the prime minister. I’m surprised the prime minister didn’t inform him how well he liked the dry dock and the Bay du Nord.

On the budget, anytime you can put out $200 million into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is a good lever to push to address affordability in Newfoundland and Labrador. He can drill down and minimize one aspect of the $200 million, but if he’s done the math, $200 million put out to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador helps affordability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I did the math and I know that most of the $200 million were Liberal initiatives over the last number of years, not Conservative issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: The Finance Minister told the Board of Trade here, on Friday, that if the price of oil remains elevated, more affordability issues could come later this year.

Can the minister tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what those measures are, and what price oil will have to be at and for how long before he decides to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the cost of affordability issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I’m not sure how well the Leader of the Official Opposition did his math. He stood in this House last week and said: Liberal initiatives, $110 million – grossly incorrect. Not even half of that because they never budgeted for the permanent gas tax reduction. It wasn’t in the budget, but it’s certainly in his $110 million that he had.

We will look at affordability issues going forward, because we know that good governance says that we must be in tune with what the people are experiencing out there. We will certainly do that. If he were at the Board of Trade meeting, he would have found out that we’ve got it under our analysis in the department.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I didn’t do it in the budget because it wasn’t my budget to do, but if the Minister of Finance would like to hand over that responsibility for next year, I’m sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. HOGAN: Brent crude is now trading today at more than $113 a barrel. What specific oil price threshold is the minister waiting for before he acts?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, I addressed the Board of Trade, and we had a really good session. We talked about financial pressures that the province is under, and that was as the result of the last 10 years of governance with the increase in the debt, the increase in the deficit that we’re experiencing now.

That has got to be addressed for us to make sure that we prepare for the future. Not only the Future Fund, which we agree that saving is very important, but we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got our debt and our deficit under control to reduce our borrowings in going forward.

We will address affordability issues in the near future.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

J. HOGAN: To be clear, we do not agree on the process that they are taking with the Future Fund. In fact, we adamantly disagree with the approach this government is taking to not save for the future.

Has the minister admitted that the current affordability measures in this budget are inadequate; only will be changed unless oil revenues continue to increase?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Absolutely not; they are not inadequate.

How can you say that when we’re putting out $200 million into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? How can you stand and make that comment, to know that that is an insufficient amount that we put out to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, he said, when he was asked, as far as what he’s going to watch for in our budget, he didn’t mention affordability. He wanted to know what percentage and how we were going to deliver on the promises that were in our blue book. It wasn’t affordability. It was whether we were going to meet, and we met that target of 80 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Well, Minister, in your own words, you said you would do more for affordability.

So now I’m asking, if you say this is enough, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be satisfied with what you’ve done so far, why would you say you will do more in the future? It can’t be both. Is it enough or is it not enough? Tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I want to state and restate again – I think the Leader of the Opposition might have understood that I said that we put $2 million out into the pockets of Newfoundland and Labradorians?

I want to make sure that he’s clear this time, before any radio interview tomorrow morning, $200 million in excess out –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: – into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

How much would the Leader of the Opposition expect for good affordability measures? How much more was he expecting? In excess of $300 million, $400 million?

But we will keep an eye, Speaker, on affordability because that’s good governance.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: What I’m hearing is that the minister said $200 million is enough for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and if he wants an answer from me, I would have done more for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I can certainly tell you, with the costs going up of oil, $120 a barrel, I certainly would have had the revenue to do more for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as well.

In its commentary on the budget, DBRS Bond Rating Agency said – quote – with Quebec’s next provincial election scheduled for October, it remains highly uncertain if Newfoundland and Labrador will realize the fiscal and economic benefits previously anticipated from the Churchill Falls deal.

Since, now, we’ve been decided to be stuck with the 1969 deal, because of this government’s indecision, what is the government’s plan to make up for the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me talk about the budget and talk about what’s in it.

The minister talks about the $200 million, but I’ll tell you the difference between the PC government and the former Liberal government. When we do things, we make them permanent, like a permanent reduction in gas tax.

That’s exactly what we have done. We turned around; all of their initiatives had expiry dates and, let’s be clear, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expired the Liberal government in October. We’ve taken over, and we’re going to make sure that we continue to deliver for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I don’t apologize for not having permanent things, because you need to be flexible and you need to change and you need to adapt as the world around us changes. They’re stuck with old policies and they won’t open their eyes and see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need more help.

The bond rating agencies have noted the Conservative changes to the Future Fund legislation – and I quote – removes the incentive to reduce our reliance on resource royalties to fund future program spending.

So I ask the minister: Why is he doubling down on spending volatile oil revenues instead of building a stable fiscal future for all of us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I’m glad he’s getting some of our lingo in our campaign: all of us. Very nice.

Morningstar DBRS states “Newfoundland’s exposure to global commodity prices presents material fiscal upside.” They also state: Energy prices present a material upside risk to the province’s forecast.

Mr. Speaker, not in a year previous to this year did the previous government in their 10-year reign ever put in that much in affordability measures into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – $200 million, have not seen it in the last 10 years.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

On budget day, the Minister of Health said – and I quote – and for me now, in the Ministry of Health, you’d think things would have improved. In actual fact, if it continues to go on, I would suggest that people in Northern Labrador try to find a lawyer and actually have a class action lawsuit for the failures and sue me, the Minister of Health; sue the government.

I ask the minister: What real solutions are you working on to avoid a class action lawsuit against yourself and the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, in actual fact, I was really disappointed that the clip that got played cut out the first part where I talked about the solutions that we are actually putting in place. I’m holding myself to account because I have lived experience with the harms the gaps in services have done to the people of Northern Labrador.

One of the things we’re going to do is rework that RT that’s so archaic it’s got the old name. The R stands for radio, Speaker. That’s how old that office is. There are so many gaps when it comes to communication and support, but we will put the solutions in place. We are actually in the works. We have engaged with Indigenous leaders. We’ve engaged with the people that are actually –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister doesn’t seem to like answering these questions, but I’ll remind her that she made a point of doing this on budget day. Quote: I know it’s budget day. I know that means a lot of this messaging will get lost and I said I can’t accept being the, you know, the head, the Minister of Health, while my people continue to be treated like this. It’s unacceptable.

Why did she say such comments about her own efforts and her own government on budget day? Was she trying to detract from their lacklustre budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Actually, the transcript of my interview was over three pages long, Speaker. I wish they would have actually played everything and I wish they wouldn’t have misled the public, because people in my district were concerned. Because of all the work we’re actually putting in place, you’re going to see real changes for patients travelling in Northern Labrador.

But, Speaker, in actual fact, this budget is going to address all of Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s not just my district. I’m the minister for all of the province when it comes to health care services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, we’re actually changing a lot of the services available. When people are calling and looking for answers, we’re actually changing the way people will be addressed. So they’ll get actually answered –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Just a week after the minister had to delete an AI-altered image and said she regretted using AI to edit a photo, the Conservative government posted an image of a woman obviously edited with artificial intelligence to promote vaccinations.

Can the Premier explain?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was a picture that came out. It was a mistake. It was done by public servants. For them to come in and talk about public servants in that manner again, after they’ve done the same thing time and time again, we know it’s a problem.

We’re going to fix the problem point blank, simple. AI is creating issues inside of government; government is looking for solutions to fix it. They’ve ought to look at their own reports that they’ve put out that cost millions of dollars and led us down this trail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

The Royal Bank of Canada says that Budget 2026 abandons plans to reduce spending and instead increases expenditures by $120 million.

Why has this government walked away from its own commitment to control spending?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I think the hon. Member was at the Board of Trade when I spoke on Friday and I think the reception was very good. We haven’t abandoned anything and I think we made it quite clear in every comment we’ve had that we need to address the debt that they left us. We need to address the deficit that they left us. In fact, they created more debt in 10 years than any government prior to that, and that is a fact.

We will address it because we are the government now and we look forward to making sure that we do address it. We’ve been clear on the record that we will, but good governance makes sure that we look after the people as well. That we will do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, the government can’t have it both ways. The minister said he has an insatiable desire to save money, an insatiable desire to reduce debt, an insatiable desire to reduce deficit. He increased the debt. He extended the deficit for years.

Will the minister admit today that their fiscal plan is not just offtrack but has never been on track?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: As asked, the Opposition who were government for the past 10 years –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: We’ve had six months but no excuse from this side. We will –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: We will address.

One of the things that we found in our plan and we were surprised that there was half a billion dollars worth of programming that weren’t financed for in the budget, and that caught us off guard because we didn’t know, when we came in, that we would have programs that were not financed in the out-years. It caused us a little concern but then again, Speaker, we will address it because good governance will do that. Watch us do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour says “this budget falls short at presenting a bold, and forward-thinking plan for the future of our province.” They point to inadequacies on worker safety, labour relations, workers’ rights and no plan to create a comprehensive labour-market strategy.

Despite high oil prices and high deficits, why has this Conservative government presented such an underwhelming budget for our province’s workers?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very important question. I’d like to thank the Member opposite.

Last week I attended the National Day of Mourning. I placed a ribbon. He was there with me. I’m not here to play games with people’s lives. I take the health and safety of employees in this province very, very, very serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: I served in trades on three different worksites where there were fatalities. I’ve dissected safety plans. I’ll continue to dissect safety plans while I’m here, and I will continue to make sure that people are protected when they go to work and come home to their families in the evening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, CUPE says their overall concern is that the budget does not address the low pay of public sector workers, and they feel the recruitment and retention crisis is probably going to come out even worse.

Why does this budget fail to address the low wages driving workers out of the system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, I find it disconcerting that the previous government that left us with the debt that we have are wondering now how we’re not adding on to salaries.

We would certainly like to do more, but I think most of the lending agencies, the bond rating agencies, would know that we are limited and constrained by the amount of debt and deficit that the previous government left us.

You can rest assured we will work being fiscally conservative, but we will address the pressures that are out there over due course. We’ve stated that we’re not going to do everything in year one, and I would hope that the Opposition heard that. We said that several times. We will address the pressures that exist.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

The Premier ran on an election commitment to support rotational workers with a $2,000 tax credit that is notably absent, and we’ve heard from workers who feel betrayed.

Why is the government now abandoning its commitment they made in their blue book and at the election now that they’ve got their vote?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, it genuinely hurts me to hear that question, because I –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

C. PARDY: Speaker, I, personally, not only the Premier, but many of my colleagues, would have said that we’ve got four years to implement our platform. Six months we’ve been in and now they’re picking out one. No mention, no celebratory comment about the 80 per cent of the items that were addressed, putting $226 million in people’s pockets, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but he picks out one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: We know that the rotational workers are getting the benefit from the basic exemption amount. They’re getting that. The other one is still on the books for future years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

Co-author of the Health Accord, Sister Elizabeth Davis, discussed the importance of allocating resources to climate change as it impacts our physical health. Extreme heat is a serious danger to our health, especially seniors.

Ontario is the only province that currently legislates air conditioning for long-term care homes, so I ask the minister: Will your government bring in legislation for all facilities that support our seniors so they and the workers can stay healthy in the summer?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, and the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We are constantly evolving when it comes to climate action plans and making sure that, especially, our seniors and our most vulnerable throughout our societies are taken care of when it comes to this moving forward.

With our CEEP Program and SAG Program and other programs throughout my Municipal Affairs portfolio, we are making sure that warming centres and cooling centres are set up across the province to ensure that as well.

Make no mistake, we are working on the climate action plan moving forward. That’s going to take some time. That’s going to take some deliberation, but we will deliver a climate action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, which suit our needs right here. We are constantly looking out for our seniors within our society.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

We still haven’t heard the timing, when the climate action plan promised by government will be released.

Under an NDP government, British Columbia brought in a free portable air conditioner program for seniors whose health is directly impacted by climate change and extreme heat.

I ask the minister: Will there be measures to ensure that the health and welfare of our seniors impacted by climate change are prioritized in their plan?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Like I said, we are constantly evolving when it comes to the department. We will be achieving our goals in 2030 for a 30 per cent reduction. That’s something that we’re looking at in the future.

But make no mistake, we know where the gaps are. It’s going to take some money; it’s going to take some time to get there but, make no mistake, we are looking after our seniors and our most vulnerable in our societies.

We know that a climate action plan is needed, and we know that with the ever-growing greenhouse gases throughout this world and other countries, Newfoundland and Labrador are at the best levels we’ve ever had since 1994. We’ll continue this trajectory.

I look forward to sitting with the Members opposite, to hearing their ideas and their concerns moving forward, but the seniors and the most vulnerable are our main priority.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated several times last week that raising the basic personal exemption will put $91 million into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask the minister: How much can individual Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect to see in their pockets as a result of that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, $91 million was the cost of putting in the measure to put money out into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through the basic exemption amount. I know that, if I had more time, I’d like to repeat it six times so the Opposition will get it clearly – $91 million that we’ve put out.

What the question is, the question asked –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: – it would be $341, the target amount, that most of the 285,000 tax filers would receive – $341.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, the answer we got is $332, less than the price of a cup of coffee a day.

By contrast, individual Newfoundlanders and Labradorians received $596 from the Canada Carbon Rebate, that the minister’s party opposed, and $715 if they lived in a rural area. A family of four received $1,192 or $1,430 if they lived in a rural area.

I ask the minister: How does he expect individual Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to absorb the cost of living with so little?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s pretty bold to embrace the carbon tax and not understand what that means to the cost of groceries, to the cost of gas, to the everyday cost of living in this province.

Also, coming from an individual whose leader wants to turn the taps off for oil and gas. There will be no refund on anything if that were to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. PARROTT: They say that they have a platform that can pay for absolutely everything, when they don’t even understand what the cost means or the consequences are for taking stuff away from it. When you supported the carbon tax in Canada, and you didn’t understand that it was disproportionate for Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then you did not read what it was.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to table, as we had announced, the Benefits Agreement for Bay du Nord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I would also like to table the Royalties Agreement for Bay du Nord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I would also like to table the Royalty Agreement for Bay du Nord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I would also like to table the Equity Option Framework for Bay du Nord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, it gives me pleasure to give notice that I will, on tomorrow, introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, Bill17.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Remove Anomalies and Errors in the Statute Law, Bill 18.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

J. MCKENNA: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, the following private Member’s resolution – food fishery, seven-day access for residents.

WHEREAS the food fishery is a long-standing cultural tradition in Newfoundland and Labrador, deeply rooted in the province’s heritage and coastal way of life; and

WHEREAS the food fishery provides residents with access to locally sourced, sustainable food and supports for food security, particularly, in rural and coastal communities; and

WHEREAS current federal regulations limit the food fishery to designated days and periods, restricting reasonable access for residents due to work schedules, weather conditions and other practical considerations; and

WHEREAS adjacent jurisdictions on comparable fisheries regimes provide more flexible access while maintaining conservation objectives; and

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have demonstrated a strong commitment to responsible harvesting and stewardship of marine resources;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such advocacy emphasize the importance of conservation-based management, including appropriate catch limits, monitoring and enforcement measures to ensure the sustainability of cod and other ground fish stocks; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House affirm its support for policies that balance cultural traditions, food security and conservation in the management of the province’s fisheries resources.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

This will be the PMR presented on Wednesday, May 6.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition calls for the immediate implementation of GPS ankle bracelet monitoring systems for intimate partner violence offenders.

WHEREAS our court dockets are full of breaches relating to the conditional release orders, many of which relate to intimate partner violence; and

WHEREAS real-time active GPS ankle monitoring has a proven track records to reduce breaches, including violent breaches, when used with IPV accused; and

WHEREAS victim notification alarms will give victims precious seconds to call for help or seek safe refuge; and

WHEREAS other provinces use ankle monitoring programs, including Alberta that recently committed $4.1 million over three years to expand its electronic monitoring program; and

WHEREAS the Conservative government campaigned on making communities safer for all of us.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement an active GPS ankle bracelet monitoring program as an option for courts to impose on accused dangerous or repeat intimate partner violence offenders.

This is a topic, Speaker, that has been in the media for quite some time. I know when I was minister of Women and Gender Equality, I struck a Cabinet committee, a task force, and we heard from stakeholders. One group called for this and actually had a really good slideshow that showed statistics about in other jurisdictions, where these are in place, it actually reduces the number of offences.

That said, the current Minister of Justice, of course, the Member for Harbour Main, when on this side of the House, called for this implementation immediately and actually went as far as to say it’s political will to make it happen. Now we respectfully call on her; she is in a position to make that happen.

Unfortunately, we did not see any mention or any allocation in this year’s budget for ankle monitoring. We asked the question as well in Estimates. We know that it’s something that can make a difference of life or death. We do know that there are trials currently before the province involving intimate partner violence.

So I call on the Member and the government, of course, to do what they can to implement ankle monitoring as soon as possible. She’s in a position to do it, so let’s see it happen immediately.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

L. STOYLES: These are the reasons and background for the petition:

WHEREAS the education of students in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the responsibility of the provincial government; and

WHEREAS Canada is a bilingual nation and families are able, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to access education in either of the official languages; and

WHEREAS many schools in Newfoundland and Labrador do not deliver K-to-12 French Immersion programs; and

WHEREAS there are incidents where students in French Immersion programming can’t access the provincial school busing to attend schools; and

WHEREAS students are required to attend schools outside their catchment area to access French Immersion programming; and

WHEREAS those students aren’t eligible for busing, which presents unnecessary challenges facing to access the French Immersion programming.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary funding so families are not facing unnecessary challenges accessing French Immersion programming for their children.

Speaker, over the past number of years, and especially this past year, I’ve had a number of parents in my district that couldn’t put their children in French because they’re both working families and they can’t take time off work to drive their children every single day in the morning and pick them up in the evening.

Speaker, this affects all 40 districts here in the province and it certainly needs to be looked at, especially with today’s technology and computers. It’s something that really needs to be looked at, even a pilot project. I spoke to the minister back last year, and we were looking at putting a pilot project in place to look at this. There are a large number of children, some of them can get courtesy seats, but most of them, courtesy seats are not available for them to get it.

I’ve seen it first hand as grandparents when my oldest grandson attended school. He lives in Bay Bulls and, in order for him to do a French Immersion program, he had to go to the Goulds, which was the closest school. We had to drive him back and forth from Bay Bulls to the Goulds every day. Without us and his other grandfather driving him, my grandchildren would not have been able to access and be in French Immersion.

My grandson is now in University doing languages. He actually speaks three languages.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education for a response.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the Member for the petition. As she pointed out, this has been a number of years on the go, and it’s a serious issue. Children certainly deserve their education and, by our own Charter of Rights, deserve it in one of our official languages or both.

I will say that, only recently, we have announced a pilot for a busing in terms of registration system. This registration system is designed to determine who is, actually, riding on the buses and where there are some efficiencies that can be had.

That’s being piloted in 17 locations. I would hope that as we go through that, we’ll be able to free up spaces and look more closely at other demands on the busing system.

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

P. PIKE: Thank you, Speaker.

My petition today will be on the paving and upgrading of the road from Point May to Fortune. These are the reasons and background to this petition:

WHEREAS the highway from Point May to Fortune is in deplorable condition; and

WHEREAS emergency vehicles travel this road; and

WHEREAS the residents of this area use this roadway to access medical services, shopping, banking, employment; and

WHEREAS this road is causing extensive damage to vehicle;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary funding for paving and upgrading of the road from Point May to Fortune.

Mr. Speaker, this

section of road is in my district; it’s certainly a road that’s used a lot. It’s used by people mostly to get back and forth to work, but also to get groceries, banking, for health care and the list goes on. It is, certainly, something that I get asked about when I go out. When is this going to be done and so on?

By the way, it was a Phase III to what we had planned. These people in these communities, they rely on the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure and Public Procurement. They rely on this department for paving. They don’t have the dollars in their budgets to do that paving themselves so we, as a government, have to do those roads.

People living in rural Newfoundland, we need to ensure that they have the same positive things that happen in their community. We have to ensure that our residents can get back and forth to work safely and enjoy living in their own communities. That’s what living in rural Newfoundland is all about. People want to be around family. It’s where they grew up. So we need to put some extra funding for our road infrastructure out there.

I would just like for the minister to agree to send out his engineers and officials to take a look at the roads out there that I have been talking about to see if we can get them on some sort of a priority list. That $66 million that was taken out of the budget this year could have done all of the work in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that needs to get done, and I’m sure I’m not the only MHA who has those problems.

Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Orders of the Day.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio. I believe she’s got about 57 minutes or something like that left on the clock.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: There you go, 58 minutes, 32 seconds.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I very much appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: I note that, unfortunately, I don’t have time to review the Bay du Nord agreement, because otherwise I could opine on that for three hours, or an hour left today. I look forward to reading that tonight. Hopefully, it is as excellent as the government says it is. We will have to wait and look at that tonight. Unfortunately, I don’t have that for today.

I do want to reiterate what a privilege it is to stand here and speak to the budget. You know I represent the people of Mount Scio. Obviously, in Mount Scio, there are voters of all parties, so I also represent the people who didn’t vote for me, as we all do. I think it’s important, as the Official Opposition, that I do take my time in making sure that there is sufficient information on the record about the opposition to the government’s budget. That’s what I’m intending to do today.

I’m also very fortunate to have a break between my speaking periods so I can do additional research and talk about a few things that I didn’t talk about before. I got the opportunity to do additional research and –

AN HON. MEMBER: Always good.

S. STOODLEY: Yes, and I have many new points that I will raise today.

I do think it’s important to acknowledge that the overall sentiment of the government’s budget is underwhelming. They had very high promises and, as I mentioned last week, I would encourage you to reflect on, when a Conservative elector knocked on your door and asked you for your vote, what types of things did they promise you? Do you think that this budget is delivering them for you, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

I think the VOCM Question of the Day also says that the government’s budget is underwhelming. They told you they were going to lower your taxes. They told you that they would implement a rotational worker tax credit. They are saving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians $28 a month with increasing the personal exemption and, so far, since we’ve been here today, in Question Period, we heard a lot about – I believe the Minister of Finance was saying, okay, well that’s $200 million in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and –

B. DAVIS: It was $91 million.

S. STOODLEY: Oh, $91 million – thank you – in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, which is great, but I would say, and many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians say, for a party that their election platform was lower taxes, $28 a month is not really lower taxes. It is, but it’s not really what people voted for, is what we’ve heard, Speaker.

They are saving small business owners, if you get $100,000 profit, $500. Fair. That’s the same change that we introduced in 2024. We introduced that same amount of change.

Are they lowering the gas tax? No. Did they stop the sugar tax? No, they didn’t. When you filed your taxes last month, did you get any of this money back? No. You’ll get that money back next year, that’s the $28, or your employer will withhold fewer taxes perhaps or you’ll just get more back.

They told you that they would improve health care. Do you feel as though this government is working towards doing that? Do you feel like your government has a plan to do that? I would say absolutely not.

I’d like to remind everyone that one of the first things they did was decide to pay an overpriced political staffer $275,000 for a part-time job to give them advice on this budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: There are a few additional things, going through the government’s mandate again, and I’d like to start with the Physical Activity Tax Credit.

That was one that we introduced; I’m very proud that we introduced that. It’s not a huge financial savings for taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is something. I believe the maximum is about $140 a year. I have a child and I have a gym membership, personally, so I always make sure to keep track and keep receipts for every time I take my child swimming, every time we do anything, and I have it in a spreadsheet. At the end of the year, I can put in my Physical Activity Tax Credit line and, I believe, it’s up to $140 – it might be $170 – I can get back for the Physical Activity Tax Credit.

The government committed in their government mandate, in their lower taxes section, the fourth bullet, that they would make more families and individuals eligible for the Physical Activity Tax Credit by allowing them to claim fitness gear like sneakers and bikes. That won't be in this budget.

I know the minister said that they have 80 per cent of their commitments in this budget. I’m still doing the math on that, and when I get the number, I will bring it back to this House. That’s not one that we’ve seen this year. Now, that would have cost a little bit more because I’m assuming more people would have taken advantage of it if they did cover sneakers and bikes, which would have potentially lead to people being healthier, exercising more and spending more time outside. That was a tax commitment that the government did not deliver on in their first budget.

I’ve also heard the poverty reduction and prevention strategy will come this fall, I believe. Fair. I also understand that the government are ending their 106 Horizons facility, even though End Homelessness has successfully transitioned 40 chronically homeless individuals to independent living in the private market. I know members of the not-for-profit community who spend their whole lives assisting people in homelessness have very strong opinions about the government’s decision to cancel that contract with no plan in place for how to support the 75 residents who are still in the process of moving and transitioning to independent living.

I’d also like to note, I was Minister of Housing for a short while and I did have the privilege of touring that facility, there’s a partnership with First Light there. There’s a smudging room and there are Indigenous residents. There are many residents at 106 Horizons. I reflect on, and it was very important to me that we keep the needs in mind of those residents, and that decisions were made to not cause additional trauma.

I don’t want to go into that in too much detail, but I think it’s incredibly important that the government take careful consideration for all the residents at 106 Horizons and the damage that they can do, and that is already being done by things in the media and decisions that they make. There are people living there, people with many different backgrounds, chronically homeless, and it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to have those people – I’m sure there will be some sort of a plan, but we don’t know. We’re looking forward to more information from the government.

I implore them to consider the different needs of the various extremely vulnerable residents who are there and work with the community to resolve that as respectfully as possible for the residents in that building and the staff who work there. I would encourage all government Members to do a tour of the facility.

I know that NLHS staff also deliver some services there. When I was minister, there were palliative patients living there; a complex mix of services being provided to Indigenous residents, to palliative care patients, a range of patients. I would encourage the government to carefully consider how they resolve or how they follow through with whatever their initiatives are related to the residents who live there. They do not need any further trauma. There are a lot of experts and services being provided to help these people get back on their feet, to improve their life in any small way, and the government has to give due attention and care to that. I think that is incredibly important.

I’d also like to talk about the MTAP program. The government indicated that they are going to update the eligibility criteria to allow more families and individuals to receive essential support from government programs.

In the budget, we didn’t hear any additional eligibility, I don’t think. I was reflecting; I can’t think of any and I look forward to the Minister of Finance correcting me if that’s not the case. We didn’t hear any eligibility criteria that was changed. I’m not trying to shoot for the moon; I’m not saying they should be spending recklessly, but these are promises that they made and got elected. The fiscal forecast had been out a month and a half before this government put together their party platform, which is now the government’s mandate.

So if they have updated the eligibility on any of their programs, I welcome the minister to enlighten us when he responds.

They also said that they would fully cover the cost of travelling for essential care when such services are not available in your region, and provide free parking at all health care facilities.

This government is not fully covering the cost of travelling for essential care when such services are not available in your region. They are increasing the budget and keeping the eligibility and the criteria exactly the same. I think that’s an important distinction for anyone who is in a vulnerable situation and is impacted.

You know, I’m very fortunate, I live very close to the major health care facility. It’s in my district actually, but I know that in the 39 other districts and in rural districts and in Labrador – I can't imagine how stressful it is when you have a child, for example, and your child has strep throat or your child has some problem and you can’t go to the Janeway emergency room. I cannot imagine what families go through like that.

So when someone knocks on your door and says that they are going to 100 per cent cover your cost to access medical services that are not available in your region, that could pull on your heartstrings. I can imagine how that would really have an impact on you and deciding what to do with your extremely important vote. I think it’s important – very important – that electors in Newfoundland and Labrador get what they paid for when they elected the government.

This is something the government promised. They need to be transparent with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about when they’re going to fully cover the cost of traveling for essential care when such services are not available in your region.

They also are not providing free parking at all health care facilities, which I would say doesn’t impact rural Newfoundland, but certainly impacts urban Newfoundland. It impacts all of my constituents.

Another one I’d like to bring up today is the government mandate, the party platform, says that they are going to fix the ineffective Liberal pay equity legislation and replace it with legislation that will truly see pay equity in the province. It also says, “We believe in equal pay for work of equal value.” That’s great. If they can strengthen the pay equity legislation, that’s great. I will support that, but I ask the minister how much in the fiscal forecast have they budgeted for increases to wages?

I’m 100 per cent for paying women, gender-diverse individuals, more money. Absolutely, a million per cent, but this government, they’re paying a male political advisor more than the female chief of staff in the Premier’s office. I think we should all reflect on that and the choices that this government are making. I wonder is there any female staff member in the Department of Health and Community Services making more than the part-time political advisor?

The government also committed to developing a robust policy analysis tool, which they will make publicly available. So I can’t wait to see that. I can’t wait to see the government’s robust policy analysis tool for gender equality that they are going to make publicly available, which they promised to do in their election platform. I can’t wait to see that.

I’d also like to talk about red tape a bit more. I note that the mandate says “a Wakeham PC government will: Aggressively reduce red tape to free businesses from outdated rules thus allowing them to thrive in all regions of the province.” So I wonder if the minister, when he speaks, can tell us how they have reduced red tape for businesses. They said they are going to do that aggressively. I notice in their mandate, which the budget is their first instrument of their mandate, the first significant instrument, that they are going to reduce red tape aggressively. I don’t disagree with that.

They also use the word urgently. They haven’t done the urgent thing so I’m wondering about the aggressive things and when they’re going to do the aggressive things. Because they did say they were urgently going to do a review of tuition at Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic. We haven’t heard about that yet. If they’re going a review and when that happens.

I also note that they’re extending the hours of the business help desk. So in the department, I believe, which has Industry and Skills in it, they have business navigators that we introduced, we introduced the business navigator, so they’re going to extend those hours, I assume.

So I was wondering if the minister of any department can tell us what the revised office hours are for the business navigators. Have they been expanded yet? Is that in the fiscal forecast? What’s the service level? Can people call them? Is it like eight to eight, nine to nine? The government mandate now talks about how business doesn’t work nine to five. Fair, okay. So what are the hours? What is the weekend availability like and how much is that going to cost in the fiscal forecast?

They commit to adding a Rural Secretariat in the Executive Council. Okay. So I ask the Minister of Finance is that in the budget? Have they added that in the budget? How many staff are going to be in the Rural Secretariat? That’s not one that was in this budget.

They’re adding a red tape reduction office and, in the mandate, they commit to doing a new intellectual property office. Okay, that’s an extra three offices: a Rural Secretariat, a red tape reduction office and an intellectual property office. So that’s like maybe 10, 15, 20 additional staff that they’re going to add to the public service . I wonder which of those, if any, are in the fiscal forecast?

I know we’ve been in Estimates so far. We’ve got a lot of Estimates left. I’m not sure if we’ve heard about any of those offices, I don’t think so, and how many extra staff have been added to the department to work in any of those three offices.

I still can’t get over the ferries and I don’t know if the ferries are in the fiscal forecast as well.

I did have the opportunity to attend the Minister of Finance’s Board of Trade talk last week. It was a lovely event at a prominent hotel. I’d like to thank the Board of Trade for their commitment to businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador and to the metro region, in particular, and thank the minister for going to that audience and speaking to them and answering questions about the budget.

The minister did give a helpful overview of the main items in the budget and there were a few extra points I wanted to bring to this House’s attention.

The first one that stuck out to me was when the – so thinking about the price of oil, a barrel of oil, in the budget. The former Finance minister, when I was in government, would always talk about we would use the price of a barrel of oil based on the average of so many oil forecasters. It was not the Minister of Finance’s opinion, it wasn’t our Cabinet’s decision or opinion, it was the opinion of the gas forecasters. There are whole teams globally of experts that do that and that is their job to do that and they get paid to do that.

So I was very surprised to hear the Minister of Finance tell the Board of Trade that they’re not using the number of the 11 budget forecasters. They’ve picked their own number, which is $6 US a barrel below what the 11 forecasters came back and said. I quote: Most people said we are interested in seeing what the deficit is and we’re very interested in seeing what the provincial government is going to pay for the cost of a barrel of oil in our budget.

Well, we put a cost of $79 per US barrel – $79. The 11 Brent crude forecasters settled at $85, being fiscally conservative in our budgeting. We could’ve played with it by another couple of dollars; we went with $75. We gave ourselves lots of risk room under that budget.

Now I’ve heard one person say: Well, they’re only patting themselves to look a bit better for the next fiscal forecast and that is not correct.

So that is what the Minister of Finance said to the Board of Trade. So I’m shocked that the government are coming up with their own price for a barrel of oil in the budget. The very important government documents – I don’t have them on my desk – the revenue that comes from oil and gas is significant in Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m just shocked to understand the minister told the Board of Trade that they went with a price, $6 US a barrel below the price of the forecasters. They’ve chosen their own price. They’re politicizing the price of a barrel of oil. I just don’t understand it. I look forward to hearing more from the minister about that.

We also know the DBRS commentary from the bond rating agency, they talk about every dollar change in the price of oil, as per DBRS’s comments, this week, in Newfoundland and Labrador, every dollar is worth $33 million in revenue – $198 million Canadian.

So the government has budgeted oil prices to be $198 million Canadian lower than what the average of the 11 Brent crude forecasters say, which I can't even start to wrap my head around all of the financial implications of that for a government of a province in Canada. I can guess at a few, but the government has financial experts and I assume would have all been considerations that the government would have used.

That’s $198 million Canadian that they’ve underestimated getting from oil revenue based on the Brent crude forecasters. I really struggle with that, Speaker. They don’t trust the forecasters. They were wrong last year. I’m not a forecaster. When we were in government, we did not pretend to take the role of oil and gas forecasters. I would imagine that forecasters, last year, who made wrong estimates of incorrect forecasts, I’m sure that they are working very hard to correct any mistakes in their logic, in their formulas because that is their job.

I also wonder how much the government paid for these 11 Brent crude forecasters, which they should be, but for the government not to take the Brent crude price of oil from the experts and to come up with their own number is just – I can’t even understand.

I wonder what the Auditor General would say about the government just picking a number – we could have gone either way – just picking a number that impacts the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador, impacts the credit rating agency. Then the number comes in better; they look better. Then the minister said, in an NTV interview, I believe, that they would, potentially, give out cheques in the fall. So if the oil price goes up, they’re going to give out cheques.

They’re politically manipulating the revenue numbers in the budget so that they’ll look better, potentially, if the oil forecasters are wrong, and then they’re going to send out cheques.

Now, we sent out cheques; there’s nothing wrong with sending out cheques. There is, in my opinion, something fundamentally wrong about the government using their own subjective decision-making over the price of a barrel of oil in a sub-national government’s budget in Canada. I fundamentally disagree with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: I think the government is setting an extremely dangerous precedent, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador doesn’t use the expert opinions for oil prices. They know better than the Brent crude forecasters.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador budget doesn’t – we know they’re conservative, fair enough, but there are other ways to build in that fiscal decision-making and fiscal philosophy into a budget. They haven’t presented a budget with a fiscal philosophy. They’ve manipulated the Brent crude price, the US dollar of a barrel of oil, by $6 a barrel, which has a $198 million Canadian impact to the Treasury, and they think on principle that’s a better play than following the people whose job it is, who they’re paying to get that expert advice from. I just think that’s wild – wild.

Then, as I mentioned, the Minister of Finance – I quote from a news

article I read – “hinted there could be more cost-of-living relief in the fall, perhaps even cheques for residents, if oil prices stay high in the fall.” Again, I’m not against cheques, but I am against manipulating the budget of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador so that you can artificially look better in a few months time, so that you can give out cheques.

We asked a question in Question Period: What is the magic number where the government is going to send out cheques? What happens if the price of oil is what the Brent crude forecasters say it will be? I mean, sure it won’t be, it might be higher, it might be lower. Are they going send out cheques then? It’s one thing to have a political philosophy, fair enough, but manipulating the price of a barrel of oil in the budget is just ridiculous.

I’d also like to go to the Future Fund. That obviously has a huge budget impact because the government chose not to put in $185 million, I believe, that legally was supposed to go in the Future Fund. Now we’re changing the rules so they don’t have to put last year’s $185 million in it so that they can spend that and/or put it on the deficit, to have a lower deficit.

I’ve heard the minister say many times they wanted to remove the ability to take money out of the fund for political reasons, and I’m okay with that. I personally support that 100 per cent and I can get behind that, but I think it’s very hypocritical for the government to say that they’re going to remove the ability to take money out of the fund for political reasons, yet they’ve just diverted $185 million from going there for political reasons.

I wouldn’t be able to say this if they had put last year’s $185 million in and then changed the law – fine – but they’re not doing that. They are conveniently taking the money that should have gone in the Future Fund and using it for their own deficit, for their own budget. So, you know, they don’t have the moral high ground there, Speaker.

When you think about all of the different financial elements that are going on here, they estimated the budget, but it’s all based on a price of oil being $6 US less for a barrel of oil, and that works out to $198 million. They’ve taken $185 million, which should have gone on the Future Fund, and put it on the deficit and/or spent it.

I do think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need to seriously reflect on all these things that government are doing. They knocked on your door and promised you lower taxes, better health care and safer communities. Do you feel like they’re doing that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

S. STOODLEY: Obviously Members opposite are going to say that, absolutely, but they’re – it’s just really funny, $28 a month.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, you are saving $28 a month as a result of the personal tax exemption. Fine. Is that what you had in mind when they knocked on your door and said lower taxes? I urge the Members opposite to call their constituents and ask: Are you happy with the $28 a month that you’re saving as a result of our law change?

Then it’s all a very mixed – I’m not a finance expert, but I really don’t like the picture that we’re painting here, with taking money out of the fiscal forecast, completely changing the makeup of the oil revenues, going with something that’s $6 US a barrel lower than the average of the $11 Brent crude forecasters.

We never took one cent out of the Future Fund. I do want to reflect, like, who’s being political with the province’s finances now?

They just used $185 million from the Future Fund – or are going to use after the law has changed, because it hasn’t received Royal Assent yet. They’re going to use $185 million that would have and should have gone to the Future Fund, according to law, and make the deficit less, not as low. It’s also bigger because they’re politically interfering with the estimated price of a barrel of oil. It’s just very bizarre.

So, thank you, Speaker.

I’d like pivot to a few other things. I’d like to go to Churchill Falls, and I know that the government announced today that the review of the independent review committee will be out on May 19. I’m glad they’re making that available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I note that the press release said the three panel members will be available on that day, so I ask, and hopefully we’ll hear more about that, are the members going to come to this House? Are we going to do another special sitting? Are we going to be able to ask them questions directly? Are we going to have a full day to ask those panel members questions? That’s kind of the sense I was reading from the press release, but I think it would be very important to be able to ask them questions.

Although, I really don’t like the fact that the report comes out on the same day that those people will be available. We and the public and the media will have no time to review their report prior to them being available. We will only be able to ask very high-level questions, because we won’t have the report. They’re coming in the same day as the report is being made available. I really don’t like that, Speaker, but I really am looking forward to hearing what they have to say.

Just going back to the Board of Trade event that the Minister of Finance did, the question and answers, the Minister of Finance said – quote – I often said that we are committed to getting a deal done on the Upper Churchill and Gull Island. We sincerely believe that it will be as good as the deal presented or better. That is what we would be committed to, and I know that we can’t just make assumptions about revenue, but it would bring to us, and we will never capture revenue from that resource into our budget until the deal is signed. I can say to you, under the Finance Minister’s watch, we are not going to add revenue on spec. It will be when the deal would be signed and done.

I think that’s fine. The minister was very clear about his feelings about adding revenue on spec, so I guess that’s why the minister did say that they added Bay du Nord revenue to the fiscal forecast. I haven’t been able to review the document that was tabled today about the Bay du Nord deal, but hopefully we’ll get a sense from that deal how much money was added to the fiscal forecast as a result of that agreement, because the minister did say that they put money in the fiscal forecast for Bay du Nord, and he’s also saying we are not going to add any revenue on spec.

So I look forward to reading that deal and learning more, maybe in Estimates, about how they’ve incorporated money from the Bay du Nord project into the fiscal forecast.

I do think it’s very interesting that the minister says we believe that will be as good as the deal presented or better. I’m very glad to know that the government now, and the Minister of Finance, thinks that the MOU, the agreement that was made, was a sufficient, good deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because that wasn’t the message that we heard last year when we voted on the MOU.

That is incredibly important to this discussion because if we had proceeded with the MOU and the definitive agreements, the Minister of Finance would have, I believe, $1.4 billion extra in the budget. The government would have been able to do a lot more to the affordability measures that they promised and the tax relief that they promised Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, like the Rotational Worker Tax Credit that they promised during the election and has not yet been delivered.

The minister said: We sincerely believe that it will be as good as the deal presented or better. So when the minister said that the government had received this report and it won't be made public until May 19, but I have to say that I, personally, take this comment as a sign that the report will be favourable to the deal, which is excellent because it is an excellent deal.

As a mother, as someone who represents so many constituents – and I know we all do – with families and children, I do worry about our job in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether you’re Opposition or government, and how we impact the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Like, 20, 30, 40 years in the future, how can we – so many things are out of our control, but so many things like the Future Fund are within our control, Speaker. How do we impact the lives of our grandchildren in Newfoundland and Labrador?

I’ve reflected so much on, let’s say, my role in Cabinet. How can I make sure that in 20, 30, 40 years, Newfoundland and Labrador is a better place for people here because of our government and our role in this Legislature? So I think it’s excellent. If the government and if the report comes back and says that they support the MOU, that’s great, because we need that money. There’s always an amount to say that, oh, we could do better. If the government can get a better deal, that’s great, but we also need a lot of money. There’s no point in never signing a deal and then never having the money.

As the Minister of Finance knows, the debt is going up, the deficit, you know, it’s difficult to stay under control.

So I really hope that the report comes back and it agrees with the MOU. We all spent four days here talking with experts day and night, until 9 every night for four days, answering all of our questions. I know our party, we stood by that deal. We think it was an excellent deal. I spoke with many constituents over the last year and a half now that we’ve been talking about this, about the deal, and I would say most support it. Some do not, but I would say most do support the deal.

I haven’t heard the Members opposite comment on what they would change. So I look forward to reviewing the review that government has commissioned, but we won’t have any time to read it – we won’t have anymore than the day; we might have an hour – before the members are available to either the media. We don’t know if they’ll be available to us. We don’t know if they’ll come into this House. We don’t know yet. So there’s a lot of information that we don’t know yet that they have not yet told us.

I’m glad the Minister of Finance says that they will proceed with the deal as good as or better, that’s excellent, but I know in the government’s mandate book, the blue book, it says: “Support the development of Churchill River and Gull Island project. However, given the information currently available, the proposed agreement with Quebec cannot be supported in good conscience.” That’s what it says.

Again, I think that speaks to the fact that the government is not giving the public service a reliable, factual document that they can use to guide their work. Because the government is all over the place in terms of what they promised, which is fine, except their election platform is the government’s mandate. That is the book that all the deputy ministers have on their desk dictating their priorities on a daily basis.

So far, I guess, we have four or five things now that they’ve changed their mind on, that they’re not doing, which is their prerogative, but the public service aren’t going to know what to do on a daily basis because they keep changing their mind, between the government mandate and what they keep doing, and they’re seven months in.

Then the government mandate says that they’re going to have a review. “The results of this process will be fully shared with the public.

“Based on this independent review we will demand better terms for Newfoundland and Labrador.”

So it’s great, I look forward to the better terms and I really hope, now, that you can get a better deal. Because no deal would be a shame and we would lose out on the $17 billion between last year and 2041, that we would have gotten from the deal, let alone Hydro-Qu é bec building it, paying for it and we would own 60 per cent of it at zero financial risk and zero cost to taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. If they can get a better deal, great, but to lose the fundamental principles of that deal would be a travesty to future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am worried about how much anyone can trust what the government is doing. They’re politically manipulating the price, in the government budget, for the price of oil. They’re estimating $6 US below the forecasted price of a barrel of oil. Then they said the day after the budget that they might send out cheques. This is May, June, July, August, September, the fall will be in four or five months. So now, potentially, they’re going to send out cheques.

This is their first budget. Everyone had very high expectations, and I know I’ve said everyone is underwhelmed and you’d think that they would’ve considered some of these things more thoughtfully in the budget. Obviously, we don’t know what’s going to happen with oil prices, but they’re politically manipulating those numbers now, and we don’t know what the implication of that is.

They must have had some reason or rationale for doing that, and then they’re saying they’re going to send out cheques in the fall. I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would appreciate cheques, but it’s difficult to wrap your head around, Speaker. I do think, you know, they have – I’m not going to read this part.

I also want to talk about that the minister has mentioned on numerous occasions that they’ve accomplished 80 per cent of their government mandate document. So we’re still doing some numbers on that and there are some different ways you can take that. For example, when they say they fulfilled their promise to 24-hour snow clearing, would that be one that they’ve done or no? It’s hard to tell. Some people would say yes; some people would say no. So there will be some subjectivity when we do that analysis in the next day or two.

Many taxes they didn’t implement yet. They haven’t implemented the Rotational Worker Tax Credit. They haven’t done the Physical Activity Tax Credit, and the businesses are doing 0.5 per cent per year, and that’s only on the profit that small businesses make. So if you’re a small business that just, kind of, breaks even, then you don’t really benefit from that small business tax credit. It’s only for profit. It’s only the tax that small businesses make on profit.

I also want to talk about – this came up in Question Period today. No, so let’s go to the dry dock. We understand this morning that the government are spending $2 million on a prefeasibility study into a dry dock. We know that there’s up to a $700-million estimate to construct a dry dock. If they can build a dry dock and have a booming industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is fantastic. I really hope that they’re successful in doing that.

But I am worried about the prefeasibility study. They’ve announced this and Equinor have committed to doing this, to giving them $200 million, but they don’t know if it’s feasible and they don’t know if it’s a good idea or not.

I hope they’ll release that prefeasibility study. By the way that the government speaks about how they’re going to release everything, I certainly expect that they will release the results of the prefeasibility study into the Legislature and to the public.

I’ve spoken with industry experts about this and if they can get a contract, a lucrative contract, let’s say for the Coast Guard for so many submarines or so many ships, and they can build the dry dock to that spec, great, but without a contract, without a customer they don’t know what they’re building and who’s going to run it. There are so many things up in the air and they’re just starting now with a prefeasibility study. So Equinor has already committed to $200 million, but what if the prefeasibility study comes back and says, okay, well, Halifax has this wrapped up, it’s not worth your time and effort Newfoundland and Labrador to continue with that.

Firstly, I’d be surprised if they would release that information then, but maybe they still would, and what would happen with the $200 million from Equinor? So let’s say the prefeasibility study comes back and says this is not a good use of taxpayers’ money in Newfoundland and Labrador, or there is not an industry here for Newfoundland and Labrador, then what happens to the $200 million from Equinor? Can they put it to something else?

But also where is the extra money going to come from the dry dock? By the time the prefeasibility study is done and they go and look for a customer and they have to figure out who is going to run it, they’re already now kind of one-third done their mandate. I’m not sure any of this clues up before the next election, Speaker.

So it will be interesting to see how that progresses, how long the prefeasibility study is going to take, where the other $500 million plus is going to come from to build the dry dock with no customers. We don’t know how big they’re building it.

We don’t know who’s going to run it and, obviously, if there are no customers then there’s no work because the work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians only comes with the customers and the contracts and you build the right dry dock for the right spec, because if you build the wrong thing and you don’t get any customers, then there’s no work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Then you have $200 million plus – potentially $500 million – of taxpayers’ money with no work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if there are no customers.

I think that’s really interesting to see and, again, that’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of industry experts that I’ve consulted with about the dry dock.

We did hear, in terms of the budget, circling back, and obviously I do think the Bay du Nord is very relevant to the budget because that impacts the future revenues of the province. But if we look at the bond rating agencies and what they talked about, we do have information from DBRS Morningstar: Newfoundland and Labrador’s budget deficit persists, but elevated oil prices present upside.

So, in the

summary, the high-level

summary from DBRS Morningstar: Budget 2026-27 reiterates the PC Party’s campaign priorities but presents a fiscal plan with ongoing deficits and rising debt. It also says our exposure to global commodity prices presents material fiscal upside.

I wonder what they would say about the Conservative government just choosing an amount for the price of oil to put in the budget, $6 US below the average of the 11 forecasters, whose advice they have paid good money for, taxpayers, they have used your money to rightfully pay for exert opinion on what the average price of a barrel of oil is for the next year, and now they’re not going with that. They’ve decided to go $6 US a barrel below that. So I think that’s very important for taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand.

DBRS Morningstar talks about energy prices remain a material upside risk to the province’s forecast – as they do. The Conservative government could still deliver a Conservative budget and have accurate numbers for the price of a barrel of oil. Those are not different things. It’s just mind-blowing.

DBRS notes that they do have an oil price assumption of $79 USD a barrel compared with the current price of around $115 USD a barrel. Newfoundland and Labrador estimates that a $1 USD barrel change in the Brent oil price will impact provincial revenues by $33 million. So, again, you take $33 million, as per DBRS Morningstar, times it by $6 – I guess that’s US, so the math doesn’t perfectly, you have to do some exchange rates there, Speaker. But a significant about of money that they’ve underestimated the revenues for the province on purpose in the budget of Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m not sure what kind of fiscal planning that is.

The DBRD Morningstar says, again, with talking about the MOU: The PC party promised an independent review of the MOU with a final report expected soon, followed by a provincial referendum before any deal is signed. Again, which they’ve budgeted $8 million for, for a referendum, which I completely disagree with putting this question to a referendum because I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to commit to this when they have duly elected us to do so, and the Members opposite could not vote when the time came last year of whether or not they agreed or not. They did not vote and they walked out.

So it also says with Quebec’s next provincial general election scheduled for October 2026, it remains highly uncertain if Newfoundland will realize the fiscal and economic benefits previously anticipated.

So this is not my opinion, the bond rating agency, DBRS Morningstar as per their public report says: It’s highly uncertain if Newfoundland and Labrador will realize the fiscal and economic benefits previously anticipated.

So we need that MOU – and I know the government has said that they will further develop Churchill Falls. They will develop Gull Island, but when? I mean, we can do it in 3½ years time when we’re back but then we will have lost the $5 billion or $6 billion by then we would have gotten already, plus who knows how less Quebec will need the energy then because other provinces have other options, the better the technology gets the more likely they can go nuclear, other options are available.

DBRS Morningstar says, it remains highly uncertain if Newfoundland will realize the fiscal and economic benefits previously anticipated, which, I think, is worth noting and obviously the bond rating agencies understand.

I also say, yes, we had a good GDP. It says: Newfoundland’s economy continues to lead the country in growth following real GDP growth of 4.8 per cent in 2025, the province assumes real GDP growth will accelerate to 5.5 per cent in 2026, supported by increased oil and mineral production. Newfoundland’s reliance on energy and mineral exports helps insulate it from volatile US trade policy, although volatility in global commodity prices and the timing of major projects present key risks to Newfoundland’s growth outlook.

Absolutely, so depending on the price of oil, depending on how the budget looks, obviously we have this Bay du Nord deal now, which Equinor has not yet sanctioned, which we need them and want them to sanction and a Churchill Falls deal. The government knows what the report says but we don’t know and we’ll know May 19, the same day as we’re allowed to talk to the members of the review panel about that.

I do hope that all works out for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, for my children, for my grandchildren, but there is a lot of play and a lot of risk in all the decisions that this government are making, I have to say.

I have 10 minutes left. I do want to thank everyone who has listened. I was surprised how many people reached out to me after having heard my entire time speaking last week. I was surprised. I don’t know if it was it was budget, or maybe I just underestimated the number of people who watch the House of Assembly channel.

I do want to conclude by reiterating some of the core points that I’ve made and, for the Official Opposition, we want to make.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, has this government delivered to you what they promised in the election? When they knocked on your door and convinced you to vote for them, do you think that they are respecting the vote that they asked you for? Are they acting in a way that you would expect them, and does this budget align with your expectations when you voted for them?

They implemented 24-hour snow clearing, and it was a challenging winter. I think no road can be 100 per cent clear at all times, but the government implemented 24-hour snow clearing and then they said it has been delivered. They successfully delivered on 24-hour snow clearing.

So I ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are you happy with the government’s implementation of 24-hour snow clearing? Reflect on that, for anyone watching, are you happy with their commitment and that they – they said promise made, promise kept. Are you happy with what they’ve delivered for you for 24-hour snow clearing? I was, I think, at an airport and everyone around me was talking about the joke that was 24-hour snow clearing. I did not comment or participate in that discussion at all, but I did listen as people were very frustrated about that.

I was walking into a local restaurant, going out and supporting a local restaurant, and the people coming before and after me – there was a group of them – and they were talking about how there are no topsides, the deal for Bay du Nord, that they were promised topsides and the deal does not have topsides, which has a direct implication for the budget of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do note that they have continued affordability measures introduced by our government, which I was very proud of, such as the home heating supplement, the gas tax cut, the elimination of the sugar tax and the reduction in Motor Registration costs. They did increase the personal exemption, which will save the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the working Newfoundlander and Labradorian, up to $28 a month, and they reduced the small business tax by 0.5 per cent, which will save a business that makes $100,000 in profit, $500 a year. Yes, they did that.

I do want to note again that we introduced a similar cut in 2024, 0.5 per cent, and I am proud and I do fully support that we would have implemented an additional tax cut on home heating fuel. I do hope we see more affordability measures from the government. Maybe they’ll send out cheques; maybe they’ll do other things. I understand that that’s linked to the price of oil, but I still can’t get over the fact that they’re underestimating the revenues for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because they felt like it, because they thought that that was a fiscally prudent economic policy.

I do want to reiterate, for anyone watching, you can have a fiscally conservative budget and use accurate numbers that make up the budget. You do not have to come up with a number that is less than what the experts say because you want to be conservative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, they’re heckling me because –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: – they’re defensive about what I’m saying. I’m using the minister’s own words. I’m not making up anything. The minister said this to the board of trade. It wasn’t in the Q and A. These were his remarks to the board of trade. I’m not making up anything. I’m not saying anything inflammatory. This is what the government has done with the budget.

From the minister’s own words, they’ve decided that the 11 Brent crude forecasters, their decision was not the right decision to make, that they wanted to go $6 US a barrel below that, and that is the revenue coming into the government’s budget. I mean, I would be defensive, too, if I were a part of a government that made a decision like that, Speaker.

So I ask, are you a rotational worker? Did you get the tax break that you were expecting? A lot of the taxes are staying the same. The sugar tax went from zero to zero. The gas tax went from 7.5 to 7.5 per cent. Again, I was ridiculed in here for bringing in an amendment to lower gas price tax, yet they’re not meeting the public’s expectation of what they committed to when they knocked on your door and asked for your vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: Okay, f ine. They knocked on your door and said lower taxes and you’re getting $28 a month, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may not be a lot for you, but it’s a lot for some people.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: It is a lot for me and it is a lot for everyone, but I would say the expectation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was more than $28 a month tax savings, Speaker.

The government said they’re going to do a review of all the fees and charges, but that’s not done yet. So I do look forward to hearing more about all the fees and charges that they’re going to reduce that will have a significant impact to the budget, I’m sure. Unless there aren’t any fees and charges that they’re going to reduce and we’ll see what that looks like.

The words that they used to describe the taxes and fees were very sensational. They’re trying to portray a picture that we have sensational fees and taxes. So let’s see, show us what these sensational taxes and fees are that you’re going to remove – great, fine. I look forward to learning about that. They haven’t brought any forward yet, so we’ll see what comes of that.

I also want to talk about the $45 million now, in my last few minutes, that was in a savings account that that’s already been on the ratepayers’ electricity bill. There was extra money put aside from ratepayers, from paying their bills, in an account and the government are using that to lower pressure onto people’s bills. Right, that is the right thing to do.

What is the wrong thing to do is to present it as a budget – something that you’ve delivered, a gift that you’ve given people. The government has not given people a gift to lower your power bills. They are using money that ratepayers have already paid. I used the example last week and I’ll use it again; it’s like a coffee pool.

So I work in an office and we all pay so much a month for our coffee and water. That was in my first job. In my first job, we did that. We paid in every month because our employer did not provide water or coffee. We had a little social agreement and then, at the end of the year, if there was money left, we would not pay for a month or something and that would buy our coffee for a month.

But our employer didn’t come in and say, oh, we’re giving you a free month of coffee, because they didn’t. The employer is not giving us a free month of coffee. We already paid for our coffee. In this exact instance, ratepayers have already paid this. This is not the government. They’ve already paid this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: I think the government should not be leading people to think that this is a gift. It’s not even their dollars. This is money outside the general revenues of government that ratepayers have already paid and it’s being given back to them, yes. But unrelated – this almost has very little to do with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker, I really hope that the government can deliver more in Churchill Falls for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I do hope that when they get all these MRI machines, the MRI machines have to be ordered, they have to arrive and they’re going to need tens of staff to operate these MRI machines. Okay, I did this math last week. So let’s say they’re going to have two new MRI machines, they need maybe 12 to 13 MRI technologists to operate two MRI machines, and that diploma program is three years to do that.

It’s great that they’re going to bring in more MRI machines, but who is going to operate the machines? It’s a three-year program to operate MRI machines. I think the government won’t be able to see the results of their promises for MRI machines in particular. Like, this is a four- or five-year implementation.

I wonder if people in those communities understand that they’re not going to be able to walk in and get an MRI in Grand Falls-Windsor in 2026 or 2027, because it takes a year for the machine to arrive and to get installed and the staff have to be trained. Maybe they’ll take the staff from St. John’s and move them to Grand Falls-Windsor, and that’s their prerogative.

But there’s not MRI technicians just waiting around. I’m sure in every province and in every country, they’re being utilized. If they can hire from another country, that’s great. But I do think that is a key consideration that they’re not doing a good job of managing people’s expectations and that’s bad for them and good for us.

Speaker, I also want to note that we have not yet seen a pharmacare program. How many times did the government commit to signing a national pharmacare program? They didn’t do that yet. I haven’t seen that yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: Yeah, we didn’t do it, but you gave us a really hard time.

SPEAKER: I ask the Member to address the Chair, and I ask for order.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

To conclude, I would say, just reflect on, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, did you get what you paid for with this government’s first budget? I think the answer is no.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Jobs, Growth and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, it’s always a pleasure to get up and speak in this House, especially on a topic that’s important to all of us, our budget and our fiscal path forward.

I’d like just to highlight the words that were spoken from the MHA for Mount Scio over the last while. It reminded me of being at sea, onboard of a ship, because she kept cycling through the same stuff. It was like going around in a circle.

Our government is taking a different path, clearly. We are focused on driving that ship forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: We are doing it with a sense of urgency, as was highlighted with the signing of the Bay du Nord agreement.

The MHA for Mount Scio highlighted that, when she and her colleagues went door to door, they fully hoisted in what people wanted, and that our government is not delivering. If that’s really the case, then why are we on this side?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Not only did we hoist in what people want, better health care, lower taxes, safer communities, we are delivering. We are delivering for every bay and cove in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: The MHA for Mount Scio highlighted, with regard to the mandate letters, that there was only one mandate letter and that we didn’t get individual mandate letters. You know, I reflected on that, and I go: That’s correct.

The issue is that this is a team. This is a government. This is a Cabinet. This is a caucus. It’s all driving the ship in the same direction. We are a team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: That mandate letter was put out rather quickly, it was quite encompassing, and it provided clear leadership on where we are going and where our Premier expects us to go.

So let me highlight a few words from that mandate letter: It is a privilege to serve in government, and we all share a duty to use our time in office to make our province stronger and more prosperous. That is what we are focused on doing. Ground our decisions in the commitments and principles detailed in our 2025 election platform for all of us.

Now the first budget from our Finance Minister, 80 per cent of the commitments in that blue book have been fulfilled in the first six months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: What did our Premier say? Yes, there are additional commitments to be fulfilled from that blue book, but we will deliver on each and every one of them –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: – because that is being open and accountable with every resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. As is in the mandate letter, we will remain laser focused on what matters most, better health care, lower taxes and safer communities, and execute a vigorous economic development agenda.

Now I want to highlight, in response to some of the things that were highlighted, by some of the words that are in our mandate letter. Our mandate letter will give clear direction that we were elected to be honest, open and accountable.

I’ll go back to about a year ago when we were debating the last budget from the previous government, and the issue of the tobacco settlement was raised. I asked the Opposition was that being open, honest and accountable? That tobacco settlement, as we lobbied for at that time a year ago, stayed in their budget accounting figures. Then, when they changed leadership late spring, they doubled down and kept it. Even into the financial forecast in August, they kept it; going into the election, they kept it.

It was only when we changed government and brought in a new Finance Minister were the proper generally accepted accounting principles put into place and that accounting transaction was reversed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: In fact, our actions reflected on how the Auditor General – yes – how the Auditor General viewed the tobacco settlement. Was there any apology from the previous government, absolutely not. Nothing.

If that had stayed and they’d been using the bond rating agency words lately, it would have put our province at significant risk because, to quote from what the MHA for Mount Scio was saying earlier about being manipulative, how they were using the tobacco settlement previously was being manipulative; pressuring others sometimes in sneaky ways to get what you want. It was, in fact, under reporting the deficit from last year.

Clearly, when we were elected, our province deserved and got better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: To continue on in the direction that we received in our mandate letter, this is from the Premier, “I expect that each of you maintain the highest level of ethics and integrity … I expect each of us to exercise fiscal responsibility along with a steadfast focus on results.”

The MHA for Mount Scio keeps talking about the replacement for the hospital, St. Clare’s. This government exercised fiscal responsibility –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: – and cancelled a program that was not even put into the fiscal forecast. Can you imagine spending more than our annual budget itself, as the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has highlighted? We have been prudent. We are doing what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The MHA for Mount Scio also highlighted with regard to pharmacare, and if the previous government had moved, maybe we would have had a deal right now. But I do know, and as the Minister of Health currently has continued to highlight in this House, she is pushing to get a deal.

The MHA for Mount Scio also highlighted about 24-hour snow clearing. There were no cuts on our side. It was a restoration of service of over $3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

L. PADDOCK: There’s nothing shameful about that. That’s about the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on our highways. It’s not the same if you’re investing $3 million more.

The other one I want to highlight, and what the MHA for Mount Scio has highlighted, is Horizons at 106, a sole-sourced contract. How is that being open and accountable with taxpayers’ money? You know, the lease that they signed, they could have bought that hotel. Now we’re coming on towards the end of it, there needs to be a transition plan. The Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being will put one in place and he will ensure with his team that every individual is looked after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: I do expect the previous administration to at least apologize to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Once again, they let them down with the use of their taxpayer money.

The MHA for Mount Scio repeatedly highlighted about the oil forecast here this afternoon: $79. That’s correct. But it and this government, this Finance Minister, is being conservative. Why? Just turn on your TV and look what is happening