PDF Version

May 7, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 26

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

A point of order.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair on a point of order.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Standing Order 49. Needing the time to review Hansard , this is the earliest opportunity I’ve had to raise it.

Yesterday, during Question Period, the Minister of Energy and Mines, when responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, stated – and I quote – so if he wants to talk about people telling lies, he should have a look in the mirror.

Speaker, this statement implies, especially to the public watching our hon. House proceedings, that our leader is telling lies in this hon. House. This is unacceptable.

There have been multiple rulings on this sort of language in the past, in particular, calling someone a liar either directly or indirectly, and I ask that the minister to apologize and withdraw that statement.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader to the point of order.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

What I would say is, in response to that, in Hansard , I was clearly replying to the Member for Windsor Lake when he said stop saying untrue things. He said it several times during his speech, thus insinuating there was a lie being told and I said if he wants to talk about someone telling lies.

Speaker, it was clearly a response to how it was put forward, but I’ll stand on a point of order, too.

SPEAKER: Okay. First of all, let’s deal with the first point of order.

On the first point of order, as per usual practice, I want to make sure that I review Hansard , the tapes and so on. Everyone’s points will count. I don’t want to make any knee-jerk reactions and decisions.

So I will take that under advisement. I will report back to the Member and to the House on that point of order as soon as I can.

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

L. PARROTT: Point of order, under

section 49, Speaker.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the exchange in Question Period yesterday, the hon. Member for Windsor Lake directed remarks towards me stating that I should do my job, show some credibility and stick to the facts. He also said stop saying untrue things, which is an accusation of a lie.

I submit that these comments go beyond disagreement on the facts and, instead, question my credibility and, by implication, my integrity as a Member of this House, which is contrary to our long-standing parliamentary practice. While strong and energetic debate is expected, Members must refrain from language that questions another Member’s honesty or capacity to perform their duties.

The Member for Windsor Lake, like any other Member, has opportunities to rise in this House and address comments made by other Members to add information or clarify something that may have been said. In the instance where he said I was saying something untrue, he had every opportunity to respond to that.

However, I submit it is unparliamentary to question another Member’s honesty or capacity to perform their duties – do your job, show credibility. I, therefore, ask that you review the remarks in Hansard and request the hon. Member for Windsor Lake to withdraw his comments and unequivocally apologize.

SPEAKER: As with the previous point of order, I will take the matter under advisement, review the tapes, Hansard and so on, discuss with my staff, look at past precedent and so on and I will make a ruling at a later date.

No more points of order?

Today in the public gallery, we have family members of the late Frank Howard, who is the subject of a Member’s statement. I would like to welcome Frank’s sons: Jon, Jordan and Nick Howard, as well as his daughter-in-law Kristy Howard.

Welcome to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we’ll hear Members’ statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Placentia West - Bellevue, Placentia - St. Mary’s, St. George’s - Humber, St. John’s Centre and St. John’s West.

The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

I was honoured to attend the graduation of the 2026 graduating class of Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown which many students attend from the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue. It was also an honour to be joined by my colleague from Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. It was a pleasure to witness the talented performances and inspiring speeches, as they celebrated such a huge milestone in their lives.

It was equally remarkable that this class had to mourn the passing of their classmate, Miley George, who was memorialized in the most respectful manner.

I would like to thank the families, teachers and the community for their continued support, as it was very evident at the ceremony. I would also like to thank Ms. Wendy Mills for the invitation and the opportunity to address the graduates.

This is a remarkable achievement that marks the culmination of years of hard work, dedication and perseverance. Spread your wings and soar towards your dreams and always be proud to call Newfoundland and Labrador your home. Always dream big and make sure that the effort matches the dream you want to pursue.

I ask all hon. Members to please join me in congratulating the 2026 graduating class of Crescent Collegiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, we meet many people throughout our lives. But it is only when we pause and reflect that we recognize those who truly shape our communities. Today I rise to honour one such individual: Mrs. Bernie Schabell of Jerseyside.

Bernie has dedicated decades of her life to serving others. Her contributions span organizations such as Red Cross, Canadian Blood Services, where she has given over 50 years of service, and numerous local groups supporting youth, seniors and families.

Whether volunteering with minor softball and hockey, coordinating tournaments or helping seniors attend appointments and community events, Bernie’s compassion is evident in everything she does. Her contributions have certainly not gone unnoticed.

She is a two-time recipient of the Lions Club Citizen of the Year Award and the Bernard Connolly Memorial Trophy, recognizing her dedication to minor softball. She was also honoured with the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal. Together with her husband, Kenneth, she has been recognized for their outstanding contributions to minor softball throughout our province.

Speaker, Bernie exemplifies the very best of community leadership and quiet kindness, humbly serving others through her everyday actions.

I ask all Members of this House to join me in thanking Bernie Schabell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George’s - Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: Speaker, I rise today to recognize the impactful work of the Andrew Jesso Foundation, an organization built on compassion and legacy.

Established in memory of Andrew Jesso, a young man who was a DJ, ski instructor and reservist. The foundation honours a life tragically lost in a motor vehicle accident in 2022, 20 days shy of his 20th birthday.

Andrew was known for his kindness, fun-loving spirit and deep passion for the outdoors. He was a positive and valued member of Marble Mountain ski school, where he inspired young athletes. Many remember him by his trademark smile and uplifting attitude.

Incorporated as a not-for-profit and led by a volunteer board, the foundation works to remove financial barriers so children and youth can experience the physical and social benefits of skiing and snowboarding. Through its bursary programs, it covers the cost of snow school for children and helps train and employ youth as certified instructors.

Since launching at Marble Mountain in 2022, the foundation has expanded to White Hills and Smoky Mountain supporting approximately 160 children and 30 young instructors.

Speaker, I ask all Members to recognize the Andrew Jesso Foundation for the meaningful difference it’s making across Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Do you ever wonder what you can do with those non-recyclable glass bottles that you chuck into the garbage? Why, turn them into sand and aggregate, of course. That’s the innovative idea behind NewfoundSand Glass Recycling Co-operative. It’s a community-driven, volunteer run and led initiative to transform how we manage waste glass in the province.

NewfoundSand’s elegant solution turns those discarded bottles into high-quality sand and aggregate for use in construction, infrastructure and community projects.

A dedicated team of local professionals, committed to sustainability, innovation and community impact, work together to build NewfoundSand from the ground up.

NewfoundSand is growing and gaining strong support across the province. The College of the North Atlantic has formerly recognized the potential of this initiative for applied research, workforce development and industry collaboration that further strengthens Newfoundland and Labrador’s green economy.

The benefits are clear: reduced landfill pressure, lower transportation emissions and a sustainable alternative to imported aggregate materials while supporting innovation and concrete products, road construction and community development.

NewfoundSand’s practical, forward thinking aligns environmental responsibility with economic growth and showcases the power of volunteer leadership in action.

So please join me in recognizing NewfoundSand’s forward-thinking innovative solution and approach to glass recycling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, I rise to honour the life and legacy of the late Frank Howard, a respected business leader, community builder and proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Frank Howard helped shape the modern retail auto industry in our province. Through his leadership of Capital Auto Group, he built more than a successful business, he created opportunities and supported families.

In 2025, he was honoured with the induction into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame, recognizing his entrepreneurial leadership and community impact. Frank’s impact reached far beyond the showroom floor. Those who knew him best spoke not just of his achievements but his character. His philanthropy left a lasting impact on countless lives through the many local causes he supported. His contributions were not just financial. They reflected a genuine commitment to compassion, dignity and care for others.

Above all, Frank was a committed husband, caring father and doting grandfather whose legacy will live on through those closest to him and the many people he mentored and inspired along the way.

Frank Howard leaves behind a lasting imprint on our province through business, through philanthropy and through the lives he helped uplift. May we all be inspired by his example.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statement by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

C. PARDY: Speaker, on May 4, the federal government launched the 2026 Census, which will survey Canadians to paint a statistical picture of Canada’s diverse population and the places where we live.

All Newfoundland and Labrador households will receive census invitation letters with instructions on how to complete the questionnaire online. Alternate formats of the census, including paper copies, are also available.

It is important that we all take the time to complete the census because an accurate census helps secure vital funding for programs that benefit communities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Funding formulas for major federal transfer payments, like the health and social transfers this province receives, are based in part on population counts.

Further, our population uses census information when planning to support health care, education and social programs.

Speaker, the importance of the census to our country and province cannot be overstated, which is why we urge every resident of Newfoundland and Labrador to participate this month in the 2026 census. People can visit census.gc.ca for more information.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, am pleased to join the minister in highlighting the launch of the 2026 census. Over the coming weeks, residents across this province will receive their census packages in the mail – I picked up mine this morning, very fitting that I had to do this – with alternate formats available to ensure everyone can participate.

Speaker, the census is safe and confidential, and I encourage everyone to take a few minutes to complete it. The results do more than just tell us how many people live in the province. The results help strengthen evidence-based planning.

It is unfortunate the Finance Minister did not have updated census data available when preparing this year’s budget. Without it, he was obviously unable to fully align investments with the needs of our province. This is the important thing about filling out the census.

We encourage everyone to deliver –

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

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I, as well, thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and agree, as the minister has pointed out, census data is invaluable to us when we decide when and where to invest, like in this year’s budget, but that’s the key word: investment. All the information in the world isn’t worth a row of beans if we don’t use it.

We once again call on this government to redouble its efforts to be up front and clear about the choices it makes in areas like roadwork, to make decisions based on need rather than the party stripe of their MHA.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the Newfoundland and Labrador’s annual Art and Letters Awards.

On April 17, at The Rooms, artists from across the province were recognized, with over $47,000 awarded across literary, music and visual arts categories.

Awards included junior and senior winners, five recipients in the one-time HERSTORY Empowers category and 16 visual artists selected for exhibition.

With 507 entries submitted for the 2026 program, participation was strong and reflected the strength of the arts community.

Speaker, I am also pleased to congratulate Paul Whittle, who received the Percy Janes First Novel Award, the program’s top prize, for his novel Sunflower .

First launched in 1952, the Arts and Letters Awards have long supported both emerging and established artists. The 2027 awards will mark the 75th anniversary for the Arts and Letters Awards program. I would like to encourage artists of all ages and all stages to create works for submission in the significant year ahead.

I encourage Members of this hon. House and the public to visit The Rooms, where the Arts and Letters exhibition will be open to visitors until May 18.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

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

I’m pleased to recognize the outstanding talent celebrated at the 75th anniversary of the Arts and Letters Awards. This program remains one of the most important cultural pillars in our province.

With 507 entries, this year alone, it’s clear that artists from every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to see this competition as a meaningful and respected platform for their work. And with more than $47,000 in awards distributed, the program provides real, tangible support to emerging and established artists.

A special congratulations to Paul Whittle, winner of the Percy Janes First Novel Award for Sunflower , to the five recipients in the HERSTORY Empowers category and to the16 visual artists selected for exhibition.

Speaker, programs like this succeed because of institutions such as The Rooms with their exhibitions and our many provincial historic sites which preserve and promote the culture –

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

B. FORD: – that art is built upon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

I, too, want to thank the organizers of that wonderful ceremony and congratulate all the worthy recipients, and notably Paul Whittle.

As a former Arts and Letters recipient in visual arts, I am keenly aware that artists cannot live on awards alone. They need financial support to live. That is why we call on government to reinstate the 2024 Year of the Arts grant funding so that more artists can devote more of their time to creating the masterpieces we all enjoy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

This week is Emergency Preparedness Week.

Being prepared for emergencies is one of the most effective ways we can protect our families, homes and communities. It can make all the difference when it matters most.

Our government is committed to supporting emergency services and resources across this province. Through Budget 2026 , we are investing over $7 million in new funding for emergency services equipment, supplies, staffing, volunteer firefighting training and resources.

Speaker, I encourage residents to prepare an emergency plan and a kit that can support you for at least 72 hours in the event of an emergency. Information and resources are available through the provincial Be Prepared website.

From Hurricane Igor to the floods in Badger, Snowmageddon to the devastation of the 2025 wildfire season, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians has faced many emergency events that have tested our people across the province.

Speaker, I would like to thank all the first responders, volunteers, public servants and others who play a huge role in preparing for and responding to emergencies.

Together, through planning and investments, our province will be better prepared for whatever challenges may come our way.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I also thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Emergency Preparedness Week is an important reminder that readiness is one of the strongest tools we have to protect our families and communities. In a province that has faced hurricanes, wildfires, flooding and severe winter storms, being prepared is essential.

Speaker, while this year’s budget includes funding for volunteer firefighting gear, we continue to hear from communities that pressures on emergency services are growing. Departments are dealing with rising costs and recruitment challenges, which require a sustained commitment to ensuring that front-line responders have what they need.

Despite these pressures, our emergency responders continue to show extraordinary dedication. Firefighters, paramedics, search and rescue teams and volunteers step up each and every time our province is tested. Emergency Preparedness Week is an opportunity to thank them and to recognize their service.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We also recognize and thank our first responders, public servants and volunteers for their commitment and bravery.

As the minister stated in Estimates this week, we’ve been warned by Mother Nature and we must also take action to combat climate change. The choice is ours. Either we invest now, mitigate and prevent the worst disasters, or we pay much more down the road to repair the damage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier only revealed he had hired two people with close ties to his party to review an MOU that’s already been reviewed after questions this week from the Opposition and from the media.

He doesn’t know how much they’re being paid and said in the media yesterday that they’re actually reviewing definitive agreements, and those agreements don’t even exist, Mr. Speaker.

Is this why the Premier hid his secret appointments for months?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’m glad to hear the Member opposite talk about definitive agreements and none of them exist, which he’s absolutely right.

They were not doing a review of definitive agreements. They are talking about reviewing exactly the work of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the work that has gone on prior to any MOU being prepared. That’s what they were focused on, and they’re also making sure that we can turn around and use the report –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – that will be issued on May 19, reviewing it for the technical and legal issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

Well, I wonder why the Premier would say that they were reviewing definitive agreements and other things if they don’t exist, because they don’t.

Yesterday, in Question Period, the Premier actually said – quote – this is not about disclosure, which is a little bit funny because they ran on transparency.

Now, as alarming as that is, we shouldn’t be surprised. He won’t disclose his advisors. He won’t disclose the full Bay du Nord agreement.

What else is the Premier hiding about the MOU?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me be perfectly clear, I haven’t hidden nothing. There are lots of people who get employed in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador every single day.

If you want to talk about hiding stuff, let’s talk about the Member opposite and his record as a Minister of the Crown, when he turned around and signed a $21-million lease without going to tender to one of his Liberal friends; when he turns around and sells land for less than it’s worth; when he turns around and buys land for more than it’s worth without ever getting appraisals on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: This is the record of that particular Member opposite. We will not do that. We never have. I said I would do an independent review. We’ve done an independent review and it will be released on May 19.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, Jerome Kennedy, Natural Resources minister for Muskrat Falls, when it went through at that time, claimed – and this is hilarious – Muskrat Falls would pay for itself. He actually said that. Now we’re actually paying $500 million a year to keep power prices from doubling as a result.

Bern Coffey was a Conservative staffer, paid also by the Conservatives, to criticize the deal.

Mr. Speaker, other than the Muskrat Falls boondoggle, what experience does either Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Coffey have in negotiating or reviewing hydroelectric deals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I would say they have got a lot more experience negotiating deals than he does, according to what he did with the hotel.

Speaker, let’s be clear. This has been said a thousand times. There would be no conversation around Gull Island, had there not been a Muskrat Falls. The only way to get to Gull Island is by Muskrat Falls being constructed.

The Members opposite failed in execution during the construction phase. If they were so against it, they had the opportunity to cancel the contract in 2015 when they got elected. Thay had every opportunity to fix the things that they say are wrong. They just made them worse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Premier and the minister talk to the people who transitioned out of the hotel where they were getting the help they needed because they were homeless and are no longer homeless. I would say that it was a pretty good deal for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: Speaker, why does the Premier feel he needs to hire two more advisors and negotiators when Danny Williams has already said that the deal is dead? We all know that Mr. Williams is calling all the shots on the eighth floor when it comes to the MOU.

If the Premier disagrees, will he explicitly stand in this House today and say that Danny Williams was wrong when he said he killed the deal?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I will do and stand in this House today – everyone is entitled to their opinion. That’s a fact. So I’m not going to argue with anybody or disagree about somebody who makes an opinion. Even the Members opposite are entitled to their opinion.

Let me tell you one thing. We have a vision for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: We have a vision where we want this province. Not simply to be a province where people come from, they come to. We want this to be a province where people live, not leave. We are going to satisfy that vision by making sure that we develop the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador in a way that the primary beneficiary is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, if their vision is – one of the first things they’re going to do – cancel the Future Fund, they should change their motto from “for all of us” to “God help all of us.”

So let’s get this straight. There’s a minister who’s advising people to sue her own government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

F. HUTTON: – if they can’t get health care; another minister who’s blaming people for having expectations that are too high when it comes to snow clearing; we have a part-time political advisor getting $275,000 from MCP; and now you’re bringing back the class of 2010 to run it all.

Speaker, it’s concerning and people want to know who is really in charge.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the wannabe leader of the Opposition that Premier Tony Wakeham is in charge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: And if we didn’t have to go back and get people from – do you know why we have to get people from 2010? Because the last 10 years have been a disgrace to this province. It’s left us in a mess with health care. It’s left us –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – in a mess with building trades. It’s left us in a mess economically, financially, from a social standpoint, every single failure –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – that could have happened, happened, and the only people that are happy in the last 10 years are their Liberal buddies who got all the jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

On budget day, the minister was frustrated with Premier Tony Wakeham –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: Two sides can play if the rules are fair – and her government for failure to provide the care that the people needed.

I’m hearing from people who are asking now that this was raised and she asked people to sue her government – what concrete measures has she negotiated from the Premier since she made those comments and will the budget be updated to reflect those results?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I want to talk about misinformation. I am going to just read from Hansard now, Thursday, April 30.

The Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair said: “The budget cuts the Air Access Pilot Program for Labrador and the Northern Peninsula. They’ve cut it from almost $6 million a year down to just $2.7 million.”

In actual fact, it wasn’t $6 million. That’s inaccurate. It was actually $3.5 million annualized, Speaker, and they didn’t even spend that.

For me, what’s going to be in the budget? Because I was taken out of context, there’s the illusion that myself and the Premier had a rift and me and my caucus had a rift, Speaker. In actual fact, I said at the beginning I have solutions. I’m going to put solutions in place –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, the Labrador air access p rogram put in place by the Liberal administration, $3.5 million. In the blue book, they promised to scrap it and come with something better. They cut it down to $2.7 million; the rest of it is the exact same. Another promise made, promise broken.

The government’s investment in MRIs and other equipment is a start, but radiologists are already struggling to run the equipment they have had to their full capacity because of lack of staff. These medical radiation technologists are as important as the equipment, yet the only mention of recruitment in the budget is for doctors and nurses.

What is the minister’s plan to recruit and retain other critical staff?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I don’t think in the blue book we wrote that we were going to scrap the air access program. Scrap it, Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: What we were saying was we were going to make more affordable travel for people of Newfoundland and Labrador and especially when we’re looking at Labrador, Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: The air access program provides two subsidized tickets to residents of Labrador. It does nothing to address the high cost. In actual fact, we are continuing the pilot program to allow people to be able to access these two tickets while we actually come up with solutions to bring down the cost for real – for real, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, no answer on the equipment. That’s a question we’re getting a lot of feedback on, an important question. So I’ll switch to another topic.

Speaker, allNewfoundlandLabrador has reported that there will be significant cuts coming at the IOC mine in Lab West, the decommissioning of drilling machinery, parked other equipment and cancelling the purchase of new equipment.

What can the minister tell us about these cuts to a vital part of Labrador’s economy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

A very important asset to this province, and during the last 10 years, while IOC was high grading –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – and they were not utilizing the mine in the way it should have been because of oversight from this group of people over here who never oversaw the mine, they’re in a situation now where they have to make up for it and readjust. That is exactly what they do.

We have talked to them on a very regular basis. They’re coming here to meet with us on May 19. We have been helping them through the way, and we will continue to help them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, it’s really frustrating when you ask a decent question and you can’t get a decent answer without them going down in the basement.

We were well on the way with the MOU. What Lab West needs is the opportunity for more growth, and that was in the form of an MOU which would have delivered more electricity.

Mr. Speaker, what has IOC told the minister about the need for more electricity in Labrador West? Not just for IOC, but for other operations who desperately need more power but see the potential slipping away as this government clearly does not want to proceed with the MOU, which included a plan to deliver four times more power to electricity for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my old house, below the basement, there was a cellar, so we’ll go down to the cellar this time where they’ve been living since this House opened.

They know exactly when it comes to power for Labrador West. They know this because they heard it for 10 years. For 10 years, they were told.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: Instead of coming up with the proper plan for the residents of Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – all of Labrador, they signed an MOU –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – that has no foresight into the future, that will not deliver the power requirements and needs for anyone to do the things in Labrador that has to be done.

IOC talks to us on a regular basis, as does Kami, Tata, Tacora, Iron Bear. They know when they’re ready to build, they will have electricity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

The Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is expected to remain closed until the end of the week due to a shortage of sheriff’s officers, while the Provincial Court in Wabush is also closed. The minister and her working group have stated multiple times that more sheriff’s officers are needed.

Why was there no support for sheriff’s officers in their very first budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I can say, first of all, that any decisions that are made with respect to operational or scheduling matters in the courts is entirely within the purview of the courts. They are independent and, therefore, I cannot comment on that.

But I am glad that the Member opposite brought up the issue of the budget. It gives me great pleasure to mention the significant investments that this government has made in terms of modernizing our justice system, which is now in a new era of justice in Newfoundland and Labrador and we’re really looking forward to the improvements we’re going to make.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Another promise made, another promise broken, unfortunately.

Speaker, we know that Member said something differently when she was on this side of the House. It’s all about the political will.

With both Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush affected this week, can the minister guarantee that there will not be more court closures elsewhere in the province, and does she expect any further court closures in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush after May 8?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I have to say, over the last number of days in Question Period, with respect to questions that we have received regarding the budget, it is very disappointing, and I can say that it also saddens me, because we are not getting a complete and balanced perspective with respect to key facts in our budget.

That gives a misleading impression to the public. When you are omitting important facts like that, the public are not made aware of the good things as well. I think it’s incumbent on any Member opposite –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: They have a responsibility to the people that they represent to present an objective and neutral portrayal, at least, of what’s being done.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Well, I’m sorry that the minister doesn’t like the line of questioning, but the facts are the facts. There was nothing for sheriff’s officers. We know that they are an essential part to the justice system and advise you to go back to the drawing board and reconsider the budget on what you’ve done.

SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

P. PARSONS: Speaker, why was the minister not being accurate in Estimates about not terminating any employees in her department without cause when we know, in actual fact, there were people let go without cause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Again, Speaker, I can say that this Member opposite has a pattern; she has a pattern of asking questions that she knows very well that we cannot answer, especially when it comes to a HR issues. That would be completely inappropriate for me as a minister or any minister to comment on in terms of privacy issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So, really, shame on the Member opposite –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: – for asking such inappropriate questions. She certainly is exhibiting a pattern for this. It should stop, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t think the Member was asking to disclose who, I say to the minister.

I say to the Premier, this question I’m going to ask is not my opinion, it is the voice of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve had many people in my district that are upset that the former premier is claiming he killed the Churchill Falls deal, which is important to them, and the fact that that former premier is saying more about the deal than the current Premier – the same minister who delivered the Muskrat Falls burden on the people of the province, Jerome Kennedy along with Bern Coffey, who had already called the MOU a mistake.

Why is the Premier surrounding himself with partisan, outspoken critics –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: – and not the independent experts, like he promised?

Maybe the Minister of Health would like to answer.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people in this province voted us in based on their fallacies about the MOU. The people of this province voted us in because they trusted us to deliver for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the right deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Not just a deal that got pulled out of the clouds, like everything else they’ve done. No consultation, nothing. Speaker, we will deliver the best deal for this province.

I would say to the Member across, in the last seven months, I haven’t heard from him about the MOU. He hasn’t written my office and asked any questions nor has anyone from his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. LOVELESS: Maybe we don’t write him because we don’t get answers. The hon. Member across the way, he preaches relevance. Well, every answer he gives to every question is not even relevant to the question that’s being asked, I say to the Member.

Speaker, this week the Premier is saying nothing and doing nothing on a $225-billion opportunity for our province. When he announced his bias panel in December, he said they would table a report on April 30. Now he claims he needs more time, yet again.

We know the Premier doesn’t believe deadlines exist because he said it right here, but why is he not meeting his own deadlines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you what now, when they were in government, I had Members from his own Cabinet and caucus come to me and say that he didn’t answer their messages or phone calls – not even answer to his own people. But I will go back and I will say something to you about this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: Speaker, 173 days is how long the former premier was in office. The MOU was signed last December. This November is when they left office and guess how many –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – definitive agreements they had signed? Not one. Now, they’re here trying to say that they would have had it done by April 30 and met deadlines. Their own independent panel said it could not be done. So maybe they should take the advice of the people they hired and listen to them because they don’t listen to the public.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, residents in St. John’s West were alarmed to hear that a young man was attacked by as many as 10 individuals and beaten with weapons and chains leaving him hospitalized with serious injuries.

People are asking how violence of this extent is happening in our communities and wondering what immediate action is this government taking to address the rise in serious violent crime and assaults?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I can say, first of all, that public safety is a priority for our government. The Premier spoke earlier about the vision that our government has and part of that vision is to create a safer community for everyone who’s here, and we are intending to do that.

We are showing that by some of the investments, first of all, that we’ve made – significant, historic investments – in justice in our province. We’ve never seen this before to this extent. That is a commitment, that is our priority and we’re going to honour those commitments. We have shown that we’ve done that already by looking at the investments we’ve made in the budget.

There’s much more to come in terms of legislative reform as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: The RNC themselves said that 21 new RNC officers is insufficient to reach the national average for officers per capita.

Speaker, this was not a minor altercation. Reports allege a coordinated assault involving multiple individuals and weapons.

Does the Minister of Justice and Public Safety believe her level of policing, prevention and intervention resources in St. John’s is sufficient to deal with the increasingly violent incidents such as this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you so much, Speaker.

Our government has invested in this budget. We have invested in our police officers. We’re providing 21 new RNC officers, as well as –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Who wants their mic cut for the day?

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: – 25 new RCMP officers. In fact, last month, I was able to attend the graduation ceremony. We saw 18 new RNC officers.

I’ve also met with the RNCA president, Staff Sergeant Mike Summers, and we are working with them to discuss how we can support the officers going forward who keep our communities safe.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

The Minister of Tourism has stated Newfoundland and Labrador will be the tourism capital of Canada. However, tourism operators say high operating costs threaten affordability.

What is her plan to keep tourism experiences accessible for families and profitable for businesses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: Speaker, I’d like to thank the Member opposite for the question,

Our government is committed to what we said in the blue book. We said that we are focused on making Newfoundland and Labrador the capital of tourism in Canada. We have a vision. We have a plan for that and I guess you’re going to have to stay tuned.

I will say that we do have the lowest gas tax in Canada, so that helps. We also have a decrease in small businesses at 5 per cent –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. BARBOUR: – and we also have the personal exemption for taxes up to $15,000.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, a CBC story this week detailed the difficulties and uncertainty that skyrocketing fuel prices are creating heading into peak tourism season. Yet, the Conservatives kept the gas tax the same. Tourism operators are now being forced to change how they run tours just to save fuel.

Does the Minister of Tourism see this as sustainable, or a sign that more intervention is needed from the Department of Tourism?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, my hon. colleague has stated that we have the lowest gas tax in the country. We do appreciate that there are pressures out there because of the elevated price of gas in our province. We are aware of that. Thus, the Premier has committed that we’re going to keep an eye on affordability and we’re going to address in the near future.

I want to address one thing. The Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair said decent questions. The only thing I would say, if I were an administrator for Clarenville Middle School and this was the class, I would say I’d probably need three extra teachers in that class to make sure the learning occurs. Case in point – case in point.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish he’d start schooling his own people instead of trying to school us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, last night in Estimates –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. DAVIS: – the minister was asked if he would continue the vital work of the ministerial committee on anti-racism. His answer was he’d check on it. Speaker, this is not about politics. It’s not about who started what. It’s a matter of fundamental justice.

I ask the minister today: Will you commit right now to keeping this committee in place? Yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, our government is not driven by rhetoric. We walk the walk. With regard to hatred, hate speech, there is zero – zero – tolerance across this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Our government is fully committed to ensure that every Newfoundlander and Labrador, including newcomers, feel safe, feel welcome and have a platform for respectful speech.

With that, we are also engaging across the –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Government announced $31.1 million over three years to construct new public housing. We estimated $250,000 per unit. The Minister of Housing says some could be as low as $160,000. Local housing advocate Hope Jamieson notes that current construction costs are about $350,000 per door.

I ask the Premier: How has government arrived at $31.1 million as the right size to solve our housing crisis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We are certainly looking at housing for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are doing that with our data that we do have and the bills that we have allotted for certain areas.

He speaks of the Metro area here in St. John’s. We’re looking right across the province, Speaker, and we’re looking at the different type of builds and how they can best serve the people of our province. I cannot put a dollar figure on it per unit right now because we’re going from microhomes to one bedroom to two bedroom to apartment buildings to quadplexes.

Speaker, we are looking for all options to best serve the people of the province, and we’ll certainly deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Author the Reverend Maggie Helwig says that “we have chosen, as a society, to set social assistance rates at a fraction of what we acknowledge is necessary to survive ….” Local advocate Hope Jamieson says, “providing people what is well-known to be a substandard amount of money to account for the cost of living is an intentional policy choice .”

So I ask the Premier: Why is his government choosing to keep social assistance at a fraction of what is necessary to survive?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It’s very important, when we have to serve the people of our province, the most vulnerable that we serve, we are looking at all options, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at the income support.

Right now, we have many affordability plans in our current budget to help the people of our province, but we are certainly looking at all options, including what the Member opposite said with respect to basic income. We are looking at our income support levels, Speaker.

I and my department and all of my staff are certainly doing what we can to help the people of this province, and we will certainly deliver the best that we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, a former RNC officer has opened up about her experience describing “a workplace rife with misogyny, organizational failures in training, governance, and leadership, which deprioritized mental health support for members.”

This is not the first time these systemic issues have been raised; they even led to a workplace review completed in 2022.

So I ask the minister: What is your plan, aside from a much-needed, independent civilian-led oversight board, to combat these systemic issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I can say it is important to talk about the civilian-led oversight board. Our government is committed to strengthening this model of police oversight. That is important because we need to have a more transparent and independent framework.

I am looking forward to introducing, as well, though, reform, in terms of legislation, in the fall. I’ve been working with the Policing Transformation Working Group on this in terms of a new police act. We will implement a stronger model of oversight and that will include new legislation that will establish a better oversight model in our province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

We know that police work is hard on officers’ mental health. The 2022 RNC Workplace Review highlights the need for more mental health supports for officers, citing that the government EAP program worked, but they had a hard time due to the limits placed on the number of sessions provided.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour has consistently called for stronger mental health supports for first responders and all workers.

I ask the minister: What will you do to ensure officers and civilian workers at the RNC can access mental health help when they need it?

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I can say that, with respect to wellness of officers, it’s very important and it’s a priority for us to ensure that when officers go to work every day, that they have that state of well-being. That is very important.

I have had discussions with leadership of the RNC and the RCMP with respect to ensuring that is a priority for them as well. I can say that we cannot direct the operations but we can work with them in terms of service deliver. We have had discussions and it’s very important to continue to do that.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act , I am tabling three orders in council relating to funding precommitments for fiscal years 2026-27 to 2030-31.

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to provide an answer to a question that was asked a short time ago in Question Period.

From a question I had stated that if this were a class in Clarenville Middle School, I would need three teachers for learning. The next part, I would like to qualify why I would say such a thing in the House of Assembly, and that was from my hon. colleague from Gander’s question that she had on the gas tax.

When we stand in the House of Assembly, I think there’s an expectation that what is stated is accurate. Case in point would be, we spent two days – two days – debating the Future Fund. When the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island would stand up and says we are cancelling the Future Fund. We are not cancelling the Future Fund. That is incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Read it in Hansard . We are not cancelling the Future Fund. Without getting into anymore details because after two days of debate, we ought to know the difference.

The Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair stands up and says we are scrapping the Air Access Program. We are not scrapping the Air Access Program. Check in Hansard to see.

Then the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave says –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would say to the minister, I’m not sure that these were questions that were asked.

I would ask that you proceed quickly.

C. PARDY: Thank you.

The last one, the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave would say, another promise made, another promise broken.

From the question that was from my answer that was provided to the Member for Gander, I would say 80 per cent of the promises in the campaign in our blue book were honoured in the budget – 80 per cent. So three incorrect statements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appreciate the minister wanting to provide clarity, but I will say that I am going to have a look at exactly how this

section of proceedings is meant to operate, because it’s not something that we get a whole lot, so that we’re sure that we’re all on the same page of exactly how this part of procedure is supposed to be utilized.

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Standing Order 49, I just can't sit and have myself misquoted 10 minutes after I said something. I said it in Hansard this morning. It’ll be on record in Estimates.

I never said you’re scrapping the Air Access Program. I said the blue book said we’re going to scrap the Liberal Air Access Program and we’re going to come up with something better.

We put $3.5 million in; you put $2.7 million. Everything else that was complained about is no good, it is the exact same with a lot less money. That’s what I said. The blue book says we’re going to scrap it, we’re going to do better, but it was another promise made, promise broken.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

There’s no point of order. It’s a disagreement amongst Members.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to recognize that the people who have presented the petition are here in the gallery today. I am honoured, as the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi, to table the petition: Protect 34 Battery Road (Limeville) from Development.

These are the reasons for this petition:

Developers have proposed to build a subdivision on two parcels of land situated at 34 Battery Road and Cabot Avenue, formerly known as Limeville.

Thirty-four Battery Road is a Southcott-style second empire historic property that has not been designated or registered as heritage, although it was built in 1870 and survived the Great Fire of 1892.

If built, this subdivision will fundamentally alter the character and irrevocably destroy the heritage landscape and green space of The Battery and Signal Hill neighbourhood.

Preserving built heritage and culturally significant natural landscapes is crucial to Newfoundland and Labrador’s tourism economy.

Signal Hill National Park has 750,000 visitors each year, while 85,000 walk through The Battery and the North Head Trail – including myself.

Therefore, we, the undersigned call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to declare this property to be a Provincial Historic Site under the Historic Resources Act .

I so table the petition.

Speaker, if I could just have a moment to speak about this, I had the great pleasure of attending the first of probably many marches that not only the nearby residents and the neighbours of the area, but people who are concerned about the historic preservation, the cultural conservation, the tourism industry, the cultural identity that we are continuing to chip away at in not only the City of St. John’s, but in our entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Until we actually become much more aggressive and proactive on supporting our tourism industry and this particular area, which is incredibly significant for the amount of tourism that goes through that area, the people are being very, very vocal about the fact that we need help. Not just from the City of St. John’s, but we need it from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So that is why the prayer of the petition is asking TCA to look at making the property a provincial historic site under the Historic Resources Act before we lose all that draws people here and for our own benefit and our cultural identity.

Thank you so much.

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I stand on a petition – I forgot them the last few days. But when I was travelling around Labrador, every town I went, they were passing me signed petitions.

Speaker, this one is on the Labrador South Health Centre.

WHEREAS the Labrador South Health Centre is the only health centre serving the entire district; and

WHEREAS the Health Centre currently has no doctor on site and no X-ray or laboratory technician.

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 prioritize returning those services to the Labrador South Health Centre.

Speaker, somebody watching, who is a PC supporter, might say you had 10 years – because I’ve had that. I got one real huge one, in particular, in the area. But I will tell you that what I get up on in petitions on the Health Centre every day are concerns that have happened in 2026: the loss of a lab tech; the loss of an X-ray; CBC machine down since the 19th of March; INR was ongoing, still not fixed. I was told by the former COO on the 31st of January in a meeting that that was ready to be fixed.

I’m just going to read into the record – I’m getting many, many, many emails, but a young constituent on a cancer journey sent me this email. They said: Seriously, we have a clinic and to see it spiralling downward is horrible. The Teladoc on Tuesday must have thought, where in the name of God do we live? He asked for CBC blood work and it was said, sorry, we can’t do that.

Then he asked for another type of blood work and, again, was told, sorry, we can’t do that. Then he said, well, can you do an X-ray to see if the tube is dislodged? It won’t tell me if it’s blocked, but it will give me some idea. Again, the nurse said, sorry, we can’t do that.

This individual goes on to say, as long as I can remember, growing up here, we could do an X-ray and the simple blood work, so what is the problem? Why can’t that unit that’s needed here do the blood work in Forteau?

If the one there was not working, why hasn’t it been replaced? Simple. But instead, now, when you go to Forteau with an issue, you have to get medevaced out. And what’s the cost of that?

I’m hearing that repeatedly. I was just in the Labrador Straits. I was at an event last weekend, Saturday night, with 225 people and there was almost as many health stories about the downward spiral in the last few months. It’s my job. I have a responsibility to be the voice to those people that hired me, again. I know the Minister of Health, I will say when she says she wants better health care, I believe her.

We got to continue to push. I don’t know where the problem is. Is it at the health authority level? I’m going to continue because we’ve got to move to a better place. To the Finance Minister, it’s going to save you money when we can get a few pieces of equipment in there because we won’t be medevacing people out.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

L. STOYLES: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for and the background for this petition:

WHEREAS blood services are currently by appointment only; and

WHEREAS seniors and patients with disabilities may not have access to computers or the ability to book appointments online; and

WHEREAS seniors and patients with disabilities are forced to use a telephone service to book appointments, and the phone booking service often has long wait times and frequently results in the calls being dropped after waiting a long time;

THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring back drop-in services at least one day a week for blood collections.

Speaker, first, I want to thank the front-line workers for all they do, and they’re only following policy. I get many, many calls in my district from seniors and people with disabilities, especially a lot of people with brain injuries who find it very difficult. They can’t book online. Some people have no email address.

They’ve called for help to get back in the system to get their services back online; they can’t navigate the computer system. To call and book by appointments – I know my CA, yesterday alone, spent three hours on the phone booking appointments for seniors. I have a lot of seniors in my district and they’re finding it very difficult.

If it’s an emergency and urgent is put on the slip, apparently, they can go and they will be looked after right away, but these are routine blood work. They feel that they could always go to the clinic and get the blood work done. Sometimes they go and the people working on the front lines, the lab technicians and the people taking blood, are saying we have to follow policy. If we do you, today, we’re breaking our policy.

Sometimes they do sneak somebody in and do it, but they say you have to book an appointment. It’s not fair to the seniors in this province who worked their whole life to spend hours and hours on the phone trying to book just to get blood work.

So I’m urging the government to look at this and have a second look and let the people who need it the most, the seniors in our province and the people with disabilities, be able to go and book their appointments, walk in and get their blood work done within a few minutes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Orders of the Day.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, Order 3.

SPEAKER: Order 3.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Whole to consider Bill 12.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and that this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

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.

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’re now considering Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Children's Law Act and the Family Law Act.” (Bill 12)

CLERK (Hawley George): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party and the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: I think I was in the middle of my questions when we adjourned the last so I just want to finish them, if possible. Not that I may have anything, really, to add to it but I’m going to ask the question, for sure.

Under clause 12,

section 39.3, duties of the court. I think that’s on page 21. How will the sharing of emergency protection orders and other court orders be accessed and shared between the Provincial and the Supreme Courts? Who will be responsible for obtaining the records?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: First of all, thank you for the questions. I’d just like to provide some background, first, if I may, with respect to

section 39.3, the duties of the court. Again, this is a new section. It’s added to the Children’s Law Act to align with the Divorce Act . This sets out the duties of the courts in regard to parenting proceedings.

The amendment aims to improve coordination and communication among various legal proceedings. Then it goes forward to outline what some of those legal proceedings would be. For example, to properly consider any issue, it’s clear that the court must be aware of all relevant information. So whatever court orders, legal orders that are out there or proceedings involving the parties, it is important for the court to be able to consider those. That’s what this amendment does.

This particular amendment changes – and it’s drafted in three categories. It’s drafted in a civil protection, is one, child protection and criminal. I think that the Member was asking me, particular, about protection orders, proceedings related to orders made to protect a person’s safety. For example, a civil protection order limiting contact between family members can be relevant for the court to know about when the court considers a parenting matter or how the parties are to provide up-to-date information to one another.

So that’s one of the important categories, but there’s also the child protection category and that talks about proceedings or other measures taken or orders that may be made in the context of child protection proceedings. That also can be relevant to the determination of parenting matters. I’m just summarizing the section, just for the benefit of clarification.

Then criminal as well. The court must be aware of any pending or existing criminal matters or criminal proceedings or any criminal orders or any undertakings or any recognizance or any kind of matters or orders like that that could be potentially relevant.

I’ll give an example of that. It would be, say, a criminal court can order that an accused has no contact with a specific person for a specified period.

Hopefully, that provides some clarification, but just to directly answer your question, it would be up to the courts and each party, whether they have a legal advisor, that person would be responsible for raising any concerns in regard to that.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I guess that’s where I’m going with it. I can go there from a school point of view in terms of trying to make sure that you had the records from other schools and so on and so forth. If I understood the response correctly, it would be up to the various parties involved to make sure. But I guess there’s no coordination effort. I would assume that whoever the legal, or whatever for the parents, they would be responsible each for them. But things can get by, I guess. That’s what I’m looking at.

I think when you were talking there, how will this legislation ensure that courts are aware, that they have all the information? I would assume the communication is not as easy as it might seem.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I think that’s a fair question because that is obviously a concern, that the court has all of the relevant information.

I would say that the court has the duty, as well as legal advisors. They would have that responsibility. So, yes, each party is responsible for providing the evidence. That is their duty as a legal advisor, whether it’s a legal advisor, and it’s the court’s duty to examine and ensure that there’s adequate search in place to make sure that they have all of the relevant information before them.

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

J. DINN: Would you envision, or do you think, let’s say the courts because each person would have their own resources, but if the court has that duty as well, would this require then the courts to have maybe additional staff to make sure of that, because now it seems to be putting that onus on them as well, or is sufficient staffing there already?

I just see this as, someone has to do it, someone has to be responsible for it. I can see this being a challenge as well. So I’m just curious, do you envision the court system needing more people?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: It’s my understanding that in consultations prior to this legislation, the courts have stated that they can operationalize these changes within the existing resources that they have. So to answer your question and to provide that reassurance, there are no concerns in that matter.

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

J. DINN: Thank you.

Clause 14,

section 41(9) enforcement of access is on page 24. The current act states, an application, for enforcement of access, “shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only, unless the court gives leave to file an affidavit.” The bill amends this

section to say, the application “shall be determined on the basis of affidavit evidence only, unless the court allows a party to proceed in another manner.”

The question is – well it may not be that simple – what’s the reason for that change?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’m just identifying, so this is under enforcement of parenting time or contact for

section 41(9).

The previous legislation indicated – I just want to clarify that I have the – the “application shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only, unless the court gives leave to file an affidavit.” But under this current

section it indicates that: The application shall – which is mandatory directive language – “be determined on the basis of affidavit evidence only, unless the court allows a party to proceed in another manner.”

Basically, it looks like this, I can say that this is aligning with the federal legislation. With respect to the policy rationale, I may have to get clarification on that. Those changes to the Divorce Act were made and this is legislation which is mirroring that but, essentially, it’s reworded. That’s my understanding; it’s just reworded.

But it’s just to align with the federal legislation. It’s not my understanding that there’s any significant change. I’ll have to clarify that from the oral evidence to the affidavit evidence. I just want to be 100 per cent sure about that, so I will clarify that for you.

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

J. DINN: This is

section 41(14) and it’s on page 25. The current act states: “Subsections (1) and (5) do not apply in respect of orders made under the Divorce Act … or a predecessor of that Act.”

This provision has not been included in this bill. When I first went looking for that, I couldn’t find the section (14), but that is not included there. I’m just wondering why that was not included in this bill. Why is that?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I just want to clarify, so you’re looking at the old section. The current

section of the Children’s Law Act , the two subsections (14) and (15) which are not present in the proposed amendments that we are putting forward.

So I’m just looking at this: “Subsections (1) and (5) do not apply in respect of orders made under the Divorce Act … or a predecessor of that Act.

(15) This

section does not apply in respect of a denial of access or a failure to exercise a right of access or to return a child ….”

Again, what I can say about this is we are looking at, basically, this piece of legislation and we are mirroring whatever is in the federal Divorce Act . In terms of policy rationales for those changes to the Divorce Act , really, I would say that that’s perhaps outside the scope of the discussion. I mean, we do support those changes, of course, as they are in the best interests of the child. But I really cannot speak to the rationale to the federal government making those particular changes in this case.

Simply, I can say we’re just aligning with the federal legislation, and that’s what I would say to that.

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

J. DINN: Clause 15, subsection 42(1), Order restraining harassment

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. DINN: I haven’t asked it yet, sorry.

CHAIR: Oh, sorry, I apologize.

J. DINN: If she wants to –

AN HON. MEMBER: Read his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you don’t want to do that.

J. DINN: You don’t want to do that, no. It will be a labyrinth; you’ll get lost.

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

J. DINN: The current act states: “On application, a court may make an interim or final order restraining a person from molesting, annoying or harassing the applicant or children in the applicant’s” – those are the words. The bill reiterates this subsection, but the words “molest” and “annoy” have been removed. I guess, is there a reason for that, or is that covered by other language?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Again, with respect to this particular

section 42, Order restraining harassment, this

section comes from ensuring alignment with the Divorce Act .

One of the changes that we see there comes from replacing “lawful custody,” because we are moving away from those kinds of adversarial types of terminology, with “lawful care or charge,” as the term “custody” is removed from the Divorce Act . The reason for that is to ensure neutral language is less adversarial. That’s why custody is replaced.

Essentially, I think the same thing applies to your question, to the Leader of the Opposition – or to the Leader of the Third Party, is we’re updating the old terminology and existing

definitions to use less adversarial language, once the amendments to the CLA come into effect.

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

J. DINN: Chair, thank you, and I do appreciate how many times I’ve been promoted to a minister, Leader of the Opposition in one way or another here. I’m just waiting for the salary to come along with it.

Clause 21, page 27,

section 47.1: Relocation – I think some of these have been answered, so I’m just going to try to skip to the ones that I think may not have. It says, in subsection 47.1(2), it sets the requirements for a person who wishes to relocate to notify other people who shares decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact. In subsection 47.1(6), it sets the means for the non-relocating person to file an objection.

I think, for the most part, you addressed the issue of determination of significant impact, eventually it’s going to be the court that’s going to decide that, if that can’t be resolved. I’ll try this one, and I would assume the court is going to be the answer here as well, but we’ll see.

This

section requires a 60-day notice to parties before relocation, but

section 47.3 doesn’t set a requirement for advance notice requirement for changes of residence. If a party, who is changing residence, files a late notice, say, two weeks with another party and that party decides the change constitutes a significant impact to the rights to a person who has decision-making and parenting time, they have very limited time to react to this and file an objection.

I guess, more importantly, the child or children will be exposed to the turmoil caused by this conflict. Should changes of residence also require a 60-day notice?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’d just like the Leader of the Third Party to answer, what was the last piece of the sentence that you said?

J. DINN: I was saying there’s a difference, there’s a 60-day requirement – sorry, Chair.

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

J. DINN: The

section requires a 60-day notice to parties before relocation, but that doesn’t seem to be the same for changes of residence. Should they both be aligned 60, but maybe that’s been discussed – that’s been worked out somehow.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: From my understanding, looking at this, again, this is added to align with federal legislation. When you look at change in residence, decision-making responsibility and parenting time, for example, that aligns with the federal legislation. But a change of residence, I guess, is on a smaller scale than a relocation.

It still requires notice, but the level or degree of notice is not the same. I’ll just give an example. Say if you were moving from one apartment on the East End of St. John’s to another, on the West End, for example, the change of residence is different than, say, the relocation section. I think that is perhaps the rationale that was behind that when the Divorce Act came into play.

When you have, for example, a change like a grandparent with a contact order, moves from Bay Roberts to Clarke’s Beach or St. John’s, again, that’s change in residency. So this just outlines the process for what is considered a relocation versus what isn’t. They all require notice.

Hopefully, answers your question there.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

section 47.1, and the subsections I was just referring to, they parallel sections 16.9 and 16.91 respectively, of the Divorce Act . Now the Divorce Act has regulations setting the form of these notices and objection forms that calls for information beyond what is stipulated in the bill. I think we’ve talked about the legislation is trying to align with the Divorce Act itself.

So can the minister comment on this difference in specifications? It seems to be more in the Divorce Act than in the bill. So that’s the first thing, the difference in specifications, or if you see any difference in specifications?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I just need clarification. So we’re looking at the proposed change of

section 47.1, relocation. What is the

section that you’re referring to in the current legislation? I just need to make sure that I –

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

J. DINN: Thank you.

So sections 47.1(2) and sections 47.1(6), they parallel sections 16.9 and 16.91 respectively in the Divorce Act . So that’s what I’m looking at.

The Divorce Act has regulations setting the form of these notices and objection forms that calls for information beyond what is stipulated in the bill. In other words, the Divorce Act seems to be calling for more information than what’s highlighted in the bill.

I’m not comparing this bill with the old bill. Why the difference between the new bill and the Divorce Act ?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: All I can say, really, in regard to that, is the new provisions are added to align with the Divorce Act but they also require regulations be considered. As such, regulation-making authority is provided. I think that goes to

section 84 of the CLA, I believe.

Does that provide clarity to the Member?

J. DINN: The one –

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

J. DINN: I should know better, Chair. My apologies.

CHAIR: I know when we’re in the Estimates process, we can go back and forth but I just remind people that we’re in Committee.

J. DINN: I agree that’s fair, that’s no problem. That’s my fault in this case.

Looking at the differences, I guess the other part, and I don’t know, maybe we can have a discussion after just to make sure I’m understanding what I’m talking about. The question I would ask, the last one, is: Will the courts make forms available to the public for these applications and notices to ensure all pertinent information is conveyed?

This goes to if there’s a difference in the regulations setting the form of these notices and objections that calls for information beyond what is stipulated in the bill? In other words, if the Divorce Act seemed to be calling out for more information than what’s in this bill, I guess it comes to reconciling the information that’s required. That’s where I was going with it. I don’t know if that makes it clear.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Yes, I think that it makes it clearer to me. The forms are created by the courts, via the rules of courts, but I can say there is a delayed proclamation of the bill to allow the courts time to update and develop forms that will be available to the public. That’s why there is a delayed proclamation of, I think, they’re estimating three months.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

The Member has asked all my questions, but I do have one comment because we are in Committee here on Bill 12. We are hearing from families and their comment is such that the legal system is somewhat too slow to ensure the best interests of the child. However, I know that this bill is about modernizing the language but aligning with the federal standards and strengthening the child-focused decision-making.

I just want to say that I know this is a big bill – 49 pages – so I know there has been a lot of work into this bill. I just want to thank your staff for their work on this bill. That’s all I have to say.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’d just like to thank the Member for acknowledging that. I can say that this has been a very work-intensive project for the officials in the Department of Justice and Public Safety. They’ve worked extremely hard and I appreciate the acknowledgement of that work. That’s very great to hear.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Seeing no more speakers.

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 86 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 86 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 86 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 Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act. (Bill 12)

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 bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 12 without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report this bill without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue; Chair of Committee of the Whole.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that the Committee recommends Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and recommends the bill without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 12 now be read a third time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be 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.’

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act. (Bill 12)

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

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services, that Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, now be read a third time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 10 now be 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 Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022. (Bill 10)

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

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: Motion 1, the budget motion.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s always an honour to rise in this House to represent the residents of Waterford Valley.

Before I start, I just want to pick up on something that the Justice Minister said in Question Period with regard to the budget. By and large, it’s not our job, as Opposition, to promote the budget. We talk about the budget and we question it. I did have something written here before those comments were made.

Budget 2026, I’ll say, to the Finance Minister, that there are some good things in the budget. Of course there are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. KORAB: Some – easy. The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, don’t get carried away. I said some.

We’ve got some more long-term care beds. That’s a good thing. We can all agree that we need more. There’s money for the Janeway. That’s good – the children’s hospital. Increasing the Seniors’ Benefit; there are some more child care spaces. We know the challenges for ECE workers. But there are many things lacking and that’s what we’re here to do. As Opposition, we’re here to question and we’re here to highlight. So that’s what I’m going to try to do today.

On the plan to lower taxes, the first bullet point, they said no new taxes and fees for residents. That’s great. It was the same as in the Budget 2025 . Second bullet point had $45 million to minimize the impact of Newfoundland and Labrador Power rates planned to be implemented July 1. So I feel this is a little disingenuous.

Now, my fellow MHA Member for Mount Scio used the coffee fund. I’ll use a slightly different one on the Newfoundland Power money. It would be like my daughter starting babysitting. She wants to save up money for a new iPhone, because they all want the new one, but she doesn’t have enough money and she doesn’t have a bank account. So all the money she makes and all the cash she makes, she gives it to me to put it in my account. She doesn’t want to leave it around the house; she has a little sister. So all the money goes in our bank account.

Months later, she has enough money and she wants to buy her new iPhone. So I go to the bank, I take out the money, I go to the store and I buy her a new iPhone and I take all the credit, when all I did was hold the money. Actually, in this case, I did do something because I probably drove her to the babysitting gigs in this case. Anyway, I just feel that’s money that the ratepayers already paid, so I don’t feel personally that that even should have been included in the budget.

The fourth bullet point, the reduction of the gas tax from 7.5 cents on gas and diesel – a $67-million savings, not insignificant. The residents got this last year and the year before. So it’s a savings, you’ve said it many times, of zero to zero. There’s not much saved from last year. All things being equal, you’d pay the same for gas last year as this year. But we do know, with the price of oil being up, we’re actually paying way more for gas.

Now, that is what the price of gas is now in theory. The government has nothing they can do about it, but practically there is because not to reflect on a previous vote, but there was an amendment to reduce gas tax by an additional 1 per cent which, as we know, didn’t happen.

One of the things that the government has been saying all leading into this budget, for a couple of months now, was that there are lots of levers they can pull. There are many levers. Look out when the budget comes, in 2026, it’s going to be a great budget, all the levers we’re going to pull. I’ve talked to many residents in many districts, certainly lots in mine, that don’t feel there was enough levers pulled.

The budget has come and gone. When we’re questioning the government, since the budget has come out about all the things that we feel that’s been missing, one of the things we keep hearing is, well, we’ve got four years. So prebudget, it was look out for all the levers. Since the budget, it’s, well, we have four more years to do that – well, 3½ I should say now. It seems like the goalpost keeps moving. I don’t feel it’s good enough for the people who are struggling right now.

The seventh bullet, they had saving consumers $25 million by extending the reduction in registration fees for passenger vehicles and light-weight trucks by 50 per cent. That was the same as last year, so, again, it’s zero to zero. They’re not saving any extra money. In terms of cost of living, it’s the same as last year.

I mentioned it, I think, a few days ago, the $2,000 that was promised in the blue book for rotational workers, it’s still not in the budget.

I want to touch on public safety. The National Police Federation welcome the investment – of course, they would that – that was going into policing. However, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary did call the 21 new RNC officers a great start, like we talked about earlier, but noted it’s still insufficient to reach the national average of officers per capita.

A member of the Act Now Intimate Partner Violence Reform Committee said he was disappointed to see no money for pre-conviction ankle monitoring for IPV victims included in the 2026 Newfoundland and Labrador budget. I know it is something that my Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi has brought up multiple times in this House. Advocates do stress, I’ve heard, that the period between charges and the trial is especially dangerous and, without proper monitoring, survivors face a heightened risk of further harm. They argue the system falls short of protecting victims when an accused person is released on bail.

Looking at public safety spending, many think it’s heavy on enforcement, and there has been some investments in enforcement. They feel there should be more going towards prevention, and I agree with this.

Under public safety, we had 24-hour snow clearing. We’ve talked about this many times and we’ll agree to disagree on this, but the current government spent a few million claiming the 24-hour snow clearing was back for at least 14 routes. We know all along it never actually left. These routes were already being done, 24-hours a day, with the third shift, the night shift, being called in.

The minister will say that it takes three hours for staff to be called in. You have to start your vehicle, clean it, drive it to the depot, load it with salt, et cetera – that’s his words, roughly, not to be quote him exactly – in three hours. While I strongly do disagree with this three-hour assertion, I will acknowledge that there is some time lapse from when staff are called in until they show up. However, how often does this actually happen where, out of the blue, we call people in?

We have very competent staff in our public works department and, just two days ago, we had Leo who retired, I believe, at age 83 or 84, after 50-odd years of service. One of the things we talked about, about Leo, is how often he was checking the weather – constantly.

So when we know there’s a weather event coming, we have staff checking. You’re not waiting for people to go home to call them in. You’re calling them in before that weather event starts or while that weather event is happening. So you have a shift that’s on, scheduled, then that shift that’s to be called in – previous now I’m talking last year – would have been called in so there’s no three-hour lags. I just wanted to make that clear.

Now, in Budget 2026 , there is $3 million earmarked for more 24-hour snow clearing and expansion of routes. I think I can speak for most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, certainly in rural Newfoundland, they welcome any investment. But the hard winter I think has highlighted a need for this investment and I look forward to finding out where these routes are and the expansion that it will have.

A Plan for Jobs, specifically energy: The budget doc says protecting and growing jobs in the energy sector while advancing emerging opportunities will strengthen the province’s position as a reliable, competitive and environmentally responsible energy supplier. I’ll be honest, Speaker, I find that even hard to read when we’ve got a Churchill Falls agreement that has expired and we’ve got two new people hired.

I’m not even going to get into that because I could spend the rest of my time on it. It’s just very frustrating. We’ve heard from the public many times that they want this deal to go through. I can tell you on Monday, I met with Trades NL. It was a good meeting to learn first-hand about some of the challenges they’re facing. One of the last things said in that meeting was they want the MOU to go through.

A Plan to Build: I do find that headline ironic in a sense. One of the first orders of business was they cancelled a major build, cancelled a hospital. Yes, I’m talking about the hospital on Kenmount Road. Instead, they’re going to renovate a hospital that has parts that’s over 100 years old, one century.

As recorded by a local news outlet in November 2022, St. Clare’s Mercy Hospital in St. John’s is in the worse physical condition of any hospital in this province, according to a graded system used by the provincial government. The government used what’s called a facility condition index, FCI, to help determine when it would be more cost effective to replace rather than maintain. St. Clare’s scored 53, the lowest of any hospital in the province. Fifty-three places this hospital in a critical category, as typical industry standards consider an FCI of over 30 as a threshold to replacement. So if it’s over 30 per cent, replace it. St. Clare’s is at 53.

Let’s not forget the $1.9 million in the budget planning for a new urgent care centre in the Minister of TI’s District of Conception Bay South. I’m not saying the residents in Conception Bay South don’t require it, I’m just saying the quiet part out loud.

The new MRI in Grand Falls-Windsor and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, two Conservative districts. I’m sure this is great for these districts, but as was said earlier today, the staffing for these machines – and let’s not forget there was one in the blue book promised for the minister on this side in the District of Burin - Grand Bank and there was no money in the budget for the MRI down in Burin - Grand Bank.

The blue book said they would build three ferries. What does the budget have? It doesn’t have the building of three ferries. There is talk of planning work being done to advance the building of these ferries, and I will recognize that there’s an RFP out for a swing vessel. That’s welcome news, but no three ferries that were promised, Speaker.

I want to jump now into the Multi-Year Capital Works program and the challenges. Seven years on St. John’s city council, I know first-hand how good and how beneficial that Capital Works program can be for municipalities because, at the end of the day, the residents I represent in the Waterford Valley District are the same residents that the council at the City of St. John’s represent as well, just in a different fashion.

But you don’t have to take my word on these changes, you can take the word of Municipalities NL. Municipalities NL feel they were not meaningly consulted. Now while the minister would say he’s open to meeting now, those meetings should have taken place pre-budget. The announced changes were made without meaningful engagement and consultation with MNL and affected municipalities. They feel last-minute technical briefings does not constitute collaborative consultation. Municipalities feel that they should be a partner in shaping infrastructure programs that directly affect local services and long-term planning.

MNL, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, had requested program improvements, not these changes. MNL had consistently raised concerns about challenges within the Multi-Year Capital Works program. Their recommendations focused on improving the program design, flexibility, predictability and responsiveness to municipal infrastructure realities. The changes announced do not reflect the solutions municipalities have been advocating for.

They say the changes fail to address core program issues. The revised program does not adequately address long-standing concerns, including funding predictability, flexible in-program delivery, escalating construction costs, timely project approvals and municipality’s ability to respond to emergency infrastructure needs.

The shift to a three- to four-year cycle raises serious concerns with MNL. Extending the cycle from three to four years without increasing program funding reduces the per year allocation while creating greater uncertainty for municipal capital planning. Municipalities require stable and timely funding windows to plan, tender and execute infrastructure projects efficiently. Longer cycles may delay critical infrastructure renewal.

So the impact on municipalities is significant. The removal of 15 municipalities from the Multi-Year Capital Works program fundamentally changes long-term planning capacity for these communities. For the seven remaining municipalities that are in this program, the new allocation model raises questions about adequacy, fairness and whether funding levels reflect real infrastructure needs. All municipalities who were enroled in the Multi-Year Capital Works program now have to apply to fund new infrastructure projects due to the provincial Capital Works program for 2026. This is a significant loss.

These changes affect more than half of Newfoundland and Labrador residents, seven municipalities remaining in this Multi-Year Capital Works represent 226,000, nearly half the province’s population. The 15 municipalities who are no longer included represent about 74,000 residents.

Predictability in infrastructure funding is essential. Municipality infrastructure planning requires stability and long-term certainty. They say government must recommit to partnership.

What is MNL calling for? Municipalities NL want immediate review of the announced changes. Now I understand the minister has had meetings with some municipalities, I think that’s great but, again, this should have been done pre-budget.

In

summary, they said municipalities asked for improvements to Multi-Year Capital Works that was announced, what was announced does not reflect these recommendations. It does not adequate address core fund program challenges and was introduced without meaningful consultation.

I talked to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador CEO, Rob Nolan, on these budget cuts after the budget came out. These are big changes and MNL’s issue with this, as I’ve said, is they were not consulted. They feel the changes here is in the seven that are currently in the Multi-Year Capital Works, they’re actually receiving less money.

The minister says the mayor of St. John’s should be happy that they’re getting more but they’re not, they’re getting less. Before, it was over three years, now the funding is over four. The number looks higher when you look at it at face value but when you drill down, when you average it over four years, they’re actually getting over $500,000 less per year, the residents of St. John’s and the residents of Waterford Valley who I represent.

What’s worst for the City of St. John’s is they can’t apply for this funding this year. They were told they can’t apply until 2027, meaning basically no money, no provincial money for capital works in 2027, a full year lost.

The capital city is self-administrating. They have their own engineers, so let them apply this year, don’t lose a whole construction season. Also the Capital Works funding hasn’t changed since 2017. Inflation has skyrocketed, we all know that, since then. So on top of getting less money per year, they’re now getting less work done for the money they’re receiving.

Such a major shift to this program, as it is, there should be some transition. There should be something there to protect the municipalities that rely on this infrastructure money.

If you look at Mount Pearl, Gander, Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, they’re all getting 25 per cent less per year – 25 per cent less. Grand Falls is about $229,000 per year, Gander is $227,000 per year, Corner Brook is $395,000 per year and Mount Pearl is $845,000 per year.

Now, while I can almost understand, in a sense, the government wants to have it on per capita, in a sense I get it, but these are major losses.

I will say that about a dozen years ago, I think it was about 12 years ago, there was a study done and there was a $1-billion infrastructure deficit for municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador – $1 billion. Factor in inflation and 12 years later, we’re probably looking at somewhere between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion. So municipalities need more money right now, not less. If the minister and the department wants to make adjustments to make it more fair, fine, but it needs to be with more money.

What did some of the other stakeholders have to say about the budget? From some of the local news outlets, what did the Registered Nurses’ Union have to say? The president, Yvette Coffey – and, Speaker, if I’m not allowed to say her name, I apologize, but I think as long as it’s not in a derogatory –

SPEAKER: That’s fine.

J. KORAB: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to confirm.

They had major concern around the lack of investments retaining nurses. Eight million dollars was allocated in this year’s budget to train and recruit nurses, but the budget line does not specify retention. So seeing that word missing was a major letdown for them.

She was also concerned that there weren’t any allocation for addressing workplace violence. She called this a major omission. It’s one thing to recruit, to expand nursing seats for nurses, practitioners and registered nurses. But if we’re not going to retain the people that are already in the system, the devil is in the details. That’s her words.

The chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students NL had some positive things to say – positive things to say. Again, we’re not all about negative over here. But he did add there are still concerns around the funding for Memorial’s long-term stability and he has not seen any allocation for this year. It definitely fell short in terms of Memorial University funding.

Memorial’s Faculty Association had similar concerns regarding the lack of funding for the university. President Lisa Moore said she didn’t see much in terms of infrastructure planning for post-secondary education. She said it’s difficult to run a university in 2026 on a 2013 budget.

Stacey Lucas, a secretary and treasurer of CUPE NL, she said – I quote – we think there are some really positive things in the budget. Our overall concern, though, is that the budget does not address the low pay for public sector workers, and we feel the recruitment and retention crisis is probably going to come out even worse – end quote. She went on to say that the budget funding projects doesn’t fund the people’s needs to make these projects a success.

Gord Piercey of the Allied Health Professionals says adding MRIs and increasing long-term care beds is great news, again. But won’t go far without staffing. To quote: We have an awful lot of health professionals and even if they’re here in the province, they have to leave to become a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist or a speech pathologist – end quote.

They also said: So we’re competing with them leaving and we’re trying to get them back here where we need them to live, train, run the programs, and right now I’m not even sure they would qualify for tuition reimbursement.

I’m going to get to housing next time I speak. With about two minutes left, Speaker, I just want to, in

summary, compare a little bit. They’re increasing the deficit. That’s not spending smarter. That’s what we’ve heard for the last six months – seven, I guess, now. Increasing the deficit is not spending smarter.

Budget ’25 planned to return to surplus by 2026, 2027. Budget ’26 – no path forward, deficits for all of us. Spending smarter, the Finance Minister said, many times. Spending from budget ’25 to budget ’26 is up. Did I read that right? Yes, spending is up.

Bottom line – 2025 aimed for fiscal recovery and 2026 abandons that path and accepts sustained deficit. I feel the 2025 budget was about fiscal repair, and 2026 it’s spending to support people, which we need and I will agree we need to spend to support people, but we’ll worry about the balance later. Nothing was more clear about this when the government is no longer putting money into a Future Fund.

In

summary, Budget 2026 , I feel it relies too heavily on uncertain and volatile revenues, offers short-term tax relief, continued some of our government’s tax breaks and programs and some target investment; but, ultimately, this falls far short in helping people of this province with the cost of living and affordability measures – the very thing impacting residents the most, right now.

With rising deficits, rising net debt and no path to balancing, the government in place is placing the burden on our future generations.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

I recognize the work that goes into preparing a provincial budget and the expectations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. While I’m not going to start positive, I do promise my colleagues that I will end positive,

Speaker, this budget falls short of what was promised to the people of the province, and I’m going to start with the health care system. I just want to say to the people at home, they asked me when I would get the opportunity to get up and speak about the District of Placentia - St. Mary’s. Because when I was delivering specific petitions, they were wondering why I was focused on one subject each time. I said when we debate the budget, we would all get an opportunity, every one of us in the House, to get up and talk about our districts.

I want to talk about the health care sector and the nurse practitioners. I’m a General Hospital School of Nursing 1990 grad – I am, and the Speaker would know that. I, definitely, support the investment in nurse practitioners and the way we’re moving forward with nurse practitioners and the value that that they have to community. I support the Nurses’ Union but announcements are not access. I look forward to access to nurse practitioners and physicians within a very short order.

I just want to talk about the St. Mary’s clinic, the then and the now just to compare. A year ago, we had a doctor two days a week and a nurse practitioner three days a week. Now, that’s pretty good service that you could access someone five days a week. Fast-forward to today, we have a doctor one day every two weeks. That’s a significant change. We’re down to one doctor.

Add to that, the Town of Trepassey next door just had a decrease in their medical services. They had somebody retire. So we’re going to have a ripple effect in that entire area from Trepassey right on up to Riverhead, Mount Carmel, where we now only have a doctor one day every two weeks.

Speaker, this is not just one clinic. This is a system under strain. We have seniors now having to travel a large distance, and I’ve had seniors reach out to me to see if I could find somebody that would come into their home to do blood work because they just were not able to travel out to Holyrood or to St. John’s or Placentia for blood work.

I just want to mention the Whitbourne situation. Whitbourne has urgent care, and I just recently had people from the St. Mary’s, Riverhead area go to Whitbourne to access urgent care because they couldn’t avail of any more services in their area. They couldn’t get an answer down at the clinic simply because the doctor’s appointments were blocked up and there were no more appointments available.

That’s quite the drive if you have to go from St. Mary’s to Whitbourne urgent care, but even worse if you arrive at urgent care and it’s Teladoc that’s there. That system was set up that it would be available to people seven days a week at this point in time, but unfortunately, it’s not.

I understand there are restrictions and strains around trying to get nurses and doctors in our emergency units in rural Newfoundland, in our urgent care units, but the budget did mention Whitbourne. There’s no timeline, and the people need care now, not in a year.

The Placentia emergency is also feeling the impact of the Teladoc in Whitbourne, the one doctor every two weeks in St. Mary’s, the retirement that happened recently in Trepassey, and the overall impact is an absolute ripple effect. It’s causing a lot of problems.

I would say to my constituents, come into St. John’s and see if you can get an appointment at the Urgent Care in here. Then I look to Facebook only to see that Urgent Care had to close early probably because of staffing reasons; it didn’t say why.

So, Speaker, there is an investment in health care in the budget, and I am going to watch and wait. I really, really do hope that the nurse practitioner program, as it is announced, is going to be very successful. I’m truly looking forward to that.

Next, I’m going to move to roads. Usually, I start out with roads. Historically, for the last 10 years, when I stand here, I start out with roads. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were promised action, relief, results; but, as I said, they feel that they have received something different in this budget. Now, I know there’s the blue book and there’s the four-year mandate, but there are certain things like health care and roads that we can’t wait four years for.

Yes, there’s been a lot of investment in the District of Placentia - St. Mary’s. The minister has said that in the House and I agree with him, there has been, but that’s over 10½ years. I know the MHA prior to me worked really hard. Every time I meet the MHA that was in the position prior to me, we have a conversation because he's a family friend. We’ll talk about roads and he says his number one issue was always roads and my district is bigger than what his district was. Roads, roads, roads, roads, roads, it’s non-stop.

I know some of the potholes are being filled now, but, unfortunately, in this road plan, there is no pavement allocated for the District of Placentia - St. Mary’s, no new pavement. There are two bridges, one which I think – according to engineers – won’t be accessible anymore, but I know that one is gone to tender and the second bridge, which the engineers are saying needs to be replaced. So that one is on the list, but there’s no new pavement. There was a Route 10 announcement made in August of 2025, and that’s kind of between myself and my colleague, the minister that represents Trepassey, St. Shott’s.

It’s kind of in between the two of us, so I know there’s going to be some work done there because it was awarded.

Let’s go to Route 100, the Cape Shore, specifically. Last year, we did have some investment in Route 100. It was sporadic in different parts of Route 100, which I applaud the engineers and the staff for picking the worst areas and doing them. I know we ran into some issues with the contractor during the election period and there was a request for more funds. Of course, we were into an election, that couldn’t happen. I know culverts were put in the ground, but the roadwork wasn’t completed. It’s very unfortunate to see that into the next fiscal year, this roadwork is not being completed. The culverts are in the ground and I know they’re not going to go anywhere.

However, Route 100, the Cape Shore, has no cell service – no cell service. So if you break down, you’re waiting on the good will of someone who’s coming along to help you. There are no service stations; the closest one is Placentia. So if you need a tow truck, the goodwill of the person who comes along to assist you and then you have to try to find a tow truck to come get you. There’s some dense brush and a lot of moose on the Cape Shore.

The ambulance operator has reached out to me a number of times. He’s trying to bring people to the Placentia hospital in the dark and in the fog with the moose and it’s not easy to navigate an ambulance with sick individuals over this road. There is a huge safety issue here.

I have a significant number of nurses for the Lions Manor and medical staff who live on the Cape Shore. We all want our medical staff to get to work, each and every one of us, but it’s kind of hard for them to get to work if they smack into one of these big potholes, end up with a flat and don’t have assistance. They’re going to be delayed an hour to two hours at times. Then the staff who are at the Lions Manor can’t leave until they get there.

I just want to talk about Trinity South, also. We had a plan; our government had a plan for Trinity South. There are a lot of byroads in Trinity South. You go down Route 80 and you do not see how big Trinity South actually is, but you go off Route 80, it won’t take you long to realize there are a lot of residents, upwards of 3,000 residents in that area from Markland right down to Green’s Harbour.

Our plan invested just around a million dollars in 2024, a million dollars in 2025 and we had planned to continue to invest. That’s a small amount in today’s calcula