PDF Version

May 25, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 30

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I would like to address an incident which occurred on Thursday, May 21, 2026. After the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and the Member for Terra Nova had their speaking privileges removed for the day, there was a further confrontation between the Members which occurred in this hon. House.

As Members of the House of Assembly, we all play a fundamental role in our system of parliamentary democracy. Responsible government, the cornerstone of our system, means that the government must be responsive to its citizens and must be accountable or responsible to Parliament.

We have all been elected to serve as representatives of the people to govern and to hold government to account. In this respect, it’s difficult to overstate the importance of our position. In carrying out our parliamentary duties, our words and our actions reflect upon the people who elected us and upon this hon. House.

As Speaker, it is my responsibility to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members of the House. It’s my duty to preserve order and decorum, to ensure the Standing Orders are followed and to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to participate in debate.

As has been evident throughout this sitting, this is a role I take very seriously. The Standing Orders and rules of decorum exists not only to ensure that Members can exercise their individual privileges; they also serve to ensure a safe and respectful environment for all of us who work in this Chamber, including our Pages, Table Officers and other parliamentary officials.

As noted in the Members’ Parliamentary Guide , while it is the Speaker who is charged with maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House, it is incumbent upon all Members to take responsibility for their behaviour and conduct their business in a manner that upholds the dignity of the institution.

We also have a Harassment-Free Workplace Policy . This policy is the result of a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to the House of Assembly, which was concurred in by the House.

Section 5.1 of the policy clearly sets out the responsibilities of Members and employees of the House, including the responsibility to act respectfully in dealings with all Members of the House of Assembly and employees, and to challenge inappropriate behaviour, objectionable conduct, when it happens, and refuse to participate in that behaviour.

While the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy may not strictly apply in this Chamber due to the concepts of parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech, it has been held on numerous occasions that its principles should guide us during our proceedings.

The incident which occurred last Thursday fell far below this standard. It disrupted proceedings. It was unparliamentary. It was an affront to the integrity of this hon. House. It was unacceptable and cannot be tolerated, and it should never be repeated.

As a result of this incident and under the authority of Standing Orders 7(1), 49 and 21, I therefore name you, Elvis Loveless, and I name you, Lloyd Parrott, for your unparliamentary conduct on Thursday, May 21, and I order you to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of this day.

The Member referenced parliamentary privilege protecting Members from intimidation, obstruction and interference in carrying out their responsibilities and allowing them to be free to debate, vote and represent their constituents without fear of threats or calls for physical violence.

In responding to the point of privilege, both the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Member for Lake Melville indicated that the post had been shared accidently. The Member for Lake Melville stated that he commented on the post and then removed it once he realized that the original post had also been shared.

Let me be clear, as noted in the Members’ Parliamentary Guide: “… it is incumbent on all Members to take responsibility for their behaviour and conduct their business in a manner that upholds the dignity of the institution.”

As Speaker, I must determine whether there is a prima facie breach; that is whether, on first glance or on first impression, there has been a breach. While the Member’s use of Facebook may have been contemptuous of the Member’s parliamentary colleagues, it was not part of a proceeding of Parliament. Speakers have rules that comments made by Members outside of a proceeding of Parliament are, generally, not within their jurisdiction.

I would note that they are not protected by parliamentary privilege either and are subject to the same civil and criminal laws as are the comments of any other private citizen. They may also be the subject of a complaint under the Members’ Code of Conduct. Therefore, I do not find a prima facie breach of privilege based on contempt.

However, I would remind the Member and all Members that they have a responsibility to uphold the dignity and integrity of this institution and one way to do that is by acting with courtesy and respect to their parliamentary colleagues.

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I just wanted to say a few words, if permitted, because I –

SPEAKER: Are you standing on –

S. O’LEARY: I’m standing on the point –

SPEAKER: Are you standing on a point of order or a point of privilege?

S. O’LEARY: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order.

What is your point of order?

S. O’LEARY: Regarding the normalizing of aggressive behaviour in the House of Assembly and for your actions. I certainly commend you, Speaker, for taking action. I also wanted to represent that we have a Code of Conduct where people, of course, shall conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly and its fundamental objective of holding public office, that Members –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member, specifically, what

section of the Standing Orders are you speaking of?

While I do appreciate your desire to comment on this, at the end of the day though, in terms of procedure, if you have a point of order, then you have to raise it as a point of order based on a particular

section of the act and what point of order you want to raise, as opposed to reflecting on what just occurred.

S. O’LEARY: Understood. I don’t have the exact thing. Of course, you referenced the harassment workplace policy. It was only my intent to request of the Speaker and the House of Assembly that we look at mandatory anti-harassment legislation for the House, as a result of the escalation that we have seen unfold.

As well, I wanted to just table a document that I thought, for you, Speaker, and for the House of Assembly, could be of benefit to ensure that we take this very seriously, as you have just demonstrated, going forward in terms of behaviour in the House.

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of order. This is something that can be taken at another time but it’s not a point of order at this time.

SPEAKER: I would have to agree with the Member. If you would like to speak to me outside of the Chamber or bring it to the appropriate Committee of the House, that will be fine, but on a point of order, it’s about an actual point of order based on the Standing Orders that you wish to bring to the attention of the House, not a reflection on the general decorum.

S. O’LEARY: I understand.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Today, visiting our public gallery are Paul and Emma White, husband and daughter of the late Marina Redmond who is the subject of a Member’s statement today.

Welcome to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we’ll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Corner Brook, Humber - Bay of Islands, Labrador West, Lake Melville and Lewisporte - Twillingate.

The hon. the Member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Today I rise to pay tribute to the late Marina Redmond who, on Friday, received a Premier’s Medals for Arts, Heritage, Sports and Recreation.

Marina served the City of Corner Brook for 27 years, including 23 as city clerk. Marina embodied public service through her dedication, her fairness and her practicality. She elevated public service through her commitment to improving process, her understanding of the big picture and her calming influence.

Marina was a devoted wife and mother, and a good friend. She also had a passion for sports and recreation.

Marina played many sports and when she wasn’t playing, she volunteered and organized. She introduced Corner Brook to pickleball. She was always up for a new sport, a new hike and a new adventure.

Though a fierce competitor on the court, she understood that recreation isn’t just for elite athletes. It was about staying active, fostering teamwork and building community.

Because of her dedication and commitment to recreation and public service, one year ago, Corner Brook named its new recreation center in her honor.

I ask all Members to join me in paying tribute to Marina Redmond, an outstanding public servant, athlete and community builder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize teacher Nicole Lovell’s Grade 6 class at Templeton Academy in Meadows, who are the 2026 national winners of Agriculture in the Classroom Canada’s Mission Explorium challenge.

Through Mission Explorium, a national program open to Grade 6 to Grade 8 students, participants step into the role of agriculture and food problem solvers. Over 5,300 students registered from across the country.

This year, students were challenged to design a sustainable community on a deserted island. The panel of agricultural and education experts were impressed with the Grade 6 class’s innovation, design, approach, creative storytelling and thoughtful integration of sustainable food and community systems. The panel also noted that their submission showed a deep understanding of what it means to be true agriculture and food problem solvers.

Previous to competing at the national level, this class successfully competed, winning Region 2, to represent our province. Ms. Lovell’s Grade 6 class will now receive and indoor garden, which supports continued hands-on learning in food production and sustainability.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating these Grade 6 students on their achievement. Receiving this national recognition is very impressive and something to be proud of.

Great job, guys.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. POWER: Thank you, Speaker.

You’ll have to excuse my voice.

I wanted to rise in this House today to talk about the 102 students who graduated from Menihek High School in Labrador West last week. I would like to congratulate each and every one of them on reaching this significant milestone. Their unique talents and perspectives have enriched our school community.

This moment marks the beginning of an exciting adventure. They should embrace change; cherish the memories they created and look forward to the limitless possibilities that await them. As they step into the world beyond high school, dare to dream big, work hard and be persistent.

Their potential is limitless, and they have the power to make a positive impact on the world, believe in themselves and their ability to overcome challenges, celebrate their achievements, no matter how small, and use any setbacks as stepping stones to greatness. Their journey will be unique, and the path they carve will inspire others to follow their aspirations with courage and determination.

Always remember, success is not just about reaching a destination but enjoying the journey. Keep learning, stay curious and let your passions guide you. The world is waiting for their unique contributions, so go out there and make it extraordinary.

I’m wishing them all the success, joy and fulfillment in their future endeavours. Congratulations to the class of 2026 at Menihek High School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize a lifetime of volunteering from a very special lady.

Barbara McGowan was born in Cartwright and moved to Goose Bay in the 1960s where she met Glenn McGowan from New Brunswick. They were married and has three children. But just eight years after they were married, Glenn was killed in a plane crash, leaving Barb to raise three young children on her own.

Barb is now a proud grandmother to four grandsons and, at almost 79 years of age, she still walks every day and exercises. Barb likes to keep busy, and she has been volunteering now for nearly 45 years. She began volunteering as a teacher’s assistant at the primary school in the ’80s and, just recently, after 29 long years, she stopped volunteering at the Labrador Friendship Centre and at the Friendship Centre’s food bank, where her presence and warm smile are surely missed by the members of the community.

Barb is a wonderful cook and baker and an avid reader and crocheter, and many of the items she creates she donates as gifts or for charity. She just loves helping others.

I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing a lifetime of service to a beautiful, strong Labrador woman, Mrs. Barbara McGowan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. BUTT : Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and celebrate the Twillingate-New World Island Fish, Fun & Folk Festival, which proudly marks its 44th year as one of our province’s longest running community festivals, which takes place from July 22-26.

For more than four decades, this festival has showcased the heart and spirit of Twillingate and New World Island – bringing together residents, volunteers, performers and visitors to celebrate our culture, traditions and sense of community.

An event of this scale does not happen without months of dedicated planning and an extraordinary commitment of volunteer time. From organizing events and coordinating performers to fundraising and managing logistics, it truly takes a community working together.

Each year, the festival offers something more for everyone, including a parade, traditional meals, talent show, live traditional music, seniors’ day celebrations, family activities and events for children. This year’s lineup also includes performances by the Ennis Sisters, fireworks, a car and boat show, gospel concert, artisan markets and much more.

I commend the organizing committee, volunteers, sponsors and community members whose hard work keeps these beloved traditions alive. Their efforts strengthen local pride, celebrate our heritage and make Twillingate and New World Island a welcoming place for all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I also have a request here for the Member for Windsor Lake with leave.

Does the Member for Windsor Lake have leave for a Member’s statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to all my colleagues in the House for providing leave.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has lost a true hero with the passing of Johnny Pauls.

A proud veteran of the Second World War, Mr. Pauls answered the call to serve his country during one of the darkest chapters in history. Like so many of his generation, he demonstrated extraordinary courage, sacrifice and dedication in defense of freedom and democracy.

But his service did not end when he returned home. For decades, Johnny Pauls continued to give back to his community of Spaniard’s Bay and to veterans across our province through his tireless work with the Royal Canadian Legion. He was a leader, a mentor and a proud advocate for those who served in uniform.

His life was defined by service to others, love of community and unwavering commitment to remembering the sacrifices of veterans.

On behalf of our caucus, I extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, fellow veterans and all those whose lives he touched.

May we always remember and honour his legacy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I think it would be in order if we had a moment of silence for our fallen veteran.

(Moment of silence.)

SPEAKER: May he rest in peace.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs, and Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate Mary Pia Benuen – a woman who, through her humble wisdom to see her people have a better life, worked tirelessly, spoke up and challenged governments, organizations and other people on how they treated Innu, our First Peoples of this country.

At a time when there were few Innu and Inuit health care workers, this humble woman grew into a remarkable leader and trailblazer. As Labrador’s first accredited Innu nurse, Mary Pia has dedicated her life to advancing Indigenous representation and delivering compassionate, culturally grounded care.

Raised in Sheshatshiu, Mary Pia grew up proud of her Innu identity, guided by her family’s teachings, learning traditional skills and carrying those values forward through her life and career. This pride and self respect was contrary to the general attitude towards the Innu and their culture and language.

Determined to do better for her people, Mary Pia pursued education with determination, travelling to St. John’s to complete high school before continuing on to nursing school in Ontario. She later spent seven years at the Lake Melville hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay where she became known and respected for providing care that acknowledged language and cultural needs of Innu patients.

For nearly 30 years, Mary Pia has served as a public health nurse in her community. In 1997, she became the health director for Sheshatshiu, bringing another layer of strength to local health care leadership.

Through her advocacy, speaking of Innu history and a lifelong commitment to her people, Mary Pia helped shape a more inclusive and responsive health care system.

Later this month, she will be awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws from Memorial University in recognition of her extraordinary contributions. I am proud to know and work with such a strong, powerful Innu woman.

I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in recognizing Mary Pia Benuen for her outstanding contributions and service to her people, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary contributions of Mary Pia Benuen. As Labrador’s first accredited Innu nurse, Mary Pia Benuen broke barriers and helped pave the way for future generations of Indigenous health professionals in this province.

Her lifelong dedication to culturally grounded care, advocacy and leadership has left a lasting impact on communities across Labrador. From her years serving as a public health nurse in Sheshatshiu to her work strengthening local health care leadership, her commitment to her people and community is deeply admirable.

Mary Pia’s story reminds us of the importance of Indigenous voices and lived experience within our health care system, and the need to continue supporting culturally respectful care and Indigenous leadership in health professions.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I congratulate Mary Pia Benuen on this well-deserved recognition and thank her for her service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

We recognize Mary Pia Benuen for all she has contributed to our province, to the people of Labrador and congratulate her for her honorary doctorate.

Our province needs more Mary Pia Benuens. That is why we call on this government to increase investment in educational opportunities for our Indigenous children and youth so that they can follow in the footsteps of this great lady. By levelling the playing field, we will bring true reconciliation closer to reality.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, I am pleased to rise to acknowledge the growth of a Newfoundland and Labrador company, North Atlantic. The Premier and the Minister of Energy and Mines were on hand to mark the official opening of the company’s new 30,000-square-foot headquarters on Kelsey Drive in St. John’s.

From supporting key industries to serving communities across Newfoundland and Labrador, North Atlantic has built a strong reputation through its professionalism and commitment to customers. In just three years, the company has expanded from 130 employees to almost 500 operating in three provinces, and with another 1,500 employees in France.

This new headquarters represents a clear signal of confidence in North Atlantic’s workforce, its businesses and our province. It also reflects how North Atlantic has evolved, strengthening its presence in areas such as energy, logistics and marine services, and positioning itself to help shape the future of our economy.

Speaker, our government is focused on creating conditions that allow companies like North Atlantic to grow, invest and create meaningful jobs. When businesses succeed, our communities grow stronger.

Our government congratulates North Atlantic on this achievement, and we will continue to work with them to build a stronger, more competitive Newfoundland and Labrador for all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I’m pleased to join him in recognizing North Atlantic’s growth and the opening of their new headquarters. Any time a Newfoundland and Labrador company expands its operations and its workforce, especially to this magnitude, it is indeed a positive sign for our province.

Moments like this remind us that success in this sector is built on long-term investment, planning and regulatory stability. Previous Liberal governments strengthened the energy file, advanced key infrastructure and supported the skilled workforce that companies like North Atlantic rely on today.

North Atlantic’s work in energy, logistics and marine services plays an important role in the communities across our province, and it highlights the need for clear timelines, predictable decision-making and real follow-through from government. Industry leaders and workers want progress that moves projects forward, not just announcements.

Speaker, we congratulate North Atlantic on this achievement, and we will continue advocating for an energy environment that supports workers, attracts investment and strengthens communities right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

We agree that government should do more to allow home-grown companies to succeed and create good, meaningful jobs; but, in doing so, we ask that this government make it easier for these spoils of success to be shared more equitably for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We ask that you reintroduce the card-check certification and bring in anti-scab labour legislation so that every group of workers who wants to be in a union can do so.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Does the Premier agree with the St. John’s Board of Trade’s warning that continued delays and uncertainty around the Churchill River negotiations could jeopardize economic growth and cost our province billions of dollars?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM : Speaker, what I will agree with is that if we had to rush ahead with this MOU as it was currently set up, which they wanted to move ahead with quickly, our province would be in a bad place long term.

We recognize that in the report here that was provided by the Independent Review Committee. We understand the deficiencies that are highlighted by that. We need to get a review done. We had that done and now we look forward to negotiating a deal that will be actually the best deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, the Board of Trade also said a referendum will create costly delays and uncertainty.

Can the Premier confirm whether he’s ruled out doing a referendum that he promised during the course of the election?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, there have been lots of talk about a referendum, but we ought to be talking about the MOU that we almost went ahead with, except that we stood our ground and said no and ordered a complete independent review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: And as I have said before and I’ll repeat it, the first thing we need to do is we need to get a deal, and we need to get a better deal than what was envisioned in this MOU.

That’s why we have talked about the need for more power, more transmission and more value, and those are the things we’ll be talking about negotiating on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: There’s a reason we’re talking about the referendum. It’s the first thing the Premier promised during the course of the general election campaign.

So I ask: Is the Premier going to live up to his election promises, or perhaps he’ll do what his friend Danielle Smith did and have a referendum on having a referendum?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I have said, we need to get a deal. That’s the important part for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – a deal that actually protects them long term.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said in a recent scrum that there would have been changes to the MOU. I’ve got to ask him, again, did he know about the 2 per cent escalator clause when he sat around the Cabinet table?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, part of the problem with the House of Assembly is that they continue to act like they’re in Opposition and that we’re in government. I do have all those answers but, unfortunately, the Premier is the one that should be telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about where he’s going with the negotiations with Hydro-Québec.

What we do know is that the Premier secretly hired Mr. Jerome Kennedy five months ago and, last week, said Mr. Kennedy was on the negotiating team that started working just two weeks ago. Then, on Thursday, the Premier said the first thing we got to do is turn around and get a negotiating team in place. As usual, the Premier does not have just one story.

Which of the Premier’s three timelines is accurate?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, make no mistake about it, what we are doing is doing exactly what should have been done. We are going to make sure that we get more transmission, that we get more value and we certainly are going to make sure we protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, I go back and ask the Leader of the Opposition, if you knew the 2 per cent escalator clause was in the MOU, why didn’t you change it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, we are hearing rumours that negotiations have been taking place with Hydro-Québec, so much so that there’s a plan to announce an updated MOU soon, potentially as early as June.

Is that accurate?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I can say is there has been one call between the president of Hydro-Québec and our chief negotiator. So, other than that, I’m not sure exactly where the Leader of the Opposition is getting his information.

But I still want an answer to that question, because that 2 per cent clause had a huge impact. It could have left us owning $30 billion. So again I ask: If that was in there and they knew about it, why didn’t they change it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, again, I’d be happy to answer the questions. It’s his job to answer the questions which he’s not doing; he’s deferring.

I can tell you that I knew what was in the MOU and I was confident we would have negotiated good, solid, final agreements for the people of this province and not only that, I would have been open and transparent about it as well.

Speaker, the Premier has said over and over he doesn’t believe in deadlines. Was this his position because he was comfortable with ongoing secret negotiations, which the public weren’t aware of?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I have said and will continue to say is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a benefit and an agreement that looks after their long-term interests – not short-term interests, but long-term interests – a benefit that doesn’t include escalator clauses.

I find it amazing that they can say they knew about it, yet put it in there against the advice of their own negotiators. Can the Leader of the Opposition explain that? Why would you put that in if your own negotiators said no to it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, at some point, it’s going to be time to talk about what they’re going to put in the MOU. So let’s try it now.

Given the Premier was waiting for the panel’s report on the MOU to tell him what he should think about it, will the Premier confirm that any future deal with Hydro-Québec will only be signed – and I’m quoting from the report – if CF(L)Co were able to wheel power through Hydro-Québec’s transmission system to external markets?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’ve been quite clear on what we need if we’re going to move forward as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. For too long, we have been held captive – for too long.

That original MOU would have allowed us not to do anything other than sell power to Quebec. We need an alternative, that’s why we’re asking for more transmission, that’s why we’re asking for more value, and we intend to get both.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Clarity is the farthest thing from what has happened in this situation since this Premier has taken over. Concerns were referenced in the Premier’s biased report as coming from – and I quote – expert advisors. Yet, the Premier still hasn’t said the names or the qualifications of these so-called experts, or insisted that the panelists do so.

So one simple question: Does the Premier know who he is relying on?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I’ve said before, if we had to rely on the previous MOU, Newfoundland and Labrador would have been held ransom for another 50 years. We turned around and had an independent review assessment done. They’ve done their work.

Let’s talk about something else that’s in that report. Let’s talk about economic value. The fact that the previous MOU didn’t even consider what the opportunities were to develop industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they failed to do that. They simply focused on how much money can we get and how quickly can we get it.

They just simply wanted to sell it all, take as much money as they could upfront and pay for some of their election promises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: At least we would have kept our election promises, Speaker.

I say to the Premier: Tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, do you know the names of the experts who provided evidence to the panelists, yes or no?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’m not privy to that information. As the Member opposite knows, that Independent Review Committee was truly independent. I did not influence them in any way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: But I tell you what is concerning. What is concerning is when they make a statement that they didn’t listen to their negotiators, they didn’t listen to their own people and they didn’t listen to their financial experts when they included that 2 per cent escalation clause.

I’d ask the Member opposite: How did that happen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: It was worth waiting for an answer finally, Speaker, after seven months.

Is the Premier really telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that he’s not privy to the experts that provided advice on the report he’s going to rely on for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

So, Premier, confirm with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what you said – you do not know who you are relying on, on the basis of this report?

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member that you address the Chair.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, we put in an Independent Review Committee that has done their work. They have presented a report. I might add the two members of the Independent Review Committee that were appointed by the previous Liberal government. But, now, they’re not good enough anymore.

They’ve turned around and they’ve done a job. They’ve turned around and saved this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from entering into another bad deal, just like 1969.

So we’re going to fix that, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We have a new negotiating team put in place, and they’re going to go out and get us a better deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, the difference is, the public knew who the advisors were and, in fact, the advisors sat right there in the House of Assembly, and not only told everybody who they were, but answered questions about the deal.

So does the Premier really expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to believe that he’s relying on a report, and he has no idea who provided the information to give him advice on how to move forward with the deal with Hydro-Québec?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, maybe it was the same advisors that turned around and advised the former government that they shouldn’t put in a 2 per cent escalation clause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Maybe it was the same negotiators who turned around and told the previous Liberal government you shouldn’t put in a 2 per cent escalation clause. So let’s talk about that. That could’ve cost the government $30 billion.

They don’t want to talk about that. They accepted that. They went ahead and overruled their own negotiators. They overruled their own financial advisors. We intend to fix it.

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why isn’t he concerned about where this evidence came from? Who are they? Are they Facebook experts? Are they engineering experts? Are they hydro experts? How can he not know who these individuals are? How can Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be expected to rely on people who the Premier doesn’t even know who he’s relying on?

So I ask the Premier: Will he finally tell the panellists to tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who they heard from and who you think you’re relying on?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Once again, Speaker, we turned around and actually engaged and put it in regulation. We took the shackles off the Independent Review Committee. The previous Independent Review Committee was handcuffed by the fact that they could only look at certain things. They could only speak to certain people.

We put it in regulation that says they could go out and receive submissions from anybody they want. They could see whatever documents they want. They did that. Over 350 submissions were received by the Independent Review Committee and, clearly, some of them were from people on both sides of the House and all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

So they’ve done their homework, we’ve got a report to implement and we’re going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, there is absolutely nothing clear about who these 350 people were. We have no idea who they were. We have no idea if they’re from this side or that side of the House, if they’re experts or if they’re kids in kindergarten. I have no idea. It could just be colouring the pictures that kids did in school.

Will the Premier tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who these 350 people are that we’re expected to rely on for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let’s talk about what’s in the report.

Let’s talk about the fact that the economic value of our resources was not in there. The fact that we turned around and did an MOU without ever considering what the opportunities were for development in our province, what the opportunities were for the development of new industry in Labrador. None of that was looked at.

So that’s one of the recommendations that’s in the report. It talks about doing an economic analysis to make sure that we look at what the opportunities are for new industries, what’s the maximum value and the type of revenue that could be generated. That’s what we’re doing. We’re doing that work right now.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I ask the Premier, does he not understand why it’s important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to know who these people were, or does he not care because he’s trying to hide something?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I said, it was an independent review process. They remain independent.

They’ve already given their opinion on that, but I can certainly look at the report and see when it highlights the fact that they didn’t listen to their own negotiating team, that they didn’t listen to their own financial advisors. That was information contained in their report. Where did they get that information from? Maybe they got it from their own advisors and from their own negotiating team, previously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, let’s talk about the report then – because the illusive experts that we don’t know who they are, what their qualifications are or how they came to be – “… particularly after 2041, prices for CF power will be more tightly linked to HQ’s avoided replacement cost than to broader market value.”

The report also notes: Implementing the

Schedule F principles based, block-pricing model will be particularly complex and will require detailed negotiations.

So I ask the Premier: Isn’t that the point of

Schedule F to confirm that our province gets the right price based on broader market value for market prices both externally and to its own ratepayers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the fortunate ones that was in the House last January to ask questions to the panellists that came in. What the Leader of the Opposition referenced is the experts that they brought in for us to ask questions to.

I think what the Leader of the Opposition is missing is that those same players are still players in this review that we’ve got conducted here. We had the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro here that we asked questions for the whole time that we asked, the assistant, they are still part of it. Guy Holburn, who was a significant expert witness at the Muskrat Falls inquiry, was part of the ones that were part of the IRC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Does he know the names of the experts who provided advice to the independent panel?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, would they be not experts, the ones I just mentioned? Would they be not experts, the ones that the then-government brought in last January? Would the chair or the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro not be classed as expert? Would Guy Holborn, Dr. Holborn, who was a significant part of Justice Richard LeBlanc’s inquiry on Muskrat Falls, that the hon. Member was part of, would he not be an expert because he was involved?

How many experts does he need named in the House of Assembly for him to have comfort to know that this IRC has done a good job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I appreciate getting all the questions, I have an answer for them. If there’s 350 people and he named three, I’d like the answer to name the 347 other people who provided the information. So if you can provide those, I’d like that very much, the Finance Minister.

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

C. PARDY: I may have missed a question there but I’d like to stand on it.

I would say the number is in how many experts did they bring into the House, and we don’t want to look back. What they brought in, I’ve just listed three experts that we would know that are directly involved with it. What he wants to know is the number of extras. How many more experts were involved? All I’m saying is these were three that were critical.

What was missing before was how much of what we can do with the economics and the power that would be brought to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we’re doing now and that wasn’t part of it before. Ten years they were in government and no energy plan. Imagine, no energy plan.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, does the Minister of Finance know who the experts were who provided advice to the independent panel? If he doesn’t know, why is he comfortable taking advice as the Minister of Finance –

SPEAKER: I would ask that you address the Chair.

J. HOGAN: If he doesn’t know, is he not worried that he’s taking advice from people who he don’t know what their qualifications are?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The witnesses that they brought in as experts, we know that they’ve got a high degree of expertise and I’ve named three of them, referenced here in this House. The Leader of the Opposition has not acknowledged and said, yes, they are experts.

How many more are there? Well, we know there were more that they would have referenced, but the report writers and the authors were these mentioned, these people that I had just referenced in the House. They are experts who they consulted with for their opinion and they are very knowledgeable in and of itself.

Would the leadership of NL Hydro be well aware of what the needs were in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: He very much clearly acknowledged that the people who came to the House of Assembly were experts. What we want to know is who the other people are that you’re saying it was okay to rely on? You keep referring to these innocuous people, nebulous people. They provided the most important advice on the most important deal of Newfoundland and Labrador’s history.

So can the minister confirm whether he knows the names of these 347 other people that provided advice, if he’s just relying on these three?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can take comfort that there were experts involved with the IRC. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can take comfort to know did they consult with people who had a high degree of knowledge in the industry? Of course, they did.

The experts that came into the House of Assembly, we didn’t ask them who they consulted with. We didn’t need to know. If the experts came in and they were notable experts, then listen, that is what we want, to know that they had people that they would consult with.

They did their consultation and they came back with a report – a report that corrected the errors of the previous government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: For the record, is the Minister of Finance saying that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don’t need to know that information and just rely on us, trust us? Is that the position of this government and its Finance Minister?

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

C. PARDY: Absolutely not – absolutely not.

We can agree and the Opposition would agree that what I listed, they were experts. Who those experts consulted with, that’s what they want to know. The report stands on itself.

The Leader of the Opposition stood up in his campaign when he stood up and said, $225 billion for the Newfoundland and Labrador residents – $225 billion. They never, ever mentioned $30.8 billion, which is the real value. Why did they not mention the $30.8 billion, the real value? Why did they select $225 billion? Why?

So I would say we’ve got to be upfront with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I would like to hear the rest of that thought and say we want to be upfront with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and tell them who the panel spoke to, but I don’t think that is ever going to come.

So something is not being told to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I say to the Premier and I say to the Finance Minister, the lack of openness and transparency is on them and that’s their legacy.

Speaker, the panelists said a shorter contract for the CF PPAs they contemplated in the MOU would offer meaningful advantages to NLHS and the province.

Will the Premier confirm if a future deal will have a shorter contract as recommended by his biased panel?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I can confirm is we will have a better deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: In August 2025, a Liberal government press release stated the MOU – as my colleague just said – would bring over $225 billion in new revenue in increased power capacity, but the Independent Review Committee included on page 38, “The total financial benefit to the provincial treasury of the overall MOU is best represented by the net present value amount, which is estimated at approximately $31 billion (including estimated rate mitigation costs) rather than by the $227 billion nominal amount presented in government documents. Of the $31 billion, $9.2 billion will be received prior to 2042.”

SPEAKER: The hon. Premier’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

The Premier and Energy Minister, last week, used a strategy to criticize us for the 1969 Churchill Falls contract which, we all know, is lopsided. The public can see through that though as, obviously, none of us had anything to do with public policy back in 1969. Many of us – well, I was – but others here weren’t born.

If it was an option, however, we wouldn’t bring back the negotiators, the architects of the 1969 deal, to give us advice; however, Muskrat Falls, also known as a bad deal, the Premier has decided to bring back those architects to advise on Churchill Falls, again.

Why is the Premier taking advice from people who’ve already proven they can’t be trusted with hydroelectric projects?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I think the Member opposite ought to take the time to read the credentials of the people who we have appointed to the negotiating committee because what he just said doesn’t reflect their ability or anything to do with the work that they’ve done in the past.

They are professional people that we have engaged with who will do a tremendous job. I’m glad and proud to have all three of them on the committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, one of the members of that panel said that Muskrat Falls would be a project that would pay for itself, and I’ll leave it at that.

The Premier likes to draw false comparisons to the 1969 deal but it’s not. Ironically though, the Premier’s delays are keeping us stuck in the 1969 contract. We would have gotten $1.5 billion – almost $1.5 billion – had we gotten this deal at the end of April.

Will the Premier commit to receiving compensation to make up for the billions of dollars he’s lost our province, already, by keeping us stuck in the 1969 deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: There are a couple of times I stood in this House, at least to state as far as what I knew. They were all in Cabinet back in the decision when they knew they created the budget that we came in on.

There was no $1.5 billion in that budget – that was a budget line for this coming budget. It wasn’t there. Was there $1 billion there? There was not $1 billion there. Was it half a billion? No, it wasn’t, but there was an amount there, but the Leaders of the Opposition and the Energy critic will stand up time and time again and say that we’d have no deficit.

We wouldn’t have a deficit this year, next year, next year, next year after – wrong, incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

Twenty-five questions asked so far and no answers. I guess that’s why it’s Question Period, not answer period, but I have confidence in this minister.

Speaker, the story this morning on allnewfoundlandlabrador.com states that the province failed to award the contract for the swing vessel RFP for the busy Fogo Island, Change Islands, and Bell Island routes after receiving three proposals from companies.

I ask the minister: Why was the contract not awarded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

The short answer to the question is they weren’t compliant. There was a problem with one of the bids and the other three bids were not compliant, which is par for the course, unfortunately. We were disappointed, but we’re not giving up by any stretch. We’re looking at probably using a broker that Marine Atlantic actually employed after their RFP failed. There’s another bidder that’s come forward, too, to discuss. We may even go with our own build.

The bottom line is we’re committed to having a swing vessel; we’re committed to the ferries in this province; and we’re not going to back away from that commitment. We’ll follow through until we get the answers and get what’s needed for another swing vessel.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

According to a notice on the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services website, on June 1, 2026, the community walk-in clinic and newcomer health clinic will relocate temporarily from 50 Mundy Pond Road to 850 Topsail Road to accommodate renovations.

The notice recommends they check Metrobus for schedules. The clinic regularly turns people away because appointments are filled.

So given the fact that many people who visit the clinic have no vehicle and will have to rely on two busses with a stopover at the Village Mall to get to the clinic, I ask the minister: Will her department provide a direct shuttle service from the Mundy Pond clinic to the clinic on Topsail Road until renovations are complete?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, we recognize that having the temporary closure is creating some problems. We are trying to address the spacing issue. We are looking at ways that we can actually make sure that people who need to travel and don’t have the supports, like vehicles, are supported, Speaker. We’re looking into that now and, hopefully, we’ll have some solutions shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, there is a critical shortage of staff at the urgent care clinic at Stavanger Drive. Only two of the six nurse practitioner positions are filled and there’s a shortage of doctors. Some have quit since the clinic opened in January.

I ask the Minister of Health: What is her department doing to correct this shortage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, the Member and the Leader of the Third Party is making good points. Those are the issues I’m dealing with. I recognize there are staffing issues. I recognize that there are recruitment and retention issues right across the province.

One of the things we’re dealing with is trying to change the culture where, if there’s a problem: oh, well, we’ll just take the easy way out. We are having trouble staffing the urgent care centre: we’ll close it earlier. Actually, I’m going to say honestly, it’s ridiculous, but these are some of the options that were put back to me, Speaker.

We are not going to accept that. We’re going to actually try to make sure that health care is delivered to people in our province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I was pleased to attend the We’re Here For You Canada events yesterday hosted by IPV survivor and advocate, Sarah Sherman. Joined by my colleague and members of Unifor, we had fulsome discussions as to why intimate partner violence must begin in this province with a declaration that it is an epidemic to continue raising awareness and ensure proper supports are in place for those experiencing violence.

I ask the minister: When will this government officially declare intimate partner violence an epidemic in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Women and Gender Equality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

While we were in Opposition, we recognized that gender-based violence was basically being failed by the past government, Speaker. When we got into government, we started taking steps.

One of the things we have to ensure is that we have proper staffing to make sure the supports are available to people. We have to make sure we have dedicated staff. We also have to make sure that, in actual fact, we are able to work with the stakeholders and the advocates.

I went into Women and Gender, myself and my colleague, what we found was vacancy and we’ve also found positions that were temporary positions which were hard to recruit for.

Speaker, we are addressing it. We are staffing up. We are getting ready. We are actually going to tackle gender-based violence –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Unfortunately, that didn’t answer the question.

Speaker, we can continue to see topical news reports highlighting the devastating impact intimate partner violence has in our communities. This is an epidemic that will only worsen if government does not act with urgency.

In a survey by Act Now, the Premier committed to introduce legislation for pre-conviction ankle monitoring for offenders of intimate partner violence within the first two years of government.

I ask the minister: Will we see this legislation this fall or will survivors be forced to continue waiting for what could be life-saving protection?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Women and Gender Equality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I don’t know where the Member opposite came up with I wasn’t addressing the questions. In order to address gender-based violence, you actually have to make sure you have the proper resources in place so that people don’t fall through the cracks. Also, you have to make sure that you’re helping and supporting stakeholders, Speaker, that are there working on behalf of people who are in crisis because of gender-based violence. We have to make sure that we are properly staffed, we are properly resourced and that’s what this government is doing.

We’ve only been in government eight months, Speaker, we’ve made significant inroads. You talk to any of the advocates out there, they will say that this government is a changed government that’s going to actually change the way these issues are addressed.

We are going to deliver, Speaker, and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: – when it comes to gender-based violence, Speaker, we are not going to politic on the backs of –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Pursuant to the motion of referral of April 29, 2026, and in accordance with Standing Order 72, the Government Services Committee met on five occasions: April 30, 2026; May 7, 2026; May 20, 2026; May 21, 2026; and May 22, 2026.

The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and pursuant to Standing Order 75(2) have directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of Consolidated Fund Services; Executive Council; Department of Finance; Department of Government Services; Department of Labrador Affairs; Public Procurement Agency; Public Service Commission; and Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Further, the Committee recommends that the report be concurred in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. POWER: Thank you, Speaker.

Pursuant to the motion of referral of April 29, 2026, and in accordance with Standing Order 72, the Social Services Committee met on six occasions: April 29, 2026; May 4, 2026; May 5, 2026; May 19, 2026; May 21, 2026; and May 25, 2026.

The Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and pursuant to Standing Order 75(2) have directed me to report that they have passed without amendments the Estimates of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development; Department of Health and Community Services; Department of Justice and Public Safety; Department of Municipal and Community Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Department of Seniors; and Department of Social Supports and Well-Being. Further, the Committee recommends the report be concurred in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

M. BUTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Pursuant to the motion referred on April 29, 2026, in accordance with Standing Order 72, the Resource Committee met on six occasions: May 4, 2026; May 5, 2026; May 6, 2026; May 7, 2026; May 8, 2026; and May 19, 2026.

The Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and pursuant to Standing Order 75(2) have directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of the Department of Energy and Mines; Department of Environment, Conservation and Climate Change; Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Department of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands; Department of Jobs, Growth and Rural Development; and Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation. Further, the Committee recommends that the report be concurred in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: That, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 25, 2026.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: That, notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members’ Day on Wednesday May 27, 2026, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings and the conduct of Government Business.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I will move: That, in accordance with Standing Order 8(8), the winter-spring 2026 sitting of the House of Assembly be extended beyond Thursday, May 28, 2026; and

That this House shall sit until it adjourns to the call of the Chair; and

That notwithstanding Standing Order 8(3), the week of June 8, 2026, shall not be a constituency week.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act to Amend the Pharmaceutical Services Act, Bill 19.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

The reason for this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS the Atlantic Charter road in Ship Harbour leads to a designated national historic site developed through the dedication of volunteers in partnership with the provincial government; and

WHEREAS this road, 3 kilometres in length, serves as the primary access route to the site and is essential for the public’s use and tourism value; and

WHEREAS since the establishment of the site, the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure has historically graded the road at least once annually; and

WHEREAS in many years, the road was graded in May or June, however, in some years, maintenance has occurred too late in the season, impacting safe access during the peak tourism period which begins in June; and

WHEREAS timely grading each summer is necessary to ensure the road is passable, safe and welcoming for visitors, residents and tourism operators; and

WHEREAS maintaining proper access to the historic site supports local tourism, community pride, economic activity and the preservation of an important part of Newfoundland and Labrador’s heritage;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that the Atlantic Charter road in Ship Harbour is graded and made safely passable no later than June of each year and to maintain it in a condition consistent with its designation as a national historic site and its importance to the tourism and public access.

Speaker, the Atlantic Charter site marks the exact location where US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill secretly met in August 1941 to draft the historic Atlantic Charter. It is adjacent to Argentia. They do get a significant number of visitors trying to navigate and often the cars will start to go down the road and have to haul in and people will get out and hike.

That’s fine for those who can walk and can hike because it’s quite the walk, but for seniors and persons with disabilities it’s not accessible. That’s really unfortunate because people, they look it up and they read about it and they figure it’s an accessible site, but when they arrive there, unfortunately, it’s not.

So I really hope the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure takes this into consideration and makes this road passable.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise on a petition for better pay for self-managed home care and respite workers.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The disparity in wages and benefits between self-managed home care/respite workers and those employed by agencies in Newfoundland and Labrador raises significant concerns. The Premier promised to increase the hourly wage of home care workers from $17.05 to $21.05 per hour over the next five years, but this promised excluded self-managed home care workers; and

Currently, self-managed home care/respite workers in the province still earn $17.05 per hour; agency-based home care workers earn $19.45 per hour; and minimum wage workers earn $16 per hour; and

A self-managed home care/respite worker may have the same training, serve the same client and carry out the same duties as an agency-based worker, yet still receive significantly less pay.

Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to address this inequity by raising the wages of self-managed home care/respite workers to be on par with those of their agency-based counterparts and commit to maintaining this wage parity into the future.

Speaker, for a lot of families who depend on the home care/respite workers it’s about a relationship. It’s about people that they’ve chosen to work best with their family members. So it comes down to making sure that we have equal pay for the same work, same pay for the same work.

This is about addressing a disparity. This is a type of work, in many ways, you have to be a special person for this. It’s not a job where you simply put up your heels and sit back. It becomes an active involvement with the person’s life.

In this case, what the signatories to this petition are seeking is equity – equity in pay for the same type of work.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance for a reply to the petition.

C. PARDY: Thank you to my hon. Member for presenting the petition on behalf of the residents in his district.

In this budget, we are increasing the pay of the self-managed home care by $2 per hour. Every dollar increase is $6.3 million annualized. It will be $12.7 million for the $2. While we don’t have exact parity at that point in time, we thought it important in year one of the budget to make sure that we significantly close that gap.

The question that has been asked in my district is: When will we receive that? Well, when the hon. Members vote for the budget, because we know of the degree that we’re going to put relief, $226 million going out. In addition to that, the $12.7 million for that $2 increase. When you vote for that budget, on July 1 we will see that increase. For those with the Seniors’ Benefit, July 3 we’ll see the Seniors’ Benefit, the 20 per cent increase in there.

I do look forward to the time where you vote because I know that we want to address affordability in Newfoundland and Labrador. Any question you’ve got about the budget is usually not about affordability, it’s about what’s not in there. But there is lots in there for you to vote for.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise to table a petition for government must use real artists over AI for projects.

These are the reasons for this petition:

Artists in Newfoundland and Labrador are experiencing job losses and fewer opportunities for employment because corporations and governments use AI to cut costs and avoid paying workers in the creative industries; and

Graphics and images made through AI have the potential to manipulate public opinion because users can create false and misleading materials; and

AI uses data, images, videos, texts and other materials created by others who receive no compensation to generate works that have monetary value.

Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commit to using real artists for all government physical media, contracted ad work, marketing and communications conducted by all employees, contractors, consultants, partners, students, volunteers, vendors, agents and third parties.

I will table this petition, Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity.

I will note that AI is an international discussion right now and certainly there are lots of concerns about job losses that are happening right across the world and copyright infringement, et cetera. There are a number of different issues that are happening.

This particular petition – there are more out in the community – was signed solely by the film industry workers that were here in the front lobby of the Confederation Building that were working on the local production, and of course we encountered them as we came into the front lobby. These are people who we will be taking work from if we do not adhere to addressing the dangers and the challenges of AI replacing work that people desperately need in the cultural sector and otherwise.

Thank you, Speaker; I so table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: No further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I move, seconded by the Deputy Premier, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 25.

That’s a correction from earlier.

SPEAKER: Where’s that to on the Order Paper?

J. WALL: Motion 5.

SPEAKER: Yes, okay.

It has been moved and seconded that, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 25.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider a resolution relating to the raising of loans by the province and related bill, Bill 15.

SPEAKER: I’m trying to find it here on my Order Paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motion 3.

SPEAKER: Motion 3.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider Bill 15.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion has been carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Dwyer): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 15,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province.

A bill, “An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province.” (Bill 15)

Resolution

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $3,900,000,000.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

It is my pleasure to stand today to speak to the loan bill for the 2026-27 fiscal year. Budget 2026 was tabled in the House of Assembly on April 29 and outlined a total borrowing program for requirement of $3.9 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027. The borrowing plan reflects the province’s expected financial needs over the coming year, including both refinancing existing obligations and supporting new expenditures.

Under the authority of the Loan Act, 2026 , together with

section 38 of the Financial Administration Act , the provincial government is authorized to raise up to $3.9 billion through borrowing. This legislative authority sets a clear cap on how much can be borrowed and ensures that all borrowing activities are carried out within an approved legal framework.

The Loan Act, 2026 , will remain in effect until we have reached this $3.9-billion limit, or until it is replaced by a subsequent loan act. This provides flexibility to manage borrowing across the fiscal year while maintaining appropriate legislative oversight.

By comparison, the previous Loan Act, 2025 ,authorized up to $4.1 billion in long-term borrowing. As of March 31, 2026, the province had fully utilized that authority borrowing the entire $4.1 billion. This demonstrates the ongoing reliance on borrowing as a key tool in managing Newfoundland and Labrador’s finances.

The Financial Administration Act allows us to borrow not only for new spending but also for important financial obligations such as refinancing mature debt, contributing to sinking funds and addressing unfunded pension liabilities, however, specific long-term borrowing authority must still be granted through legislation such as the Loan Act, 2026 , in order to meet the financial requirements set out in our Budget 2026 .

Of the $3.9 billion in planned borrowing for this fiscal year, approximately $0.5 billion, $500 million, is attended to address debt that matures early in the following fiscal year. That would be the first quarter of ’27-’28. The remaining $3.4 billion supports a range of critical priorities. These include approximately $1.1 billion for infrastructure investments throughout the province as well as nearly $800 million to meet required payments on Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services line of credit.

Additional commitments include $300 million in payments related to promissory notes for public sector pension plans, $200 million for borrowing and refinancing on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and $200 million for sinking fund contributions. The remaining $700 million is needed to finance the projected deficit for the ’26-’27 fiscal year.

Borrowing at this level is necessary to ensure that we can meet our day-to-day financial obligations while also maintaining sufficient liquidity. Having adequate cash reserves on hand is critical for managing debt repayments as they come due and for maintaining overall financial stability.

In terms of how the province raises these funds, we have to access a broad set of borrowing tools. We can issue both fixed- and floating-rate debt domestically across a variety of maturities. Traditionally, the province has relied most heavily on domestic fixed-rate term debt typically issued with maturities of 5, 10 or 30 years. In addition, short-term borrowing plays an important role in cash management with 91-day Treasury bills and other short-term instruments issued on a regular basis as needed.

Every Wednesday, $90 million turned over in Treasury bills – every Wednesday.

More recently, we have expanded access to international markets through the establishment of a European medium-term note program in the ’22-’23 fiscal year. To date, approximately $533 million has been raised through this program providing additional diversification in funding sources.

The province’s debt is held by a diverse group of investors including insurance companies, pension funds, corporations, as well as governments and government agencies. This broad investor base helps support stable access to capital.

From a cost perspective, the average yield on debt maturing in ’26-’27 is projected at 3 per cent, which represents an improvement compared to the 3.69 per cent average in ’25-’26. However, overall debt expenses are still expected to rise slightly, reaching $1.2 billion in ’26-’27, up from $1.1 billion the previous year. This reflects the overall size of our debt portfolio.

Looking at the broader fiscal picture, net debt is projected to increase from $20.8 billion in ’26-’27, up from an estimated $19.4 billion in ’25-’26. Despite this increase, net debt as a percentage of GDP is expected to improve modestly, declining to 43.5 per cent from 44.8 per cent.

This indicates that while debt levels are rising in absolute terms, the province’s economy is growing at a pace that helps stabilize the relative debt burden. Of course, as a government, we are committed to spending smarter and planning efficiently to ensure that we make positive progress in addressing the province’s debt.

Speaker, there is optimism on the horizon. With our tremendous riches of natural resources and progress being made on projects like Bay du Nord and the development of the Churchill Falls and Gull Island, we will see a future where Newfoundland and Labrador is in a much, much better fiscal position.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I’m not going to speak too long about this bill. For anyone watching, this isn’t a policy initiative, this allows the government to borrow money, which is obviously very important. I think one very interesting piece about that, that came to mind recently, is it speaks to the importance of our democratic institutions in Canada. For example, the Legislature that we’re all in now and the 40 of us, we’re here and we vote on things and we change laws. The only reason why a company, for example, or a bank, will loan us $4.4 billion or $3.9 billion is because of these democratic institutions, Chair.

I think that’s an incredibly important part of our Legislature. It’s important to keep that in mind. As a province, we are able to borrow $3.9 billion because of our democratic institutions. I think that’s very important and that we don’t forget about that.

I do want to also note, I believe the minister mentioned, total borrowing is $4.4 billion. They’ve already borrowed the $500 million so this is another $3.9 billion. I guess, in

summary, I just want to plead with the Minister of Finance and the government that we would recommend that the government move forward quickly on a Churchill Falls deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: Chair, there’s a noise that keeps bothering me, sorry. I’m not –

CHAIR: Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t pick that up.

S. STOODLEY: Oh, no, no. It’s okay.

CHAIR: Okay.

S. STOODLEY: The noise has stopped. Thank you, Chair.

I note that the Minister of Finance indicated that they had already spent $500 million and the total borrowing is $4.4 billion and I do – this is where I left off – want to implore the government and the Minister of Finance that they should get a Churchill Falls deal. I sincerely wish that they get a deal that is the same or better.

I don’t agree with the categorization that the government is making of the Churchill Falls deal. As we dive into the specifics, I do hope they’re able to get a deal in short order for the province’s finances. Obviously, we can’t keep borrowing these large amounts of money. We need a long-term solution and I do wish the government best wishes in that, Chair.

We will be supporting this bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate any opportunity I get to stand in this House of Assembly, as you know.

Bill 15,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by way of Loan by the Province, I’m not going to speak for very long on it. I do have couple of points I’d like to talk about. We’ve had some great discussions so far through the budget process and we’re going to have some more, I understand, tonight and in the next couple of days.

As my colleague had said, we will be supporting this piece of legislation. It’s a must do. We have significant civil servants that do significant work in this province each and every day. I thank them for their great work, whether it be servicing our roads or our hospitals or our child care centres and places like that. I think it’s really incumbent upon us, as legislators, to give them the resources and this is one of those must do’s that we have to do as a House of Assembly.

I do highlight the fact that we would like this borrowing to be less and less every year, there’s no doubt about that. We had great conversations about sinking funds through the budget debate and the importance. I learned a little bit and I hope the Minister of Finance learned a little bit by explaining it to me as well and answering some of my questions. But I see them as an important piece on how we get ahead of debt that we have in this province and tying a sinking fund to those things, the debt that we have in this province, is a good thing. If we had been doing it since 1949, we’d be in a much better spot as a province. I think we all can agree on that.

We’re seeing great interest rates on sinking funds now, over 8 per cent. We are borrowing that money to put it against it, but, at the end of the day, we’re doing that at a 3.7-ish rate and we’re being able to net increase value with respect to those sinking funds.

I would be remiss if I didn’t take this minute or so to talk about how we may agree on sinking funds, but we do disagree on the Future Fund. I think those two things can be done simultaneously. I think it’s important. I think many of the financial institutions that we both have had extensive experience listening to and hearing from would agree that investments in both of those areas would be investments in the future of the province and all the little kiddos that we have running around in this province, their future as well.

There are good things, as we’ve mentioned, in the budget. There is no doubt about that. There is more that can be done.

This being Early Childhood Educators Week, I’d like to take this opportunity to say that’s one of the areas in the budget that I think we could have had a little bit more of a focus on. As the hon. Minister of Education has said many, many times, they are our most precious resource and I agree with him on that.

P. DINN: Precious and valuable.

B. DAVIS: A precious and valuable resource, for sure. I think there’s an opportunity for us in the budget, and very quick, in short order, to try to work with those early childhood educators that are requesting things that are understandable that would make the system better for them, as well as our young people, as the most valuable resource that we have in this province.

I think the clarity that we need on that is to move quicker. They’ve made it very clear what their requests are. I understand that we’ve established a committee, which is not a bad thing. I’m not standing here and saying that’s a bad thing. But I am saying that they’ve made it very clear what they need, what those educators would need.

This week would be a perfect week for the Minister of Education to stand on his feet here and say that we’re going to give that to you because of what you do. I’m not trying to paint him in a corner or anything like that, as much as he may think so, but I think this week would be a fine week to try to move on that. I’d even settle for just having the committee named as a good starting point to move quicker.

I’m not going to belabour this point. I think this is a great piece of legislation that we need to do as a province. I hope that every year we’ll see that number go down a little bit. As my colleague from Mount Scio has said, there’s no doubt in my mind it would have gone down had the MOU been signed at this point, but I am hopeful, based on what’s been said, that we will get a deal at least equal to, if not better than, the one we had put on the books as an MOU – not a deal, but an MOU.

So I hope and pray for the future of this province that the government will deliver on the promise of the MOU and, hopefully, increase that transparency that we want with that so we know who’s providing that advice. I think that’s very important.

With that, Chair, I’ll take my seat and be happy to support this piece of legislation.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Chair.

I, too, won’t be long winded here in this, but I would like to just read it out. This is Bill 15,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by way of Loan by the Province and the bill would authorize the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to raise money by way of loan to a maximum of $3,900,000,000. I just wanted to make sure that was put out there.

Our caucus will be supporting this as well. This is perfunctory; this is almost a necessary evil that we have in our system right now about the loans, but I just would like to make a couple of mentions as the representative for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi that this truly represents an opportunity. It indicates to us – again, with the budget we’re all talking about affordability, but many of us talk about it from various vantage points – the opportunity to truly invest in more sustainable industries that will continue to bring us return for many, many, many years to come.

While I understand that this is something that is obviously necessary to the business of this House and it’s

an act to authorize the raising of the money, as I said, by the way of loan by the province, I certainly look forward to further conversations about how we can continue to reduce our debt, but our ability to thrive in a more sustainable kind of industry. That will impact, certainly, the finances with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Chair.

I’m just going to stand for a minute, also, and offer my support to this bill. It is, again, as we know, borrowing. I just want to mention some of the good things that are going to happen now and waiting until the full budget.

I’ll give you a good example is the work that’s going on with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing out on the West Coast. There are improvements being made already. There are units being built as we speak and this is a part of it, to continue on with that great work and the other instances where we’re trying to help out with the people who are living in a hotel in Corner Brook with the wraparound services. Without these funds being approved here in this House, that couldn’t happen and continue on from here on.

The other thing is health care. Health care, as we know, is the biggest issue in this province, in my view, right now. Without the continuation of this fund, the work that needs to be done to the old Western Memorial Regional Hospital to create 45 beds, to alleviate the concerns that there are about 50 long-term care patients in acute-care beds in Corner Brook who need the proper services in long-term care beds, without the continuation of this fund, we will not be able to start to work now, to get those beds in place because there is so much work that needs to be done to the old Western Memorial Regional Hospital.

I’ve been advocating a lot for the extension of more beds in the old Western Memorial Regional Hospital to help with the emergency department, to free up acute-care beds and get proper care to the seniors. So it would be kind of hypocritical if I stood up now and said, no, I’m against this so we can continue on with this work. This is the funds that we need in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue on with the work that’s happening in government itself.

Just another point for the people of Humber - Bay of Islands that they’re concerned about is the roads. This would stop all the possible road programs and all the work that needs to be done, paving on Route 450 and work to be done on the North Shore Route 440. This is a continuation.

It’s great that everybody in this House is going to be voting for this. We understand the importance of it. We understand why we need the continuation of the services that are being provided now and the work that needs to be done in the future, because if there’s one thing I’m going to continue on – and I have to recognize the Minister of Health and Community Services – there’s one thing I can say about the minister is she’s upfront and honest.

The idea of when the previous government put in 45 beds and everybody knew we needed 90 to100. Everybody knew that but because of the amount of work that needed to be done on the Western Memorial Regional Hospital, the old hospital, it wasn’t done. The minister, to her credit – and I’ll be speaking about this later because I’m hoping that I’ll explain it more to the people of Western Newfoundland and especially the Corner Brook region on why there are no beds being built immediately now is because of the deterioration of the old building.

This is no reflection on anybody. It’s an old building right now and the 45 beds that were put there before, were put in the best part of the section. One of the issues that was brought up – and the minister, again, arranged a briefing with the senior staff to explain to me and give me the briefing notes – is that the kitchen capacity for the Corner Brook Long Term Care facility and the hospital, with the 45 beds that were already established in the old Western, has reached its capacity.

So to put another 45 patients in the old Western Memorial Regional Hospital, long-term care patients, and put 45 more into acute-care beds where they should be, there’s no capacity for provision of food. That’s one of the things.

The roof needs to be done and there are other things in the building that has to be brought up to a certain standard to have done. These funds here will definitely help. These funds will definitely help continue on with this work.

I’ve just got to say that I’ll be supporting this and with the work that is committed by the government for the issues that I’ve been bringing up for the Corner Brook, Humber - Bay of Islands area, they’re in this budget. They’re in this provision here and in the budget itself.

I can only say I support the government on the initiatives that they’re taking, the two major issues health care and housing. They’re being tackled in this bill and in the budget itself so it’s something that I would have to support because that’s the major issues that I heard throughout the election and since the election in October to the present is the emergency department, the health care and housing in Western Newfoundland.

I’ll take my seat, Mr. Chair. I will be voting for this here and I will be supporting this. I look forward to working with the ministers, which I have to say have been very open for having discussions with me on the issues in the Corner Brook, Bay of Islands area, and I look forward to continuing working with the government on the issues pertaining to Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

I thank all those speakers who chimed in on the loan bill. Great job. I just want to highlight a few things before I sit down and conclude the bill.

The Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville slipped out the term sinking funds. I just want to state the sinking funds again, the significance. For the people at home, they’re going to say we’re borrowing $3.9 billion and we’re going to carry that with carrying charges each year. But the sinking fund has been increased by 1 per cent. That does not seem very much.

So instead of 1.5 per cent, it’s 2.5 per cent. But for the people watching at home, the debt this year with that extra percentage on the sinking fund, which is over $200 million that we’re attaching to that debt, once we send out that debt in 30 years, in 23 years, that debt is paid off. Seven years early, that debt is paid off.

The question of the government of the day when that’s paid off, while there’s nothing permanent, our desire would be that that money then would be rolled over to any debt that’s out there without a sinking fund. We look at that as good debt management. It’s too bad we didn’t have 2.5 per cent before and started a little earlier.

So while it’s not what we class to be a very exciting term, but these sinking funds are little munchkins that’s going to destroy that debt over the period of 30 years, like little PAC-MAN that the Deputy House Leader used to – right? Years ago, when he played those little PAC-MAN, that’s destroying the debt. So it’s a good thing.

Remember, the line of credit that we are borrowing for, $800 million, I just want to circle back for those people at home. This was a line of credit that NLHS built up over the previous government, maxed out. They were carrying $20 million a year in interest charges on that. We are borrowing to pay it off, put them back to zero on a line of credit with oversight. We are borrowing that.

I know the Member is asking and wondering about the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro debt. In Consolidated Funds and Finance people asked about that. That was the question that was asked and I know that he’s wondering.

We borrow for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because we get a cheaper rate. We can borrow money cheaper but not an extra dollar of cost we would have to pay for borrowing for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will pay us any administrative costs and with the lower interest, we can access money much more financially better than what they could.

So for those people at home that wonder about that component, we are just borrowing. It inflates our debt. We raised the sinking funds, but we’ve got a $700-million deficit forecasted. If we borrowed for the Future Fund, it would be over $900 million we would have to borrow. We are back to borrowing for the Future Fund. We are going to do it when we get in a cash surplus position.

The Member for Mount Scio, she claimed that it’s a democratic institution, that’s why the investors borrow. She is correct, we are, but there are some other factors as well. We have a very strong economy. Remember, we said 5.5 per cent on the GDP; the next closest, PEI, 2 per cent. The other thing is our debt load. We know the more debt you acquire the less attractive borrowing is going to be for those lending. We have to make sure we get our deficit down, borrow less, use sinking funds to pay off outstanding debt and reduce that debt we’ve got.

The other thing is, we have the federal government. We are a province in the Federation of Canada, which investors look at and say we’ve got the federal government as well with us.

The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands mentioned about the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and the initiatives that were ongoing – wonderful. He also mentioned about our Health Minister and health care on the West Coast and he mentioned about her being passionate. Well, she is indeed passionate, very passionate, very committed and I would think that we ought to see some good things in improving health care under her leadership within that department.

I would thank all Members who spoke on this bill. It was a pleasure to bring it to the House. We need to reduce our borrowing and that is part of our economic plan going forward.

Thank you very much, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province.” (Bill 15)

CLERK (Hawley George): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 6 inclusive.

CLERK: Shall clause 2 through 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province. (Bill 15)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution of Bill 15 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 15.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against.

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Lane): The hon. Member for Placentia West - Bellevue and Deputy Speaker.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

J. WALL: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

CLERK: “

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $3,900,000,000.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

CLERK: “

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $3,900,000,000.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province, Bill 15, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 15, and that the said bill now be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province,” carried. (Bill 15)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province. (Bill 15)

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 15 be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province. (Bill 15)

On motion, Bill 15 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 15 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province. (Bill 15)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 1.

SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m happy to rise to talk about the subamendment in our budget debate today. I think, if I can bring you back to the last time I spoke, I focused pretty much exclusively on my district and some of the key things that were happening in my district, not from a budget perspective, just on the treetops of the exciting people and the things they do and how happy I am to represent the district.

I’m not going to go in that direction today, although I could. There are consistently a significant amount of individuals, just like every district in this province, that do some interesting things that should be highlighted in this House of Assembly from time to time. I think every one of us could probably have a Member’s statement every day, and I think that may be a better use of some time sometimes when the House is not in the best state of mind that we’ve seen from time to time.

I know the Finance Minister feverishly writes whenever someone on this side gets up to speak and is focused completely on that. I will bring us back, I’ll use a word he uses all the time, I’ll harken us back to a time, and it’s a homage to him.

There were three pillars in the PC blue book, which, in normal circumstances, doesn’t necessarily always transfer into ministerial letters or ministerial reports for each department, but, in this case, it did. It’s the first time I’ve seen that translate that way, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It could be a good thing that the entirety of the blue book makes up the ministerial letters and ministerial direction for each of the departments.

They campaigned on lower taxes, better health care and safer communities. I think we’ve heard that. I think the other tag line they say all the time is: for all of us. I think our job, as Opposition, is to highlight where, maybe, they went wrong on those three pillars or not far enough, because I think we can say that they probably accomplished some of those three pillars in the budget, no doubt.

I guess we could say that the budget does reflect all of us. Not every piece and not every person in the province gets benefit from a budget, that’s for sure, but I will say, if you look at an individual district to see how my district has benefited from the budget directly, I can point to a few things where there’s some benefit. There’s no doubt. We’ve talked about the Seniors’ Benefit that will be increased; we talked about some things that would be beneficial, but I’m going to talk about some of the things that were missing. I think the hon. Finance Minister highlighted and alluded to some of that today when we were chatting earlier.

The other side of the House, the government, has talked about lowering taxes. Well, I guess if they’re going to say that was successful, then they would be saying that they lowered the sugar tax. Not exactly what happened; they took the sugar tax from zero to zero, which I guess is maintaining the same level. They didn’t increase it, that’s for sure. The tax on fuel went from 7.5 cents to 7.5 cents reduction, which is better than going up, that’s for sure, and the fees for motor vehicle registration went from $80 to $80. I am happy that they did maintain those. I’m not going to go political with the previous government’s cuts because those were cuts that were made that we were focused on.

One of the other things that I would like to talk about is how they came to their numbers. I think the Finance Minister has, on occasion, over the last couple of weeks, maybe month, talking about the budget, talked about some of the things that led into the budget, which is great. I’ve learned a bit from the Finance Minister based on those things.

One of the things I thought was really interesting was he said that the price per barrel of oil that they used in the budget – which every government has to do, because a significant portion of our revenue in this province comes from oil revenue, non-renewable oil revenue, we’ll talk about that a little bit later too in my conversation.

I will tell the Finance Minister, I do still have another budget speech left and a speech in concurrence that I can go to, so I know how excited he is that he gets to hear that again. I can see him chomping at the bit for that. Maybe the Minister of Education is excited about it as well, he tends to be excited about what I have to say on the Education side.

But one thing about this $72 that was selected –

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s $79.

B. DAVIS: Yes, $79, sorry – is it’s different than what some of those 11 forecasting experts had said they should pick, which is a difference of about $6, I think, is the number that those 11 forecasters, who are very well experienced to take – we’re going to say that the province should do and what many other jurisdictions would follow.

We know that the volatility of the oil markets is changing. I’ll give you a prime example of that. When I stood up to get ready to speak to this a couple of days ago, I did a search, a very quick search to see what Brent crude was trading at the day I was going to stand up and that’s only a couple of days ago. I found it funny when I searched a few minutes ago that it was almost $10 a barrel lower than it was two days ago or three days ago, when I was going to get up and speak on this before. That speaks to the volatility of the oil industry, there’s no doubt.

I’m sure any one of us, if we could pick that with 100 per cent accuracy, we wouldn’t be in this House of Assembly for sure. So, at the time, when it was $110 to $111 a barrel, I think it’s trading at about $98 US per barrel, Brent crude today. If that was the full year – and I know it’s not always done for the full year, but we’ve been consistently now for the past, roughly, since January, in excess of where we budgeted for. I think the Finance Minister can agree with that. It could be $20 here, $15, $30 depending on where we’re to.

If it had stayed at the $110 to $111 for the full fiscal year, from April 1 to March 31, that would equate to somewhere close to $800 million, because for every dollar that there’s a difference between what you budgeted and what it trades for, is a little over $20 million. I always say about $21 million. That’s what Finance Ministers have told me, but it is contingent upon a few different things. Obviously, exchange rate and the price per barrel, of course, and amount of quantity that’s being pumped out of the ground, all those factors, all being equal, it should be around $20 million to $21 million.

With that said, even at $98, it’s about $546 million bigger than budget. I’d like the public to understand that by setting the price at $6 less than what even the forecasters have said, which was still lower than what the market is bearing out right now in front of us, there’s going to be a significant – I don’t like to use the word windfall, but I know my colleagues both from St. John’s Centre and St. John’s East have said that before and I will echo that it would be a significant amount of money, definitely a minimum of $500 million if they stay true at about $98 a barrel but it could go as high as a billion dollars, almost – close to a billion.

I know that we can pivot to talk about a few other things, but that could go a long way into a significant investment into the Future Fund and sinking funds. I’m not opposed to the Finance Minister’s view on sinking funds, I agree. I think we’ve got to move in that direction, too, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can and we have and we will in the future of this province.

I think the public wants us to. I think everyone in the public would say to us that, yes, we should be taking that non-renewable resource revenue that’s not going to be here for future generations, we know that for sure. It may be 40 years from now, maybe 35 years from now, could be 60 years from now, but the world is going to transition from fossil fuels because there will be none of it left. That’s just the nature of what we’re dealing with, with non-renewable resources.

So we should take a little piece of that money and input into a Future Fund for future generations. Other jurisdictions – I’m not going to go through them again because I have done that and I may do that in my second go-through in the next couple of days, but there have been other jurisdictions that seen significant windfalls in there and it helps them weather the storm, whether it’s Alberta or Norway. They’ve seen significant increases and those, just for clarity sake, didn’t start up all that long ago, either, in relative terms to governance.

I do get where the Finance Minister is talking about sinking funds. I think that’s a great investment. I also think borrowing money for a Future Fund is there and that’s where we disagree, but the likelihood of us, hopefully, turning into a have province, again, where we’re taking in more revenue, will come when we sign an MOU and a deal with Hydro-Québec. I encourage the hon. Members on the other side to work as diligently as they can to do that.

Hopefully, it’ll be at least similar, if not better than, the deal that we had with the MOU. I say deal with the MOU because that’s what it is, it’s a deal with a memorandum of understanding that was signed by the previous government to put money into the coffers. There’s gong to be a long road to definitive agreements, which we knew there would be some work done and there would be movement in what the MOU wants. I think the Leader of the Opposition has said, the former premier, that was the riverbanks and it’s true. It’s the riverbanks.

It sets the parameters on where we’re going to go and how we’re going to get there but not necessarily the full path, right? I think that’s an important piece.

I would be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to talk a little bit about health care. I know the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is doing as hard as he can to try to update the venues and the roadwork and all those things, but what I can say is that people who reach out to me from Virginia Waters – Pleasantville, and everywhere in St. John's, for that matter, would love a new hospital. They don’t really mind – I can’t say don’t care because my daughters get mad at me when I say don’t care, but they don’t mind where we would be to. At the end of the day, if it’s not Kenmount Hill, I’m fine.

If it’s out in Galway, I’m fine. I just think we need a new hospital as a people in this province.

We don’t have to look too far because we built one. We built one recently, 160 beds, I think it was and it cost them about $750 million to $800 million in Corner Brook. The one that we would be building for a replacement for St. Clare’s was not going to be a full complex like the Health Sciences. St. Clare’s wasn’t built in a day or in one build; it was built over time. So you build one tower at a cost of, you know, maybe $1 million, maybe $1.5 million, maybe $2 million.

The numbers that are being thrown around of $10 billion to $14 billion is if you build a complex like the Health Sciences or build a full complex like St. Clare’s. We’re talking about a state-of-the-art hospital that will be built in stages.

I listened to the hon. Member, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, when he spoke. He talked very eloquently, as eloquent as he can, about the years that St. Clare’s was being built. It was built in 1939. It was again retrofitted a bit and built onto in 1962 and then 1972 again. So it didn’t happen all overnight, it didn’t happen all in one build, it happened over stages. So that’s what I’d suggest would be an important piece.

But the key piece I think that people don’t talk about enough, about the location of where it was to, was it opens up about 5,000 homes, I think, that could be built in both Paradise, Mount Pearl and St. John’s because that’s where they all meet, which is a very good benefit.

I don’t know if many people are familiar with a 190 contour, but it’s where water flows by gravity, of course, for feeding houses. That’s a problem when you’re up on a high elevation like Galway and like Kenmount Terrace. They’re higher. Airport Heights is a similar problem, that you have to have water towers. A water tower to feed that kind of development would be big. Generally, the municipalities have trouble partnering together to build that because you don’t know when it’s going to be built. It’s going to be a big-ticket item.

So I think this is going to be an opportunity for the municipalities to work very closely with government to deal with that piece, which would help solve a little bit of the housing problem for the Minister of Housing. I think they would appreciate that. I know the young people that live in my district looking for housing would appreciate those as well.

But in addition to that, that’s a good piece as well, but if you just didn’t have that, we’ve got more, Minister, we’ve got more, there was going to be an exchange for moving traffic out of a very problematic Paradise area for moving traffic in and out of. This was going to open up the back end of Paradise to allow it to get onto the Outer Ring Road, take some pressure off Topsail Road and Kenmount Road itself. So that would have been a very positive investment. So I think we’ve got to look at some of those things.

One of the other things I’d like to touch on is, I think someone earlier today said that there were no gaps in the budget or there was nothing – I can’t remember the context, but there were very few people against the budget. I would argue that that’s not entirely factual. There are a couple of facts, like the NLTA said there was significant gaps in the budget with respect to education. They were disappointed that there was no increase to the allocations for school counsellors, instructional resource teachers, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists or other specialized supports.

We all know how important those investments are to our most valuable resource and to the teachers that do that valuable work. I know the Finance Minister cares about teachers, he was one. I know the Member for St. John’s Centre was a teacher. I know the Member for Burin - Grand Bank was a teacher, a former educators. There are probably some others that have done some work in that field as well, but they understand how important it is to put more resources into the classroom, put more resources into support that classroom. I think that’s an issue that needed to be reflected in the budget a little bit more.

MUNFA president said, “the budget does not close the gap on ensuring students can get the courses and supports they need to succeed.” I’ve met with MUNFA on a couple of occasions and they’re very strong on this point. It’s true. There’s a significant amount of opportunity that was missed in the budget to do some of the things that were promised in the blue book, in the ministerial letters, as they call them.

I’d be remiss if didn’t say, being Early Childhood Educators Week, that there was a big miss in there. I know that it’s not easy. I know, I held that chair for a little bit of time; I know it’s not easy. There is a significant amount of push and pull in every department that every minister sits in – every one of them. I don’t envy the job that you have to do