PDF Version

April 30, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 22

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon’s proceedings, I’m going to rule on a couple of points of order that have been raised in the House.

First of all, I would like to rule on the point of order raised by the Government House Leader on April 21 and April 22, 2026.

I’ve now had an opportunity to review Hansard . The Government House Leader raised Standing Order 48, which allows the Speaker to address the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition. On both occasions, the Government House Leader cited statements by made the Members for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi and Gander, respectively.

I note that on April 21, the Government House Leader also stood on a similar point of order in relation to statements made by the Member for Mount Scio. I found no point of order at that time.

The requirement for relevance exists to ensure the expeditious conduct of debate. Allowing Members to speak on matters not connected to the subject matter under debate would impair the ability of this hon. House to manage its time efficiently.

With that said, what is or is not relevant is not always easy to define, and this rule can be difficult to enforce as the Speaker must also respect the freedom of speech afforded all Members. As pointed out in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Fourth Edition, at paragraph 13.29:

“It is not always possible to judge the relevance (or the repetitiveness) of a member’s remarks until they have spoken at some length or even completed their remarks. The Speaker must exercise discretion: if the rules are applied too strictly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate; if they are neglected, the resultant loss of debating time may prevent other members from participating in debate. Particular circumstances, the mood of the House and the relative importance of the matter under debate will influence the rigidity with which the Speaker interprets these rules.”

During second reading, debate should be limited to the general principle of the bill. Bill 9 would amend the Future Fund Act to make such changes as modifying the circumstances under which deposits are made into the fund, and limiting purposes for which money may be withdrawn from the fund. In my view, the scope and general objectives of the bill would invite considerable latitude in terms of topics that could be considered relevant.

Members should note that the standard for relevance will be different in the Committee stage. The referral of a bill to the Committee of the Whole involves a close examination of its contents, clause by clause. During the Committee stage, Members’ speeches must be strictly relevant to the individual clauses being considered, with the exception of clause 1, which, by convention, may relate to any clause of the bill under consideration.

The references made by the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi and the Member for Gander during second reading of Bill 9, which prompted the points of order, did not form the principal theme of their speech. If given the opportunity to continue, both Members may well have made their connection to the scope and objectives of the bill.

When viewed in context of the Members’ entire speech, as recorded in Hansard , I do not find that they violate the rule of relevance. As such, there is no point of order. I would, however, remind all Members to be mindful of Standing Order 48 and the need to remain relevant in debate.

While there has been some reference to whether or not Bill 9 is a money bill, I note that in a report to the House of Assembly dated March 2022, the Standing Orders Committee recommended that the Speaker enforce the current Standing Order 48, relevancy, during all debate, including those of money bills. This hon. House voted to concur with that report, and I will continue to follow that direction in applying the Standing Order.

As Speaker, it is within in my jurisdiction to maintain the balance between the need for relevant debate and freedom of speech, to which Members are entitled. I will afford an appropriate measure of latitude with respect to the scope and objectives of bills before this hon. House.

On the second point of order, I would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on April 22 with respect to a Member reflecting on a vote of the House. The context for the point of order was the matter of the Member for Mount Pearl North listing by name Members of this House and indicating how they voted on a bill. In particular, the Government House Leader argued: “Speaker, we’re not allowed to go backwards in time and talk about how people voted in this House. It is clearly in

article 49.”

I ruled on the use of names in this House at the time the point of order was raised and will not revisit that issue. However, with respect to the matter of Standing Order 49, I would bring to the attention of Members to the final ruling of the 50th General Assembly delivered on May 22, 2025. Then Speaker Bennett stated the following: “In considering the point of order, I’ve considered the context of the statement of the Member and whether a reference to a vote of the Member equates to reflecting on the vote of the House, contrary to Standing Order 49.

“The fifth edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia provides guidance as to what constitutes reflection upon a vote.

Chapter 7.36 states the following: ‘The rule serves to prevent repetition of past debates, and reflection on a passed vote may be tantamount to a reflection on the majority, and thus on the Legislative Assembly itself. This also speaks to the well-established practice that a question, once put and decided in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned or debated again in the same Session.’

“Thus, a general reference to a vote by a particular Member does not mean that a Member is reflecting upon the vote of the House in accordance with Standing Order 49. The reflection on a vote of the House would involve questioning the outcome of a vote or repeating the substance of the debate to which the vote led to.

“I note that during this General Assembly it has been common for Members on both sides of the House to use language referring to a vote in a manner similar to the usage during Question Period on May 20, 2025. In these circumstances, Members refer to the results of a vote, whether the bill or motion was carried or defeated and what happened when the vote of the House was conducted. Where Division was called by the House for a vote, the vote of each individual Member forms part of the public record and is accessible through Hansard .”

The Speaker considered whether there was repetition of the debate and/or a question or challenge to the vote itself. He indicated that a mere reference to a vote by a Member does not constitute a reflection of the vote of the House.

Further, paragraph 12.90 of House of House of Commons Practice and Procedure states: “It is not in order for members to ‘reflect’ upon (i.e., to reconsider or comment upon) votes of the House. However, the Speaker has clarified that this rule does not preclude comments concerning an opinion expressed by a member, or even by a party, during a vote.”

I would note that an overly narrow

interpretation of Standing Order 49 may impede the business of the House or impede Members in the operation of their parliamentary duties. During debate in this House, matters which are the subject of an earlier debate and vote arise often, as many continue to be matters of interest to the House and to the province.

Therefore, I rule, while the references to names of Members were clearly out of order and I ruled accordingly at the time, the Member did not reflect on the vote of the House but, rather, listed of the outcome of a recorded division, which is a matter of public record and reflected in Hansard . I, therefore, rule that there is no point of order.

Thank you.

Today, visiting the public gallery, we have Terri Andrews, the owner of TaDa! Events, w hich is the subject of a Member’s statement. She is accompanied by members of the company: Sheilagh Guy Murphy, Wayne Pardy, Amy Edwards, Dan Lasby, Hannah Brinson, John Andrews and Pamela Pittman.

Welcome to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also visiting today in the public gallery are relatives and friends of the late Ron Hynes, who is also the subject of a Member’s statement.

Welcomes to Ron’s nephew, Joel Thomas Hynes and his wife Louisa; niece Lois Hynes and son Gabriel; Colleen Power and Newfoundland entertainment icons, Mary Walsh and Sandy Morris.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: We also have in our public gallery, members of the Trail of the Caribou U18 hockey team, which is, likewise, the subject of a Member’s statement. I would like to welcome Michael Holden, manager; Cameron Heath, team captain; and all team members to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also visiting our hon. House today are members of the MUN student biomedical design team, which is the subject of a Ministerial Statement today.

Welcome, everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we’ll hear Members’ statements by the hon. Members for the District of St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi, St. John’s West, Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, Waterford Valley, Windsor Lake and, as well, with leave, the Member for the District of Conception Bay South and the Member for the District of St. Barbe - L’Anse aux Meadows.

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise to acknowledge an absolute Newfoundland legend and friend, known fondly far and wide as the Man of a Thousand Songs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. O’LEARY: Ron Hynes has spent a lifetime capturing and authenticating the character and spirit of this province through his music. From his time as founding member of The Wonderful Grand Band to his professional accolades, including an honorary doctorate from Memorial University, JUNO Awards, East Coast Music Awards, a SOCAN Lifetime Achievement Award and a posthumous induction into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. O’LEARY: – Ron Hynes left behind a songwriting legacy that resonates across generations from this province, across Canada and internationally.

A prolific craftsman, his masterful compositions and profound lyrical narratives continue to influence scores of both emerging and seasoned songwriters alike.

Songs like “Atlantic Blue,” “Godspeed,” “Leaving on the Evening Tide,” the “St. John’s Waltz,” “Back Home on the Island,” “No Change in Me” and the enduring folk classic “Sonny’s Dream,” to name but a few –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. O’LEARY: They remain as enduring as our rugged shorelines.

Ron Hynes’s songs provide the soundtrack to the very fabric of our culture and heritage, offering Newfoundland and Labrador a permanent placement on the world stage. His contributions are immeasurable and truly something to celebrate.

I ask my hon. Members to congratulate the friends and family and to acknowledge Ron Hynes and the incredible contributions he has provided to us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, I rise today to recognize TaDa! Events, founded by Terri Andrews, more than two decades ago.

TaDa! Events has become known for connecting people through music, through laughter and through celebration. It has welcomed renowned artists, supported local talent and given Newfoundlanders and Labradorians opportunities to enjoy world-class entertainment. From intimate performances to major productions, TaDa! Events has consistently understood the power of live events to inspire, to unite and to energize communities.

Beyond entertainment, TaDa! Events has had a lasting contribution on the province’s arts and culture sector. By investing in performances and creating stages for artists, TaDa! Events has helped strengthen the cultural economy while enriching the social life of the province. Live music and events support tourism, hospitality and local business.

Furthermore, through its many shows including the well-known Our Divas, TaDa! Events continues to raise funds and awareness for many charities and causes, while consistently and quietly providing funds, scholarships and support for individuals in need.

I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Terri Andrews for her dedication, leadership and commitment to arts and culture in Newfoundland and Labrador. Her efforts have helped create lasting memories and a stronger cultural landscape for the entire province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: That was lovely.

The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to celebrate an extraordinary achievement of CoLab AI, a home-grown success story that is showcasing Newfoundland and Labrador on the global stage.

Just last week, CoLab was named Nasdaq Verafin Tech Company of the Year at the 2026 TechNL industry awards. This honour recognizes their role in tech innovation and their remarkable growth in the engineering software space.

CoLab also recently announced a multi-million-dollar deal and partnership with Bombardier. Under this agreement, CoLab’s Engineering OS will use advanced AI to help Bombardier design and manufacture the next generation of world-class business jets. By automatically capturing lessons learned and surfacing expert knowledge in real time, our local tech leaders are helping a global aerospace giant build safer, more efficient aircraft.

From their roots as Memorial University engineering students, to becoming the first Atlantic Canadian company in Y Combinator, CoLab’s journey is a testament to the talent in this province. They are proving that you don’t need to be in Silicon Valley to lead the AI revolution; you can do it right here in St. John’s and, in particular, Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating co-founders Adam Keating and Jeremy Andrews and the entire CoLab team for these monumental achievements.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Speaker, with approval from yourself and the House, I wanted to show the jersey before I read the Member’s statement.

Speaker, for the second year in a row, a group of young hockey players from Newfoundland and Labrador will travel to France and Belgium to honour the memory of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. KORAB: As a member of the Trail of the Caribou U18 hockey team, they are named after the trail, the six monuments erected to commemorate the sacrifices made by the province’s young men during World War I.

During this trip, these athletes will walk the Trail of the Caribou to Beaumont-Hamel and participate in exhibition games and tournament play.

The team represents communities and districts from across Newfoundland and Labrador, including Clarenville, Paradise, Mount Pearl North, Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, Embree, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Windsor Lake, Norris Point, Port Saunders and Waterford Valley, a true reflection of the province-wide talent and deep appreciation for our history.

I rise to recognize Waterford Valley constituent, team manager Michael Holden and historian Frank Gogos, and the player: goalie Cole Holloway, forward Cameron Heath, Luke Holden, Ashton Toope, Ryland Maloney, Liam Collins, Nathan Windsor, Lucca Mongiat Kelly, Landon White, Mark Janes; defensemen Carter House, Nicholas Prowse and Nicholas Blackmore.

Please join me in recognizing these outstanding athletes who carry our future forward by holding our past and honouring it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Okay.

There are two questions. First of all, does the Member for Conception Bay South have leave to give a Member’s statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Oh, I’m sorry. I got ahead of myself.

The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

I was so caught up in the last Member’s statement. I apologize.

J. HOGAN: Don’t worry, I won't forget, Speaker.

Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Devonne Ryan, recipient of the 2025 SportNL Female Coach of the Year award.

As a dedicated coach with Cygnus Gymnastics, Devonne has had a tremendous impact on the lives of countless young athletes through her leadership, mentorship and unwavering commitment to excellence.

Her influence extends far beyond athletic achievement. She helps build confidence, discipline, resilience and character in the young people she coaches, many of whom are proud constituents in Windsor Lake.

Through her patience, professionalism and passion for sport, Devonne has created an environment where athletes are encouraged to challenge themselves, support one another and strive for their very best both in competition and in life.

My own two children, like so many others, have benefited from the incredible coaches at Cygnus who, like Devonne, make a meaningful difference in the lives of young athletes every day through guidance, encouragement and care.

Devonne’s dedication to youth development makes her exceptionally deserving of this recognition.

I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Devonne Ryan on being named the 2025 SportNL Female Coach of the Year and in thanking her for her outstanding contribution to sport in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Again, I apologize to the hon. Member for Windsor Lake. I got ahead of myself there.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South would like to do a Member’s statement. Do we have leave of the House for him to do so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

SPEAKER: Secondly, the Member is going to exceed the 200 words Standing Orders , if Members are okay with that, as well.

Leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: L eave.

SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you for that and I thank all Members for that.

Speaker, I rise today to remember and honour the life of Jim O’Toole – a man defined by his unwavering devotion to his family, his community, which happened to be CBS, and the people he served and someone I admired deeply.

Raised in Pasadena, Jim carried with him a deep sense of loyalty and service from an early age. That calling led him from volunteer firefighting to paramedicine and, in 2001, to the St. John’s Regional Fire Department, where he truly found his purpose.

For Jim, firefighting was never just a career. It was a responsibility, a calling and a brotherhood he believed in with all his heart.

As a Lieutenant and as President of IAFF Local 1075, he was a tireless advocate for his fellow firefighters, especially those facing the devastating realities of occupational cancer. His leadership and persistence helped secure presumptive cancer coverage, protections that will endure and safeguard firefighters for generations to come.

At the centre of Jim’s world was his wife, Crystal, and their sons, Ryan and Gavin. They were his pride, his purpose and his greatest joy. For them, he gave freely of his time at every rink, every field and every sideline, building friendships wherever he went and becoming part of the heartbeat of every team his boys were part of.

Jim answered the bell time and again and, while that bell will now ring without him, his courage, compassion and dedication will live on in every life he protected, every cause he championed and every moment he chose the service above self. Even in his most difficult moments, he put others first – a true measure of his character.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in remembering Jim O’Toole and a legacy marked by service, kindness and unwavering dedication.

Speaker, I think it would be right if I ask all hon. Members to rise with me in a moment of silence in memory of Jim O’Toole.

(Moment of silence.)

SPEAKER: Thank you and you may all be seated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: Speaker, forest fire season will be in effect on the Island of Newfoundland tomorrow, May 1, and in Labrador on May 15.

During forest fire season, a permit is required to burn vegetation, wood or paper. Burn permits are free and easily accessible and they help ensure outdoor burning occurs safely.

Speaker, we tend to focus on the people, programs and resources we have in place to fight wildfires. We have more wildland firefighters and aerial supports this year, and more resources in place for volunteer fire departments and communities.

But the most important thing to think about during forest fire season is how to prevent wildfires from starting at all.

With spring clean up underway after a long winter, we remind people that burning grass is a dangerous practice.

While burn permits are not required to light campfires on soil, gravel or sand, be sure to check the daily forest fire hazard risk in your area before you burn.

Residents can take simple actions to prevent wildfires, like stacking wood piles away from houses, watering and trimming grass, removing weeds around the yard or ensuring ATVs and power saws are properly equipped with spark arrestors.

Speaker, our government has shown its commitment to supporting wildfire prevention and readiness. Budget 2026 will invest over $7 million in new funding for emergency preparedness and $2.2 million for wildfire prevention and mitigation.

We continue to provide the resources necessary to fight wildfires and I urge everyone in the province to do their part to keep all of us safe.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to join in acknowledging the importance of wildfire prevention. This is an important issue and we all share the goal of keeping our province safe. Encouraging residents to take precautions and raising awareness is absolutely vital. Prevention has to be at the centre of any wildfire strategy.

However, awareness alone is not enough. While the minister points out new funding, residents need clarity on how it will strengthen front-line capacity, especially, in rural communities where resources are already stretched. That means ensuring reliable support for volunteer fire departments, stronger, earlier detection and real preparedness.

This requires more than seasonal reminders. It requires long-term planning and measurable outcomes. We will continue to support efforts that improve prevention and preparedness, but we will also be looking closely to ensure this government’s commitments translate into real protection for people on the ground in every district.

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.

While it’s important that we all do our part to prevent wildfires as individuals, we are now witnessing the real effect of climate change and individual efforts, though helpful, won’t be enough to save us. That’s why we were disheartened yesterday to see funding cuts to Environment, Conservation and Climate Change.

With that in mind, we urge this government to back this new Climate Action Plan with the resources needed to make a meaningful and measurable impact.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It gives me great honour to rise today to recognize the outstanding work of Memorial University’s student biomedical engineering design team.

The student biomedical engineering team, known as Memorial Medtech, is the first of its kind at Memorial University. The team travelled to Ontario in March to compete in the True North Biomedical Competition and faced off against universities across Canada.

This competition brings together some of the country’s brightest undergraduate students, challenging them to develop innovative solutions to real-world health care and medical technology problems.

The team’s Smart Knee Sleeve integrates mechanical, electrical and software components to support patients rehabilitating from ACL injuries, helping them return to sports more quickly and safely.

Speaker, I am excited to say that Memorial Medtech won first place overall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: The future is bright. I am proud that students from this province competed against universities from across Canada and emerged as leaders.

To the members of Memorial Medtech, you put a spotlight on the excellence in Newfoundland and Labrador. You have demonstrated talent, ingenuity and determination. I encourage every member of your team to continue showing the world just how great you are and what you can achieve.

Congratulations on your remarkable accomplishment and kudos to you for the months of hard work and dedication that made this possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I’m delighted to join the minister in celebrating this incredible achievement of Memorial Medtech. Taking first place at the True North Biomedical Competition in Ontario is no small feat. By finishing ahead of the top universities across Canada, these students have proven that Newfoundland and Labrador’s talent is truly world-class.

This victory is a brilliant example of innovation, grit and technical excellence, fostered at Memorial University and within the university. These students aren’t just the leaders of tomorrow; they are solving real-world problems and challenges right here, right now.

To the members of Memorial Medtech, you have made your province very proud, and we look forward to seeing your continued success here at home and on the national stage.

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 congratulate the Medtech design team on this great achievement. It’s a reminder of how MUN is such an important driver of innovation, which spurs economic growth right here at home.

However, the grant increase to MUN won’t be enough to make up for the losses due to the tuition freeze. We urge government to invest, and the economic driver of that is MUN. We can’t afford to do without it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health stated she cannot continue in a role if medical travel delays persist, even suggesting that affected residents sue the government over transport delays in Labrador. A minister of the government wants people to sue the government – keep in mind she is saying to sue the government for problems that are within their control to fix.

Does the Premier agree with his minister that people should sue his government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, yesterday, after practically seven years of being in the House of Assembly fighting against problems that actually are leading to the death of people in my district, the challenges that I face, and now, in actual fact, to be taken out of context by media – I just want to read here. I said: I will tell the people out there for Northern Labrador that we are going to address the issues in RT. We are going to address the systemic, chronic issues that is failing the people of Northern Labrador, failing to get them out to their appointments. Just as bad, failing to get them home because the influences –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

We heard the Minister of Health outline yesterday some issues she has with health care in the province, and again just now.

But can the Premier explain why he isn’t able to work with the Minister of Health to fix the issues she has outlined here today, rather than having her resort to throwing her hands up and advising people of our province to go to court and sue the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, yesterday when I spoke, I actually addressed that I am working on solutions, and that we have to be responsible.

As a minister that knows about systemic issues, knows about Indigenous barriers, knows about colonialization and intergenerational harm, I have to do better. I have to hold myself to a higher account, and that’s the messaging I was getting after. I wish the media would cover that.

Speaker, after 10 years – 10 years – of erosion of services – and I’m not talking about Medavie. Medavie is stepping up and helping me, working with me. I said that to media; did they record that? No, they didn’t.

In actual fact, we are doing a better job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: The Opposition is afraid that what we’re going to do is going to change health care. We’re going to change health care –

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: Thank you, Speaker.

The personal income tax exemption is being sold as a major affordability measure; however, it will save Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a maximum of $28 a month. Every dollar counts, but this isn’t going far enough.

Why does the Premier think that’s enough for people struggling to pay their bills, which have risen by hundreds of dollars not $20 a month?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, I’m starting to think now that the hon. Member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, needs to have his morning show VOCM recordings recorded and not do it live, because of the misinformation that’s shared to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: The basic reduction amount will put $91 million a year into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If used, a little disingenuous to say, well, we’ve got $25 a month or $28 a month – $91 million or (Inaudible).

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: I will tell you, Speaker, here are some facts, and I don’t need to talk to VOCM about it because we all know it’s true. This budget is taking the sugar tax from zero to zero, the gas tax from 7.5 cents to 7.5 cents, the motor vehicle registration costs from $80 to $80. For the record, these are all Liberal policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: We’re pleased that they are continuing the Liberal affordability measures, but why didn’t the Conservatives, and the Finance Minister in particular, recognize the cost-of-living increases in the budget with their own initiatives, especially with oil now at $126 a barrel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The Leader of the Official Opposition on VOCM this morning stated clearly: They’ve used $110 million of Liberal initiatives, and he included in that the provincial gas tax reduction which he never had funded in the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

C. PARDY: I know, as Minister of Finance, that there was no funding in the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: In fact –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: In fact, we had to budget and pay for – wait for this, Mr. Speaker – $500 million of unfunded programs by the previous government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: The Minister of Finance seems to be confused. It’s his budget; it’s not our budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: But I can tell you, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are telling us they wish it was our budget after what they saw yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: And another thing, the budget does nothing to lower power rates for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, yet the government and the Finance Minister are taking credit for $45 million to reduce rates. These funds were prepaid by ratepayers and recommended by the PUB for this purpose.

So why is the Finance Minister taking credit for something he didn’t fund and that wasn’t his initiative?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The Leader of the Opposition stood many times and talked about levers, but he only talked about one lever in particular. To reduce and take off the provincial portion of the HST on electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador would cost $64 million of the taxpayer money to give relief. Through the basic reduction amount, we are putting $91 million into the people’s pockets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Now, which lever would the leader like us to use, the $91 million or the $64 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, the Conservatives have backtracked on their commitments to early childhood educators. The Association of Early Childhood Educators of NL said: The budget does not address the most pressing issue facing the sector, the workforce. Child Care Now has said: They’re not listening to the people who are involved in the sector and the message being sent to them is that educators don’t matter.

If children are our most valuable resource, as I’ve heard in this House, why weren’t ECEs recognized in the budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I certainly can’t speak for the Conservatives; they’re a federal party. Either the Member doesn’t know better or he’s doing it on purpose, but I will speak as a Progressive Conservative here in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Early childhood education in this province is paramount, and we can't have it without the dedicated professional educators. We need to work with them to come up with solutions moving forward. There are many, many barriers that we face that have been left to us from the previous government.

We’re going to work with them to solve these issues and make them the best they can be so our children can succeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

A progressive government would look at progressive policies for children in our province, and that wasn’t in the budget. He can say he’s going to work with them, but, as we’ve said over the last six months, they’ve told him what they want and what they need to make sure we have good ECEs in this province. As they said, this government is not listening.

The NLTA has said that there are significant gaps in the budget. They’re disappointed that there is no increase in allocations for school counsellors, instructional resource teachers, school psychologists, speech language pathologists and other specialized supports; no increase in allocations for school administrators, no meaningful and targeted action to address retention and recruitment of certified teachers.

So why didn’t the Minister of Education fight to address these serious issues in the budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Let me speak to the

preamble. There have been many reports put out by Child Care Now, b y the YWCA, and right in their recommendations: Formalize processes to engage sector representatives, including ECEs, operators and associations to help develop policies and compensation.

That’s what we’re doing. We’ve established two committees. They also say – their report – that system-building takes time, and we need to get it right – that report.

This report that came out told us that the previous administration didn’t get it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, if the Minister of Health, a sitting Cabinet minister, does not have faith in her government’s ability to address health care issues in Newfoundland and Labrador, how can people around the province have faith in the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, not only does the Opposition take my words out of context, but so did the media by clipping things.

In actual fact, I was holding myself to account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: I was holding myself to account. Being aware of those issues, basically, I said that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: – we are taking action now to actually –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: – fix the problems that have been (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’ve had enough.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

L. EVANS: Speaker, I actually was talking about that we have things in the works now to solve the problems that eroded health care services and access for health care services in Northern Labrador and Southern Labrador.

We are taking steps, but, in fact, hold myself to account. If I can't do that, Speaker –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I really try my best not to misquote. I have the copy here, and I do know the recording continued after she thought it was finished and they played it again today.

If the Premier and the minister – the Health Minister and the former long-time CEO of Lab-Grenfell – cannot work together to fix an issue for 3000 people –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: – can half a million Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have faith that the Premier is listening to his Health Minister –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: – on health care issues for all of us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me be perfectly clear and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have one of the best Health Ministers (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – and I have full confidence in my Minister of Health to deliver better health care for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; something that this government failed to do for the 10 years they were in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this is Question Period.

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

L. DEMPSTER: I said last night in the media, I said this morning in the media, the Minister of Health knows the issues in Labrador. She knows the issues. The concern here is when she has to go on the radio and –

K. RUSSELL: (Inaudible.)

L. DEMPSTER: The Member for Lake Melville is just relentless today. I have the floor.

C. PARDY: Times up.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: Very disrespectful, I say to the Finance Minister. Very disrespectful.

SPEAKER: I have on numerous occasions now brought up the issue of decorum, of Members chirping back and forth on either side and so on and it doesn’t seem to be getting through. So if we have to start identifying Members by district once again and taking away speaking privileges on either side of this House, I’m going to start doing it.

I know I keep saying it, but I keep giving latitude because I want debate to happen, but this cannot continue. I’m asking for co-operation on both sides of the House.

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Health knows the issues in Labrador. I have confidence there, but when she has to go on the radio and say I’ve asked three times for this to be fixed, where is the Premier in this equation?

Does the Minister of Health really believe the only answer for people to get health care is to sue the department she’s in charge of? Answer that to the people, Premier, get on your feet and answer that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, seven years – six over there, one right here. I’ve spent all seven years looking across at failed Health ministers. This Health Minister is not a failed Health minister. This Premier is fixing the problems that they left behind. They can stand here and make accusations all they want. The mess that she is trying to clean up, which is insurmountable, is left behind by failed Health ministers from those guys.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Certainly portrayed out there, Speaker, that she has no support in her government to fix health care in this province. It’s taken just six months for the Minister of Health to admit defeat, throw up her arms in the air and ask the federal government to take over.

So, Speaker, maybe the Premier or the Government House Leader can answer the question as to why the Health Minister, who is very passionate about issues, have had to give up on her government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I’m quoting myself from yesterday: I want to tell the people out there of Northern Labrador we’re going to address the issues in RT. We’re going to address the systemic, chronic issues that is failing the people of Northern Labrador, failing to get them out to their appointments. Just as bad, failing them to get them home, because that influences whether somebody will actually go to their appointments in the first place.

Speaker, over there, as Cabinet minister, the Member who just asked me the question actually allowed the Liberals to sign a contract that eroded medevac services to Northern Labrador patients. That’s what I’m dealing with, an actual erosion of the medevac contract.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, she’s at the highest table in this government and what she did say was “What’s the point of even [having] the provincial government manage the health-care system for Northern Labrador?” Six months in, I’m sorry that she’s having to go through that with her government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: – and Labradorians are listening, Speaker. The budget cut the Air Access Pilot Program –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member to take her seat, please.

L. DEMPSTER: Oh, I’m sorry.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville need not speak anymore today. You will not be recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

The budget cuts the Air Access Pilot Program for Labrador and the Northern Peninsula. They’ve cut it from almost $6 million a year down to just $2.7 million.

How can the minister – quote – improving transportation to and from Labrador with less than half the money? Their blue book said, we’re going to scrape the Liberal air access program and we’re going to do better, well half is not better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Actually, Speaker, that Air Access Program was thrown together, basically limiting people to two subsidized tickets. That does not address the high cost of travel. In actual fact, there was such low uptake, because it was so poorly organized and it was hard to access. You had to book a month in advance. It was poorly accessed. So actually the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: T he $2.7 million is more reflective, Speaker, but what we’re going to do is we’re going to actually address the high cost of travel so we can bring travel down for everyone, not just for two tickets a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

The Minister of Education talks proudly about how they’re Progressive Conservatives. Well, I’ll ask that hon. Member why they went and brought Pierre Poilievre’s right-wing man down from Ottawa, who is by far a reformist, to come and lead them to an election and pay them out of the House of Assembly funding.

Anyway, the executive director of Violence Prevention Avalon East says she was very disappointed that there was no mention of ankle monitoring throughout the budget, and that there’s no mention of resources allocated to it.

Given the ongoing concerns around public safety and repeat offenders, why is there no funding or mention of ankle monitoring in this year’s budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m going to address the

preamble, and perhaps if they had hired Mr. Outhouse, they may have had a better chance at winning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador decided who they wanted on this side of the House, and guess what? It was us.

We won; they lost. Even their party donors donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to get pay-for-play still couldn’t drag them across the line. So when the previous minister stands on her feet and wants to address that stuff, she should probably look back in time, as they always used to do when they sat over here, and recognize what they’ve done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Shameful, Speaker. They wouldn’t allow the minister to get up, who is actually very competent and very able to get up and answer the question about ankle monitoring.

So what message does it send to communities around Newfoundland and Labrador expecting strong tools to monitor high-risk individuals? Can we hear from the minister? She’s quite able to answer the question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for her confidence in me as Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I can say electronic monitoring for individuals that are out on bail is an important tool that we are assessing.

I can say, Speaker, that we have been meeting with important groups throughout the province with respect to this issue. I have had meetings with violence prevention groups, and I can say that this is something that we are assessing. We are going to be looking at studies and feasibility studies, as well, going forward.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s funny, the minister and, of course, the Member for Harbour Main, when she was on this side of the House, she shouted loud and clear that it took political will to make this happen. She called to make this happen. She is now in a position in make it happen if her premier will support her to make this happen for the women and girls in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. PARSONS: The Minister of Justice has confirmed there are no sheriff’s officers in the budget. Given recent trial delays, and we know that these are intimate partner violence trials caused by lack of sheriff’s officers, why was the minister satisfied with this omission?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, with respect to the sheriff’s officers, I am pleased to say that I have met with NAPE to discuss this important issue. In fact, we are scheduled to meet with them again. We are looking at this because this is a priority.

There is no question that there are recruitment and retention issues with the sheriff’s officers. There are a number of vacancies, however, so that has to be the focus of any plan going forward, it’s on recruitment rather than increasing the number of sheriff’s officer positions at this time. We are looking at that focus first, recruitment, and that is where our priority is at this point.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Again, I am glad that the minister is talking to NAPE. She should have her Premier listen to NAPE and implement their recommendations, because if we could take advice from NAPE –

SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, I say to the hon. Member.

P. PARSONS: – we should see the changes that we do need.

The Minister of Justice has also confirmed that she has no authority to reopen an RCMP detachment in Grand Bank, yet this was promised on the campaign trail –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. PARSONS: – by the Conservatives.

Why did the government promise something that they knew they did not have the authority and power to deliver?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, it has become clear today I think, when we look at the questions in the House, the Opposition seems to have a very insidious way of taking our words out of context.

Mr. Speaker, I can advise that, with respect to the RCMP detachment, I know very clearly what we can and cannot do. We are able to look at the operations of the police. We work with them, but we cannot direct RCMP or RNC to put resources anywhere in particular. We work with them; we consult with them, but it is their role and responsibility to direct that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

During the debate on the Future Fund, the Finance Minister said – quote – his goal is that we would have a cash surplus in our term, yet his budget yesterday forecasted deficit in the next number of years.

Why did he say one thing in the House when he knew he was not able to deliver it in the budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, we feel very optimistic about our future, and I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I think the Member may have missed that we are scheduled to lead the country with a 5.5 per cent GDP this coming year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: Second place in Canada is PEI with 2 per cent.

We know that we’ve got a great demand on our resources. We feel optimistic that we’re going to have a bump in revenue, and we do feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will turn around the situation that the previous government gave us to –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

C. PARDY: – deal with. We will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

There’s a $1.5-million cut to the tourism budget.

I ask the Minister of Tourism, it’s specifically for strategic product development, how does cutting funding help make us the tourism capital of Canada?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts; and Sport, Recreation and Parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: I would like to thank the Member opposite for the question.

It’s a great question. I have the answer right here. I’m going to break this down: Marble Mountain, the capital budget changes from year to year depending on its needs; Vision 2026 was a one-time $500,000; and also the sports centre, the dome, is not being built so we’re saving $600,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

A. BARBOUR: So the budget never really changed, we just don’t have to give that money out, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

Both the minister and Premier have touted their plan to make our province the tourism capital of Canada, yet we see no investment or increase in the budget for the artists who play a key role in that industry.

At a time when affordability is top of mind, artists are struggling to make ends meet, and they need work to survive, not just words of support.

I ask the minister: What do you say to the artists in this province who were hopeful for real investment not the status quo?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts; and Sport, Recreation and Parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: I would like to thank the Member opposite for the question. It’s a great question.

As the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts, and Recreation, Speaker, I would like to acknowledge all of the artists here in the room today from music, arts and heritage and even sports. They’re all here in the room and thank you for the Members opposite for bringing them in.

I’m an artist myself, and I value art. Artists are valued in our province. I love art, and I always will. I love Newfoundland and Labrador, and I’m here for all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, the Arts and Culture Centres across the province, but especially here in St. John's, are in dire need of maintenance. For years governments have let this vital public infrastructure deteriorate leaving workers to manage unsafe, difficult conditions and closures, and patrons questioning when these historic spaces will be properly cared for.

The minister agreed with me in Estimates that there isn’t enough money to address the maintenance, so I ask him: Will his department develop a plan to keep these essential public arts buildings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I’m glad the Opposition said was a good question.

Me and the Member did speak about this in Estimates this morning. It’s called preventative maintenance and there has never been a great job done on it by government, all governments, but this government over here, the Opposition, they were in power for the last 10 years. They think it’s a great question; maybe they should have done some repairs with the Arts and Culture Centre while they were in power. We wouldn’t be talking about this today.

But, to her question, I agree. We have got to do better on preventative maintenance. The Arts and Culture Centres are very important to the people of this province. I told her this morning, and I’ll tell the House, I’m committed to finding ways that we can make improvements to the centres any time we can find the money.

Right now, we’re dealing with HVAC issues, we’re dealing with contractors, we’ll get to the bottom of it and they will be better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It was announced in the media that there is no additional funding for Horizons at 106, and that the lease will expire at the end of December.

Now, while I do not mourn the end of an expensive, politically motivated lease, I support the model and I’m deeply concerned about the residents and the staff who support them. We have a housing crisis.

I ask the minister: Where will the residents go and is this why there is more money in the budget for emergency housing shelters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.

He’s not the only one who cares about the people at 106 Horizons.

I can certainly say that Budget 2026 has funding for 106 Horizons to December 31 of this year, and we have been clear that 106 Horizons was a temporary solution. It was announced last August that the former administration made plans to find another solution for that location.

It’s my understanding from discussions with my team that there have been some successes from that location, but maybe a blended housing model will be more effective.

Let me be clear, Speaker, we have a plan in place. We will leave nobody behind.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Dunn House, with the University Health Network in Toronto, is one model that we could be adopting here, maybe a lot less expensive as well.

Speaker, the current government announced $28.9 million in funding to hire an additional 94 teachers and 20 TLAs. In Budget 2025, the former government announced funding to add 400 educational resources to the K-12 system and still ended up with well over 150 vacancies. There’s growing reliance on retired teachers to make the educational system function. We have a recruitment and retention problem which won’t be solved until the underlying obstacles are addressed.

I ask the minister: What action is he planning to take to address the partial teaching positions, class composition and class sizes, violence in the classroom, online harassment and the lack of housing in remote areas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the question.

Moving forward, we have money in the budget. In fact, it’s the biggest budget next to health care, $1.5 billion. We’ve opened a dialogue with the president of the NLTA; we’ll continue to do that. We have the safety coalition in place. I look at the latest release from the president of the NLTA, it talks about: “Education is a social determinant of health and the foundation of economic success.” I cannot agree with that more. That is what we’re working towards.

In this, as well, NLTA mentions that they’re committed to working with all parties going forward and that’s what we’re going to do to make the education system much better.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has also expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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, with pleasure, I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the raising of loans by this province, Bill 15.

SPEAKER: Any further notices of motion?

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

C. PARDY: Speaker, it’s my pleasure to present the second motion.

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

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 16.

SPEAKER: Okay.

Any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: First, I would make a point to clarify on my Ministerial Statement that was made on Tuesday, April 28, celebrating the success of ParksNL.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the home of 32 provincial parks throughout the province, including 13 camping parks. In my statement, I misspoke and I said three, when in fact I meant 13.

I have a second part to this. The Opposition stated the first online booking system for peak reservations was in 2015 by the Liberal government. A second point of clarification, the online reservation system for provincial parks was first implemented in 2007 by the PC government

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: And in April 2015, the online booking system was implemented by the PC government, again, not the Liberals, as it was previously communicated by the Opposition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

P. PIKE: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is for the paving and upgrading of a road between Lord’s Cove and Lamaline. The reasons and background for this petition are as follows:

WHEREAS the highway from Lord’s Cove to Lamaline is in a deplorable condition; and

WHEREAS emergency vehicles and school buses travel this road; and

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

WHEREAS the road is causing damages to vehicles;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary funding for the paving of this road between Lord’s Cove and Lamaline.

Speaker, once again, I get up and I do another petition on the roads in my district. I’m very concerned about this

section of highway due to safety issues. This

section is Phase 2 of roadwork that we begun, and was designated for completion this season. This road is used to access medical services, shopping and employment by the residents in that region and those communities. The

section of road between Lord’s Cove and Lamaline is also used as a transportation route to get the students to school.

Last week, when I was visiting with this community and they wanted to talk to me about the roads, there was a lady present at the meeting. Her child is afraid to travel on the school bus so she now has to bring her child back and forth. The reason for that is the child can’t sit properly on the bus and is sometimes jolted from her seat.

I know that the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is passionate and unequivocally concerned about the safety, especially of our children. So I would ask him, again, as I did for the other roads in my district that I’ve been talking about, if he can have his engineers or officials check out the condition of these roads that I’ve been talking about in my district with a view to necessary repairs and paving required.

That’s all I ask.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response to the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I sit in the House everyday and I hear petition after petition after petition from the Members opposite, who less than six months ago were on this side, six months now, I guess, they were on this side of the House. They had control of everything and we seen that day-in, day-out, week-in, week-out, year-in, year-out. I hear everyday, they’re getting up and several of them over there are harping about the state of the roads.

I don’t question the state of the roads. I feel bad for the residents of the districts that have the roads in such a state, but I guess my question to the House and the people who maybe watching: What were they at for the last 10 years? The roads in all their districts are in such a horrendous state, yet when they were here, they never did nothing about it.

So I guess my question is back at them: What did you do for the last 10 years? Because I’m going to look after roads, but it’s a long list. I’m wondering what they did with the last 10 years when they controlled all the budgets. They controlled the roadwork and they were very generous to their own districts, so I question that, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This petition is not written by me, the number of signatures on it are not my signature. These are coming from the mayors, the town of Milltown, Head of Bay d’Espoir, put a lot of work into these signatures. So it is a serious issue and hopefully the minister will respond to this petition. It is roadwork for Bay d’Espoir.

WHEREAS the recent announced Roads Plan by government features a decrease in funding of $66 million from last year’s Roads Plan; and

WHEREAS there are many communities in Bay d’Espoir, District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, that are in desperate need of roadwork repair; and

WHEREAS the current Roads Plan does not address these needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: 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 address the road deficiencies through Bay d’Espoir to ensure safety is put first for the travellers of its road.

Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition last week that the Town of St. Albans worked very hard to get 400 signatures from residents and, not only from residents, from businesses and the paramedic is housed out of St. Albans and presented that last week. I thank them for that, but this petition is from Milltown, Head of Bay d’Espoir and that’s for work in and around these towns including Morrisville as well.

So it is serious, a lot of traffic in and around those areas, as I said, school buses and ambulances. The fire department has certainly pleaded with me to present this. There are names here that are with the fire department and people in the general public as well and seniors who travel this road because they go over the road.

I say to the Member for Exploits, if he wants to talk about this, he can, because Route 360, which was in his district, I paved because his buddies had cabins there, but do you know what they told me? You’ll do it because we know our Member will never get it done.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transportation, sincerely on behalf of the people of Milltown, Head of Bay d’ Espoir –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: – t his petition is on behalf of them, that he reconsider and, hopefully, find some money to do some needed work on those roadways this coming season because there are contractors in the area that would probably present an opportunity for this to be done.

So, hopefully, the minister will reconsider. He’s gotten a lot of emails from the district and I know he respects those. I had a chat with him about it. So, hopefully, he will reconsider and, at some point, invest a few extra dollars to address those major, major concerns on a few kilometres of those roadways.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response to the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Here we go again, Speaker. I wasn’t going to get up to that one either but he begged me to stand up and respond. So here I am.

You got a call coming in, I think. Somebody got a call. It’s not me. I think that might be the Member opposite calling me.

The people in this community – I’ll always respect any person in this province who wants a safe road to drive on. I agree with them 100 per cent and we’ll do our best over time to get it done.

The Member, maybe, should offer an apology to the people he represents because of his failings as the minister of this department that I’m minister of now, to stand up six months later and say how all these roads are unpaved and the state of his roads. It’s shameful for a Member to sit in this seat less than six months ago and to get up now telling us today, we got all these problems.

As a matter of fact, for clarity, too, the poor mouth we’re hearing across the way with the lack of roads he’s gotten –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: – $35 million worth of roadwork the man put in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, $35 million.

I told the Member in Estimates today I will look after the people of this province who need their roads paved. We’ll do it when we get to it. We’ve got a four-year plan. We’ll get there, but the Member to get up after six months of leaving office and lecture me about his roads and expect people to look after him.

You’ll be looked after but we’ve got a lot of roads to look after first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I have a petition here to protect injured workers’ livelihoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m trying to hear the Member for St. John's Centre. I’ve already taken away the speaking privileges from one Member. Do we want to go for two?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

SPEAKER: Because that’s where we’re going.

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

J. DINN: As long as it’s not me yet, Speaker.

These are the reasons for the petition:

Workers’ Compensation is designed to help employees make up for lost income as a result of injury on the job.

While in most other provinces workers can receive up to 90 per cent of their former income from Workers’ Compensation, this province only pays out to a maximum of 85 per cent.

WorkplaceNL currently has the financial stability to offer 90 per cent.

Any person could one day find themselves unable to work due to an injury on the job.

Injured workers, despite lost income, still have the same household budget, the same mortgage, the same bills to pay as before they were hurt with no means to make up the gap.

Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to increase the income replacement rate to 90 per cent for injured workers through WorkplaceNL.

Speaker, this is not a major increase, but it would be a helpful increase. We also know that the percentage of the replacement is up to a maximum so those with certain incomes that exceed that maximum are really financially disadvantaged.

In the end, I would say that work or employment is the largest part of a person’s identity. There is a desire to get back to the job and to have that routine, that meaningful part of their lives. But they shouldn’t have to feel that they have to go back before they’re well enough to take on their duties.

This is a matter of respect. We’ve heard it already from a number of unions that there still needs to be more of an emphasis on the people who perform the work. Whether that’s the early childhood educators who need the pensions and other things taken care of to attract them, it’s about basically making sure that people can afford to live, especially when they’re injured and cannot work.

So, Speaker, I submit this petition and hope that government, especially if they’re coming into a surplus, will look at maybe helping out the injured workers who want to be part of the economy.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: 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.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

So for anyone watching, yesterday was budget day and the Minister of Finance delivered his budget. Today, I’m the Finance critic for the Official Opposition, so I will be delivering a budget response, I guess, from the Official Opposition.

So it is a privilege to be here on behalf of the people of Mount Scio. For anyone else watching, normally we do 20 minutes back and forth, and we’ll do that after this, but as the first response to the government’s budget, I believe I get three hours and 30 minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: We’ll see how long this takes. There’s a lot to talk about and I believe we could go until 5:30, so we’ll see today –

AN HON. MEMBER: Should w e get a podium (inaudible)?

S. STOODLEY: I don’t need a podium; I need a workout.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give her water.

S. STOODLEY: Yes.

Thank you anyone who’s watching and for joining us today. It’s a privilege to speak on behalf of the Official Opposition to this year’s budget on behalf of the people of Mount Scio who I’ve had the privilege of representing since 2019.

Deputy Speaker, I guess I firstly want to thank all the public servants. I want to thank all the public servants who did a significant amount of work behind the scenes that led to this budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: In most cases, those were the same public servants that did all the work for our budget as well. I do want to thank them.

I want to thank the health care workers across Newfoundland and Labrador, who have gone through one of the biggest adjustments of their career this week, I would say, in the launch of our Liberal government’s $450 million health care transformation in CorCare.

In speaking with constituents over the weekend, I think things were a little bit slower – maybe a lot slower in some instances – but, obviously, when there’s a change, especially in a significant IT system, especially in a hospital or the urgent care centre or an emergency room – ideally, there’s no disruption. I just want to thank and commend all the health care workers who were working and are working and continuing to evolve and learn with the new health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: I want to thank the IT people who work in NLHS and OCIO who have been working for two years, as well as many staff within the health care system who were pulled out as superusers. They received special training. We had a lot, a lot, a lot of people receive expert training on the Epic system. I know all the IT teams have been working, pretty much straight, for two years, on the transformation.

So far I think – well, for myself, as a consumer of the health care system, I’ve been impressed from the technology perspective. I have the app on my phone. I have the app on my watch. Just today, while we were here, I got a notification on my watch because I have an appointment next week. It seems very seamless from a technology perspective, and in my experience today. I just want to give a shout-out to all the OCIO and NLHS technology teams who’ve been working very hard for two years on this.

They’ve also done a seamless transition with MyGovNL. The day of the launch, I think, my experience was MyGovNL was down for maybe 24 hours with the health but, after that, it was right back up with MyChart. So I just want to thank them.

I also want to thank the staff at the King’s Printer. I was formerly minister of the department responsible for the King’s Printer, and I know that those teams likely stayed up all through the night printing all the budget documents for us, printing all the budget documents for the lock in. A significant effort from the King’s Printer staff in making sure that all the documents are pristine and well executed, as the government intended them to be, from a production, printing perspective. So I do want to thank and give a shout-out to the King’s Printer who every year go above and beyond to produce the budget documents of the government.

Speaker, I do want to start off by saying that we have just come through a significant change in leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to assure everyone who’s watching, reading and who will come across our budget response – I know all of my colleagues, you know, we’re still digesting the budget. It was only yesterday. It’s a very long document. There are lots of documents there. There are the Estimates, and we’ve only just started Estimates.

Yesterday, last night, there was Justice and Public Safety; this morning there was Transportation and Infrastructure, and we will have weeks of Estimates where we all get together and we ask line by line, from the public servants and from the minister, what’s going on from a policy perspective, as well as from the numbers, and we hear from a mix of the ministers and from the public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Our goal is to win back their trust, and we are going to do that with every question in Question Period, in Estimates, every email that we respond to, every phone call that we return and every door that we knock on. We are going to make sure that when the next election comes, there’s no question who you want to lead Newfoundland and Labrador. We are at their heels; don’t you worry, Deputy Speaker.

In this past election, there were a lot of promises. The Liberal Party, my party, we had promises in the election. I know the NDP made their election promises, and the PC Party made their promises. When these promises were made, the government’s fiscal forecast came out in August and the anticipated deficit was released, and then it was a month and a half after that that the election platforms came out and a deficit much higher than at budget time was due to lower oil prices and, during the summer and the wildfires, I know that my government, our government, we spent a lot of money fighting those fires.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with the extra funds we spent bringing in helicopters, bringing in extra equipment. It was really no expense spared to save property and lives in Newfoundland and Labrador during that fire. So that led to a significant amount of the deficit in the summer, but all the parties had that information when they came up with their election promises, Speaker.

We know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted for the PC party, but only 1 per cent extra voted for them than voted for our Liberal party. Now, they won, fair and square, but I do want to highlight that they received 1 per cent more vote, and we are going to be working hard every day to win back the trust of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that next time there’s an election, whenever it may be, there’s no choice about who they should vote for.

I also think it’s really important to note that the blue book is now the official mandate of the government. They could have done mandate letters for all the ministers. When I was a minister, the premier had a mandate letter for my department, and my deputy had my mandate letter on his desk every day all day. That was the guiding principle of my deputy’s job every day, my mandate letter. Whenever there were conflicting priorities, whenever there were numerous things going on, my ministerial mandate letter was my deputy minister’s priority.

So the Conservative government now, they adopted the blue book as the government mandate, so it’s a bit that introduces one layer of, kind of, uncertainty and, I would say, uneasiness for the public service, Speaker. I do question how seriously they expect the public service to take them when they’re already going against their own government mandate.

The Future Fund, Speaker, in the blue book said they were going to get rid of it. Now I have to say, as the Official Opposition and as a taxpayer and a mother and a person, I really hope the Future Fund stays and I hope we invest more in it, as I’ve said in this House over the past week, but they promised to get rid of it and now it’s here. The deputy ministers have the blue book on their desk and that is the guiding principle for this government so, already, there is kind of: Do we do it or do we not do it?

What direction do the deputy ministers have on their desk to guide the province; I’m not sure. There are no mandate letters. I would encourage the government to give their teams relevant, accurate mandate letters because I would argue, at the moment, they do not have that.

So we heard the budget yesterday from the Minister of Finance, I ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: Has this Conservative 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 feel as though they are respecting your vote? Are they acting in a way you would expect them to act? Does this budget respect and align with your expectations when you voted for them?

In the general public, people ask different questions about being an elected official and the way I describe it to people is, when I knock on someone’s door, I have a conversation with them, we have a social contract between myself and the voter. They hold me to account – I’ve impressed the Member for Corner Brook. But I do I have a social contract with the voters, many of whom voted for me and some who don’t.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: I will get to the helmets, thank you. That is in my speech and I look forward to talking about that. Thank you very much. I look forward to talking about helmets. Thank you so much for reminding me.

I do have a

section in my speech here today about helmets, so thank you. I’d be very honoured and pleased to remind everyone how we’re saving the lives of children and families across Newfoundland and Labrador and how we will not apologize for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, when I knock on someone’s door, I have a social contract with them. They hold me to account, they ask me questions, they challenge me, I challenge them. I work hard for them. They’re my boss and so I think about if you have to live and when you go back to knock on their door, they hold you to account.

So I ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: When your PC Member comes and knocks on your door, how do you feel your social contract with them is? What are you going to say to them next time and are you happy with the job that they are doing? Are you happy with this budget that they sold you in October and they’ve now delivered yesterday? Are you happy with that, Speaker?

I still have three hours and 22 minutes left.

Speaker, I heard a radio host this morning say that they’ve been hearing that this is a very underwhelming budget. I would agree with that characterization, Speaker.

This government has failed to deliver a budget that meaningfully addresses the affordability and health care challenges facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The public had very high expectations and the government made many, many promises. The 2026 budget offers little tangible relief for the rising cost of living or immediate improvements to the health care system.

We know this was a very challenging winter. We had a lot of snow. I ask you, anyone watching, were you satisfied with the 24-hour snow clearing that the Conservative government promised? You promised something, fine. Then they said that they delivered. They said promise made, promise kept – 24-hour snow clearing. Then they accused the public of having too-high expectations around snow clearing.

So they say 24-hour snow clearing, then they say they delivered on their promise and then they say everyone’s expectations were too high.

I would encourage you, public, to keep a sticky note by your door. Next time when they go door to door, when your PC Member comes door to door, you can ask them about having too-high expectations for 24-hour snow clearing and how they delivered on their promise.

I ask you, the public, or this House: Are you satisfied with how they’re working towards safer communities? They promised in the blue book, the official government mandate, that they would make your community feel more secure. I ask you: Do you feel like this government is working towards making you feel more secure? These aren’t my words. They’re their words.

Does this budget move the needle at all in making you feel more secure? I absolutely do not think so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: I love the participation here today, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER (Dwyer): Order, please!

I want to hear the speaker.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

The government promised lower taxes and so I ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: When you filed your income taxes – or if you haven’t yet, you should – six months after they were elected, did you benefit from the lower taxes that they promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

S. STOODLEY: No, in your income taxes that you just filed, no one in Newfoundland and Labrador benefited from the tax. We could have changed the tax in the fall. We would have come in in December for two days, three days and voted to change the Revenue Administration Act to reduce any of the taxes. We committed that publicly and we didn’t do that. So the public did not experience a reduction in their taxes in the year that they just filed their taxes.

The Conservatives have continued the affordability measures introduced by the Liberal government such as the Home Heating Supplement, the gas tax, the elimination of the sugar tax, the reduction in motor registration costs. They did increase the personal exemption, which will save the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian up to $28 a month.

We heard in Question Period today, the Minister of Finance say, I think it was disingenuous is the word he used, maybe, to describe that. That is completely factual. If you take that times 12, that is the number that their government said. So it is completely not disingenuous at all. It is completely factual and accurate to take the yearly number and divide it by the number of months and to say that the average Newfoundland and Labradorian will save up to $28 a month, Speaker.

They did reduce the small business tax by 0.5 per cent, yes, and now a small business who gets $100,000 in profit in a year, they will save $500 a year. I’ll just say that again because I just want to make sure that’s clear. So a small business who makes $100,000 in profit, they will save $500 a year from a 0.5 per cent reduction in the business tax in the budget yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What’s wrong with that?

S. STOODLEY: There’s nothing. I’m saying that’s what you did. Our Liberal government also reduced the small business tax by 0.5 per cent in 2024. Yeah, we did. We reduced the small business tax, Minister Coady as Minister of Finance, reduced the small business tax by 0.5 per cent in 2024.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: I can’t help but think that I know Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would have loved to have a similar amount saved on their heat and light bill, on their electricity bill, Speaker, that we were promising in the election.

So I ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians again: Does this meet your expectation of what you expected when the Members knocked on your door, asked for your vote and told you they were going to lower taxes, safer communities and better health care?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

S. STOODLEY: No.

So I ask rotational workers, they were offered a tax break in the government mandate. It promises a rotational worker tax break. No, not in this budget, no. So, sorry, if you’re a rotational worker, this government did not give you the tax break that they promised in their mandate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, I know that the Members are upset and don’t like hearing that, but they’re in the room. They’re in Cabinet; they decide what the government’s budget is.

I’ve heard the Members say it’s about choices. I’ve heard them say it’s about priorities. They promised a rotational worker tax credit and I’m sure many Members, if not all Members over there in the government, would’ve used that door to door when they went into the election. They say, oh, you’re a rotational worker. Well, we’re going to do a rotational worker tax credit.

It’s not in this budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe another budget.

S. STOODLEY: Maybe next year, maybe the year after. It’s not in this budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Possibly.

S. STOODLEY: Possibly, maybe. I think we’ve heard that a lot.

In the budget, we heard rhetoric around the sugar tax and how we were driving up food prices. I ask anyone watching, have you saved money at the grocery store from the PCs recent elimination of the sugar tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

S. STOODLEY: No, because the sugar tax was taken off last spring under Premier Hogan.

The Conservative government said that they were doing a review of all the fees and charges, but that wouldn’t be done before the budget. No, they couldn’t do that before the budget.

Did you think you were getting additional relief? Did Newfoundlanders and Labradorians think that we were getting relief for fees and charges?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I need to hear the presenter.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

I would say the way I’ve heard the government talk about these fees was that there are outrageous and shocking. I haven’t heard one fee that was outrageous or shocking, or that they were going to cut them.

So we look forward to hearing about their review of taxes and fees. That hasn’t yet happened. It certainly wasn’t in their budget. Crickets, Speaker.

I do want to highlight – this is incredibly interesting – they are investing in a reduction of your electricity bills. Are they? There was $45 million in a savings account that is already ratepayers’ money. They already paid that.

The Conservative government put it in their election platform –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: Yes, give it back, that’s the right thing to do, but don’t pretend like it’s a government investment. It’s the money your constituents have already paid to Newfoundland Hydro.

Speaker, I want to give a similar example. Let’s say you’re in a coffee pool. One of the jobs I was in before we had a coffee pool, a water pool, and we all paid in so much a month and someone organized coffee because coffee was not provided by my employer. We all shared in a coffee pool and then, at some point, someone decided we ran out of all the money in the coffee pool and then we would all pay another $20 or $50 for the coffee pool for the year or six months.

I feel like this is like a coffee pool and there was extra money at the end and instead of giving it back, they just bought more coffee, fine, or they give it back, but the employer didn’t provide that. The employer didn’t give them their money back. The employer wouldn’t say oh, we’re giving you money back. It’s like the money they’ve already put in the coffee pool – this is ratepayers’ money they’ve already paid.

You can’t be in a coffee pool, pay into a coffee pool and then there’s extra money left and then the employer says oh, by the way, I just gave $100 to your coffee pool. No, the employer didn’t. It’s their own money in the coffee pool. It’s ratepayers’ own money in this account that is there for this purpose. Yes, you should give it back, but it’s not your money. It’s ratepayers’ money. It’s your constituents’ money. This is just so interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: Or paying high-priced political people out of MCP funds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

So I’d like to turn to some very important health care points today. The Premier of the province was a former health executive in Central Health. I know from the mandate to the government – quote – Tony Wakeham’s vision is to make sure everyone gets the right care, at the right time, without having to pay extra.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

You can’t use the Premier’s name.

S. STOODLEY: Okay, I apologize. I withdraw. I was reading a quote, but okay.

Insert the Premier’s name – vision is to make sure everyone gets the right –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’ll ask the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave to stop chirping, please.

P. PARSONS: And how about every other Member?

You c an’t just call me out. That’s not fair. That’s bullying.

SPEAKER: The Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave has no more speaking privileges for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. KORAB: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Just a point of order, Speaker, and I believe it’s

section 49. The speaker from across who has lost their speaking privileges, so be it. Then when one of our Members gets their speaking privileges revoked, we’re clapping. Like, is that what we’re doing here?

SPEAKER: I don’t see the point of order because we do bang on desks and clap. But, in the meantime, I do appreciate where you’re coming from. I would ask the Member – I didn’t see who clapped, so I can’t say for sure who clapped.

J. KORAB: We’ve just got to do better.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Yeah, thank you very much. Taken under advisement.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I’d like to talk about health care. I’d like to get quote. Insert the Premier’s name in the quote – their vision is to make sure everyone gets the right care, at the right time, without having to pay extra. He will not leave rural Newfoundland and Labrador behind, but instead will make sure every resident of this province has access to health care when they need it. That’s very noble vision and quote.

I don’t think anyone could deliver on that fully in six months, that’s not realistic – or seven months – but I ask the public, do you really feel like this government is working towards meeting that promise or meeting that expectation? Are they working towards that? What have they done to make health care more accessible? Have they told us what a plan is? Have they told us what levers they’re pulling? No.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health was clearly very frustrated and indicated that she may have to resign as minister and she suggested that residents find a good lawyer and sue her. So, I would say, Speaker, that is very good indication of how good the Conservative plan is for rural health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would say the government are continuing many Liberal programs, such as making nurse practitioner services free for medically necessary care. They are continuing the Janeway rehabilitation, the emergency room expansion and the cardiac care improvements. The budget provided $3.3 million to provide 24-hour care for Botwood and to expand at Whitbourne, which is great, but how are they going to find the staffing? They asked that of us: How are you going to find the staffing? But they seem to have all the answers now.

When are these going to open? Have the MRI machines been ordered? I was going deep on that yesterday, Speaker, in my research. One of my constituents had an MRI a month ago and they don’t have the results yet. So they had an MRI but, still, a month later, and there are no results. The radiologist report is not done yet. Who’s going to staff all the MRI machines? We’re going to need tens or hundreds of radiologists to read all the MRI reports from all the MRI machines the government are going to get. Are those in the budget?

What about the technologists? For two MRI machines, I was reading that you need three to four MRI technologists per shift. So that’s like 12 to 13 MRI technologists at least to operate two MRI machines. Then we need a team in Labrador to run the MRI machine in Labrador that they promised.

So where do we get MRI technologists? CNA has an MRI technologist diploma program and that takes three years. We don’t have tens of MRI technologists hanging around and the government would have known this. If there was a Cabinet paper with a budget announcement, this is something that would have been in a Cabinet paper to talk about: Oh, well, you can't just deliver an MRI machine and then have MRIs in four months. It just doesn’t work like that. You need staff.

The CNA MRI diploma is three years. So let’s say they expand the CNA MRI technician program, or even if they make the tuition free or they pay people to go do that program, it’s going to be four to five years before those MRI technologists are working in the health care system. We’ll be back in government then, that’s great. I just don’t see how this can work.

Then, by the time you actually buy an MRI machine – so when you click buy or the purchase order goes out and the MRI machine is enroute, it takes six to 12 months by the time it arrives. You have to set it up and you have to configure it and you have to install it. You have to set up all the technology. That is a year-long process. I wonder, have the MRI machines been ordered? Are they going to be ordered closer to the time when the workers are available, because it’s going to take you four to five years to get all the workers, so are you going to wait three years to order the machines?

That sounds sensible, but I don’t see how this is a realistic thing. You don’t just snap your fingers and get MRI machines and deliver more MRIs to people.

I do also want to highlight the nurse practitioners. I’m glad that they’re progressing with the pilot program that we initiated, and I do want to be very clear that we fully support the RNU. We need to grow the availability of nurse practitioners helping Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at no cost to residents across Newfoundland and Labrador. The government was very bullish on that, and it’s time for them to put their money where their mouth is. This was not in the budget, as the government has promised and talked about many times. It is very underwhelming.

How many times did I hear about them committing to a national pharmacare program that lowers the cost of prescription drugs and diabetes supplies? Maybe I missed that in the budget. How many times during the election did I hear the party opposite talk about pharmacare and how they were going to get it all done, or did I miss that in the budget? Maybe I missed that announcement; I’m confused.

The Conservatives also walked back their major election promise to provide 100 per cent coverage for essential medical travel. They did add more money, but the scope, timing and funding is limited and exactly the same people who were eligible under our Liberal government are the same ones who are eligible, because they’re not changing the eligibility, they’re adding some more money to the pot. I don’t think that that’s what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for.

I do want to say, you know, if this budget is not good enough for the Minister of Health, why should it be good enough for Labradorians and Newfoundlanders?

Then the government promised free parking; did I miss that in the budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nope, we’re still paying.

S. STOODLEY: No? Should I advise my constituents to keep their parking receipts when they park?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, send them along.

S. STOODLEY: Yes. All right, maybe I’ll suggest that they keep their parking receipts and send them to the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: I do have to say, one of the things, as an elected official, you don’t always know what your constituents – well it is my job to know, but sometimes things are more important to people than you realize. I have to say the St. Clare’s redevelopment is that for me, Speaker.

When the government announced that they were no longer doing the new tertiary care hospital and that they were going to redevelop St. Clare’s, the amount of feedback that I received, I did not expect. That was something that really gets under people’s skin that I did not correctly anticipate how much they cared. In my experience now, since that announcement – I think it was in December – it is super, super clear to me that the public does not want the government to spend any money redeveloping St. Clare’s.

But they’re doubling down on it. I read that the government committed to consulting with health care unions before making a decision on St. Clare’s, but now it’s in the budget. I wonder if they did consult with the unions before putting it in the budget? Did the unions agree that government should be redeveloping St. Clare’s? Do the union members agree that government should be redeveloping St. Clare’s? Like, that’s just wild and one that I did not anticipate, how strongly people feel about St. Clare’s, that the government should not be investing in St. Clare’s.

I saw a quote from the governing party that says: always listen and consult with front-line health care workers and their unions. Nurse technicians, therapists and front-line staff have first-hand knowledge of what our health care system needs. That sounds sensible but I’m reminded of the story of a political staffer who was hired for $275,000 for 18 hours a week. They’re getting a bonus and there’s no requirement, there is nothing they have to do to earn that bonus. It’s just a bonus in the contract.

Then NAPE said, in response to that, that they offered to the Premier to have their front-line staff provide government with advice, and that NAPE would be happy to pay the bill. So they’re not even taking their own advice. They’re not even attempting to take their own advice.

Then, when you put a few of these things together, we have a medical doctor giving political advice to the Premier, not being paid out of the Premier’s political advice budget – it’s wild – and then giving advice on health care, sure, but giving advice on other things like fishery and mining. Then the Minister of Health thinks that people should sue her. So I don’t understand; we have all these high-paid people and if this –

AN HON. MEMBER: Part time.

S. STOODLEY: Part-time political advisors. If they’re worthy of such a high salary dollar, like can we ask them to help fix health? I don’t understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Paid parking.

S. STOODLEY: And paid parking. Like, the day after the election, I don’t know why anyone had to pay for parking. That is not a complicated policy initiative and, as I understand it, there was significant work already done on free parking.

I’d like to now move to early childhood education – incredibly important, Speaker. I will start by saying I have a five-year-old. I was fortunate to get regulated early childhood education when my child was three and four. So one day, my child was three and they were getting a bit angry. They put out their hand and they started blowing. I was like, what are you doing?

Then I realized this is some kind of breathing exercise that my three year old is doing when they’re angry. I was like, I didn’t teach him that. I didn’t learn breathing techniques like that as a child. Then I realized, it kind of clicked, that my three year old learned this kind of breathing technique at his daycare. The early childhood educators, who are very well trained, they’re not babysitting. They are teaching our children skills like anger management, like social-emotional skills and how to play with each other and really important skills that I feel like the general population should have more of.

There are people that come to mind in this House that I wish also had experience with breathing exercises.

Speaker, $10-a-day child care – I was extremely proud to be part of the Furey government when we introduced $25-a-day child care, and we lowered this then to $10 a day. Extremely proud. We know that education and early childhood education is a provincial responsibility and I’m glad to see in the budget that the government are continuing with the $10-a-day child care, but they’re not expanding it.

If the federal government wants to give us money towards this provincial responsibility, that’s great. I think we should take anything the federal government wants to give us. Otherwise, it is the provincial government’s responsibility, which is exactly what we did when we created 11,000 $10-a-day child care spaces. Families of 11,000 children had hundreds and thousands of extra dollars to go towards food, their electric bills, rent and kids’ activities. I am extremely proud to be a part of a government that did that. Again, I mentioned I benefited from that program for two years when my child was three and four.

Early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador have been very clear and precise about what they want. They want pensions, paid sick leave and wage grid increases. The government promised pensions and paid sick leave in their blue book, which is now the government mandate. I know, likely, the deputy minister of Education has the mandate on their desk and they know that the government promised pensions and paid sick leave.

They created a committee and early childhood educators were not mentioned in the budget. There was a mention of more infrastructure that would allow for four more spaces, but nothing for early childhood educators.

I do want to say that when you look at the Early Childhood Education Wage Grid – so if you go to the Department of Education website and you look at the wage grid, I believe it’s 2023 to 2026 wage grid. It’s listed in the top of that. That was the plan. This was the three-year wage grid and there has to be another wage grid on top of that, after 2026. That was the 2023 to 2026 wage grid. The government now has to do the next wage grid. We didn’t hear anything about that in the budget. We don’t know what that means for early childhood educators.

Early childhood educators aren’t getting the increase in the personal exemption, and that would be $20 a month, and that’s four cartons of milk. The Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador said: “ However, the budget does not address the most pressing issue facing the sector: the Early Childhood Educator (ECE) workforce.

“Without investments in wages and access to pensions, and paid sick leave, recruitment and retention challenges will continue. Expanding child care spaces without supporting the educators needed to staff them is not sustainable.”

When I was in government, I shared MHA responsibility for the Town of Paradise, along with the now Minister of Education. How many town halls did the Minister of Education hold when he was in Opposition, specifically about early childhood education? Two, three, four, 10? Now he’s in charge. He’s a vocal critic. He’s in charge now and I ask early childhood educators, are you happy with this government if you voted for them? Are you happy with what you voted for? Are you getting what you paid for? I don’t think there are any question of the answer to that question.

I’d like to move to K-to-12 education. I guess, firstly, I’d like to thank the teachers and support staff in our province who work in our schools and work for the Department of Education.

I grew up in a family of teachers. My parents were both teachers; two of my four grandparents were teachers; one of my parents-in-law was a teacher; and my aunt is a teacher. So growing up around the breakfast and supper table, my parents talked about the lives of teachers. They talked about discipling children. They talked about parents, all those things that you hear about at the supper table and the breakfast table from your parents. All we talked about in my house was education, was their lives as teachers.

So you couldn’t go on the VOCM website to see what the stories of the day were. We had to stop talking and listen to the radio whenever the minister of Education or the president of the NLTA was on.

It is highly likely that the Member next to me was on the radio talking. So I’m very proud of the work that our government did on K-to-12 education. We introduced full-day kindergarten. We added significant supports in schools. During COVID –

AN HON. MEMBER: Four hundred teachers.

S. STOODLEY: Yes, I’m getting to that, 400 teachers. Thank you.

We added extra administrative and guidance staff during COVID-19. Then when COVID-19 was over, we prioritized keeping those extra staff in the schools, and I’m very proud to say that they’re still there today.

I was very proud that we introduced new schools in Cartwright, Kenmount Terrace, Paradise and Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s. In our 2025 budget, we announced more than 400 educators and learning assistants.

Then the government did – good for them – put some numbers in the budget for teachers and I do have the numbers here. But then 20 teaching and learning assistants, I heard someone say, that’s not very much; where are they going to go? The government promised to reduce class sizes. We haven’t heard anything about that in the budget. Extra teachers are good, but what’s the plan?

So don’t take my word for it. The NLTA says that there are – quote – significant gaps. The rare disappointment that there no – sorry, the “rare” is probably a typo of mine; I was typing this very late last night. Disappointed that there is no increase in allocations for school counsellors and structural resource teachers, school psychologists, speech language pathologists or other specialized supports. No meaningful and targeted action to address retention and recruitment of certified teachers. So I don’t think it’s the last time we’ll hear about education and K-to-12, Speaker.

I’d like to talk about Memorial on the theme of universities, and I still have two hours and 50 minutes left.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow, that’s excellent.

S. STOODLEY: I know.

I might as well tell you that I was a proud alumni of Memorial. I did my Bachelor of Commerce, graduated in 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

My Master of Arts and political science, I graduated in 2011. I was president of the Commerce class of 2008 and I was vice-president of Bowater House. I was the business faculty rep on the MUN Students’ Union. I was an elected alumni on the Board of Regents of Memorial University.

AN HON. MEMBER: So a good background.

S. STOODLEY: Yes.

I had many jobs at Memorial University and then, after I graduated, I also received a fellowship, the TD Insurance Meloche Monnex Fellowships in Advancement, which I was fortunate enough to do while staying at Memorial University.

I think Memorial has a very unique relationship with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as opposed to universities and their provinces. Memorial gets a relatively large amount of money from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador compared to the comparable universities in Atlantic Canada. But, on the other hand, we know that Memorial has a special significance to this province and to the people and future generations of our province.

So I will tell a story, since I have so much time – I’m going to have a drink first. It’s a good story. My grandfather attended Memorial on Parade Street before it was a university. My grandfather grew up in Grand Bank, part of a large family, and they had nothing. My grandfather was very resourceful, and they used to sell rocks to the ships in Grand Bank as ballast. That’s what he says, so I have to believe him.

My grandfather was the youngest or second youngest of a very large family and he worked very hard. One day, he went to work and he didn’t have a job anymore. So he was, like, what? They were, like, go home, Roy, you don’t work here anymore. My grandfather was very upset and said, well, why not? I’ve been working really hard. He said: Well, no, your older brother Max quit for you this morning. My grandfather lost it.

Then he went home and he was going to give it to his older brother Max. Max said: No, here’s $500. I booked you a plane ticket and I paid for your first year at Memorial. He said: You’re going on the train to Memorial. Someone in this family has to go to university – sorry, I don’t mean to cry about that. But someone in this family has to go to university, and so my grandfather then packed up and went to St. John’s and took that $500 and then he became a principal. He was, for 20 years, the principal of GFA High in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: So that’s my story about –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: Oh, I didn’t hear that, sorry. I didn’t hear that, Speaker, but that’s okay.

Memorial has a special place for me and my family, but we know that there’s a tricky relationship with Memorial and the government. A lot of times it depends on the personalities of the leaders. It depends on what their ambitions are. Sometimes they have different visions for what Memorial University should be.

But the university has independent and academic freedom and that’s, I know, a tricky relationship that the university has to navigate. If it lost its academic freedom, there are a lot of credentials it would lose. So being an independent university and having academic freedom is something that’s extremely important to universities and extremely important to Memorial University.

It’s very simple and very complicated at once with the government’s relationship with Memorial and maintaining that balance of Memorial has a special place in Newfoundland and Labrador; Memorial is the only university in Newfoundland and Labrador; Memorial gets a significant amount of funding from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; Memorial has to have academic freedom; and all those things have to exist at the same time.

So the government made very strong election promises as far as Memorial University is concerned. They said they were going to require it to be financially responsible and “we will not allow MUN to balance its books on the backs of students.” I was thinking about that, what does that actually mean? They also use the same phrase when they say that they’re not going to balance the budget off the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That sounds like something, but when you think about it, what does that actually mean? It doesn’t actually say anything.

They also promised to “immediately launch a review of tuition and fees at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic, including their provincial student loans and grant programs.” That is very specific. In the now government mandate, it says to “immediately launch a review ….” I mean, maybe they did it; they haven’t announced it. Maybe they did; it wasn’t in the budget. Maybe I missed the news release, but it does say “immediately.” It doesn’t say we’re going to think about it. It doesn’t say we’re going to consult on it. It says they are going to immediately do this and it says one of three times in the blue book that they use the word “immediately.”

I guess we look forward to that immediate review of tuition and fees at Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic. If they don’t want to do that, that’s fine. It goes back to my argument that, without clear direction from the government to the public service, what do they do? There’s no guiding principal document that they can use to execute the work of the government.

The budget handouts says that there’s $500 million to continue to support Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic. This investment includes support for a tuition freeze. I assume that that means they’re giving Memorial money to compensate for the tuition freeze – maybe not and maybe my

interpretation of that is not correct, but I look forward to learning more about that.

The Budget Speechsays that “the freeze will only lifted when we have confidence from all leaders across the sector that the system is back on track.” What I assume that means is that the government is going to continue to provide post-secondary institutions with extra money to maintain a tuition freeze until the system is back on track.

Again, that sounds kind of impressive, but what does that actually mean? Like, it’s not a bus schedule. It’s a university trying to balance their special place in Newfoundland and Labrador, academic freedom, the federal government deciding how many international students they can get. You know, it’s kind of a very tricky system.

Again, the College of the North Atlantic is complicated and unique because that is kind of a public college that is heavily funded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It doesn’t necessarily make decisions based on what is most profitable or what can keep them in business. They make decisions based on government policy and decisions.

What does it even mean for Memorial to be back on track? It’s interesting that the government is going to continue funding Memorial University until it gets back on track. So you’ve given it no targets and then you’re going to keep funding it while it’s doing this work to get back on track. It just doesn’t make sense to me, Speaker.

I do want to have a bit of a chat about Labrador. Actually, maybe I’ll save that for when the MHA for Labrador is back in the House.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the speaker not to advise of anybody’s attendance in the House, please.

S. STOODLEY: I apologize, my mistake. I withdraw that, if that’s okay. Thank you, Speaker. I shouldn’t have done that.

I would like to pivot to the MOU. So I understand today – it might have happened already but the government will get the report of their review committee on the MOU. Whether or not the government releases it today, I’m not sure. I think it’s important to remind everyone watching that, last January, we spoke about the MOU for four days and nights. The governing party, the Conservative Party, were given hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire experts to give them advice, whatever advice they wanted.

We had Newfoundland Hydro, Power Advisory, J.P. Morgan, as well as the internal negotiating team, in chairs right here, and tables. They asked all the questions we had for them. I don’t think we turned away any questions. No, we didn’t turn away any questions. Lots of opportunity to ask lots of questions from global experts.

At the end of those four days, we were here until 9 at night. At one point, I did the math on how many Question Periods that equals and it was like 40-something Question Periods. Essentially, we had four full days of asking experts and the minister