May 19, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 27
Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Question Period on Tuesday, May 19, 2026. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.
The entire audio/visual record of the House proceedings is available online within one hour of the House rising for the day. This can be accessed at: https://www.assembly.nl.ca/HouseBusiness/Webcast/archive.aspx
Oral Questions
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.
Today is a very important day for Newfoundland and Labrador. We get to watch the Montreal Canadiens for another couple of weeks. That’s the good news.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN: Thanks to Newfoundland and Labrador’s very own Alex Newhook. We’re all so proud of Alex Newhook. So I say to him and everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador: Olé, Olé, Olé.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN: And while we don’t agree a lot with the other side of the House, I ask the Premier: Finally, is this something you will agree with me?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: That is the best question I have heard in the entire period of the House of Assembly.
I couldn’t agree more with the Leader of the Opposition on the Montreal Canadiens and Alex Newhook. Not once but twice he’s scores the winning goal in game seven.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: I think, as we’ve said before, Newfoundland and Labrador always pulls above its weight and Mr. Alex Newhook is, certainly, doing that with the Montreal Canadiens.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: I’ll absolutely agree on Mr. Newhook; the Montreal Canadiens, not so much.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In all seriousness, it might have been the best question, and it might have been the first time we got an answer as well.
We will move on to serious things, Speaker.
The Premier promised he would table his review panel’s report on April 30. That passed, and he delayed it to May 19, saying the panel would present their findings and, more importantly, that the panel would answer questions. He flipped on that, and now he has said that they will not be answering questions.
I ask: Why won’t the Premier insist the authors of this report speak to it?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, when the panel presented their report to us on April 30, I asked the panel to present its report. They agreed they would do. They emailed back to say they would do it, and they subsequently told us that they wouldn’t do it. They would simply allow the report to speak for itself.
They are an independent panel, and I do not control their actions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, the information that was given to the public was that May 19 was specifically chosen because the three panel members would be in St. John’s. The Premier needs to be transparent and tell everyone.
So I ask again, what were the reasons that the authors of the report gave for not making themselves available?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: I’ll add to what I said earlier. When the panel was asked when they would be available to be here in St. John’s, May 19 was the date that was given to us as the earliest day possible that allowed us, again, to do our review that we needed to do with the report. At the same time, the panel subsequently said they wouldn’t be available, and they would let the report stand for itself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, I’m sure they’ll all be available at some future date, so I ask: will the Premier commit to making the authors of this very important report available to answer questions to the MHAs and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the independent review committee has finished their work, and if they choose to do something different, they can certainly do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: I ask the Premier, as the Premier of this province, will he insist that the people that were paid for this report with taxpayers’ money, will he insist as Premier of this province that they make themselves available so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can get the answers they deserve from the authors of this report?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I have said, the report is available. The report will be tabled later today, and one of the things that we should note, in this report, compared to many that have been released before, the amount of redactions is very limited. As a matter of fact, the only redactions in this report relate to an action that was taken by the previous government that wouldn’t release a report to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, so any reference to it had to be redacted. That’s the type of thing that we’re doing: open and transparent, with a full report that anybody can see.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: I think it’s very clear to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that this is a stark contrast between this government and the former Liberal government because the former Liberal government, when it announced the MOU, it had a full debate in the House of Assembly with not only negotiators –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
J. HOGAN: – but the experts who provided advice on that report. A promise was made by this Premier that the panelists would be available to speak to the report.
Why is the Premier not being transparent about this report?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I asked, they said no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, I ask, did the Premier say: I am the Premier, you were paid by taxpayers’ money, you will make yourselves available?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Once again, Speaker, let me talk to the report that was presented today. Let me talk about the report that we’ve talked about, the action that we are going to take as a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are moving forward, Mr. Speaker. We are moving forward and we will be looking for more –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Member for Mount Pearl North for your co-operation.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WAKEHAM: We will be looking for more power, we will be looking for more value and we will be looking for more transmission. That’s exactly what we’re focused on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Having just gotten the report very recently, I want to make one important note about why it’s important to hear from the authors. They have said that they are not releasing the names of the individuals that they spoke to in the interview to get the information for the report. So not only do we not know who they’ve spoken to, the authors will not speak to what information was provided to them.
How are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians supposed to trust this secret report just because there are no redactions in it? They need to make themselves available to the public. This is the Premier of the province, the leader of the province, the person now responsible for the most important deal in the history of the province.
Will he insist that the authors of this report answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, they have fulfilled their mandate. They have delivered the report to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will follow the recommendations of that report as we move to improve the previous agreement that was reached and we will get a deal that will develop the Upper Churchill and the Lower Churchill and electrify Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, for the sake of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, why isn’t the Premier worried that the lack of transparency, the lack of openness and the complete sham of this process will undermine public confidence in whatever deal he may or may not reach on the Churchill River?
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.
I’d like to thank the independent review panel for the work they’ve done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT: The Member across the way would understand –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
L. PARROTT: – fully that these committees don’t generally come in and testify in front of the House. He, himself, sat on the LeBlanc inquiry for a number of months and we never asked Justice LeBlanc to come into this House and testify. It’s not the norm.
The Premier asked them to come. They identified a date. They said they would be here, the day was scheduled around that time on the 19th prior to coming, they sent or reached out and said they would not be coming. That’s out of our control, they’re independent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, the minister is right, I did sit through the Muskrat Falls Inquiry and it was titled, A Misguided Project and who misguided the project? Jerome Kennedy who is now negotiating the project and Danny Williams who said this MOU was dead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN: So I ask the Minister of Energy: What is the plan to develop Churchill River and are we going to rely on people that already cost this province $13-unnecessary billion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT: I’m hoping that the Member read the report this morning and understands that they were going to leave the people of this province with $30 billion in debt. They tried to spin it and say that it was a billion dollars a year, but there’s one other thing I’ll say and he just admitted it.
He sat on that panel for months. Yet when they came in here, last January and we were supposed to debate the MOU, which wasn’t a debate by the way, he refused to listen or implement the LeBlanc inquiry recommendations. So he can come in here and talk about it all he wants, the reality of it is, is this independent panel are now dissolved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: How convenient is that.
Speaker, the Premier said earlier today, he is not tearing anything up.
Does that mean the Liberal MOU will continue to form the riverbanks of future negotiations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I have said for more than a year, this is not about blame. This is not about anything except getting the best deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: That is why we’ve established a new negotiating team and that is why we are moving forward with negotiations, to get better value, to get more value, to get more transmission and to make sure at the end of the day, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the principal beneficiaries of any deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, when the Premier was questioned about a referendum today, during his press conference, he wouldn’t commit to actually holding a referendum despite the fact he made that promise during the course of the election.
I ask the Premier today in the House of Assembly: Is he still committed to providing a referendum on the Upper Churchill deal?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the first thing we have to do is get a deal, we’ve never had a deal, we’ve had an MOU. Clearly, we have an outline now. We’re going to follow and use this report as a framework for working towards getting a deal that will benefit all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. More power, more transmission, more value and we’re going to keep doing it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.
I’m pleased to hear the Premier confirm that we never had a deal, what we had was an MOU, despite the fact that they were saying different things in the House of Assembly over the last few weeks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN: So is the Premier confirming now, and does he agree, that the MOU was only a backbone and there were still negotiations to do before we got to definitive agreements on this MOU?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I can confirm is that the Member opposite wanted to rush out and turn the MOU into a deal. They didn’t want an independent review done. They talked about an independent review, but it wasn’t independent.
We also understand and know full well –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: We know full well the interference of the Members opposite, the former premier and his Cabinet, with the negotiation strategy that went on that actually put items in the MOU that would have cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador $30 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier promised independent experts, but instead delivered a known critic whose numbers had to be corrected, an architect of Muskrat Falls and secretly appointed the Danny Williams era Cabinet minister, who was Natural Resources Minister for the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls, who famously said that Muskrat Falls is a project that would actually pay for itself. He said that; that’s what Jerome Kennedy said.
To be honest, I’m not surprised he couldn’t get them to say worse things about the MOU. Why does he expect the people to trust anything this pre-determined panel has to say?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say to Joey’s Liberals over there that this deal was Joey’s deal. So if that’s what they want to get on with, the rhetoric about people from the past, they need to consider exactly what this deal would look like had it gone through.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
L. PARROTT: It would revert to nothing any different than what the Churchill Falls deal was from 1969. They came in here; they didn’t want an independent review panel to look at it –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
I only want to hear the person identified as speaking.
The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.
L. PARROTT: They didn’t want the independent review panel. They talk about the people that were on it; Mr. Wilson was appointed by them. They didn’t have any problems when they appointed Mr. Brown. They know full well that this is independent and –
SPEAKER: Order, please!
The minister’s time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
F. HUTTON: Speaker, it’s ironic that Mr. Wilson didn’t mind talking about the MOU and how bad it was in the election campaign –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
F. HUTTON: – but then when it comes time to talk about his own report, he’s afraid to stand up and defend it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
F. HUTTON: He was on Open Line shooting off his mouth about how terrible the deal was, and now he won’t speak at all.
Is the Premier comfortable with allowing the potential opportunity of this magnitude for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be jeopardized based on a report whose authors won’t even answer basic questions, they won’t show up here like our experts did a year and half ago?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT: The experts that they provided from J.P. Morgan and Power Advisory actually recommended against the 2 per cent increase that they put in year over year. The increase that would cost $30 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers.
I would ask that Member over there while he was in Cabinet, did he support it? I’m willing to bet he did. The same idea as what they did with their secret pay raise. They approve this stuff and they do not back it up when the time comes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
L. PARROTT: If they want to talk about transparency, they ought to look within. It’s something they failed to do, they’ve always failed to do, and their hot tub time machine only works in one direction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite talks about this all the time, the secret bonus. Nobody on this side voted for a secret bonus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
F. HUTTON: Nobody received a secret bonus. The only person who is getting a bonus is the Premier’s political advisor who takes his paycheque from MCP and follows the Premier around all day long advising on health, apparently.
By the way, we are still with Joey’s deal in 1969 because the Premier turned his back on $1.4 million –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
F. HUTTON: – that we would have gotten on May 1, and the $227 billion in potential income.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
F. HUTTON: Speaker, the Premier finally has the report he asked for, likely with the recommendations that he asked for, but it took seven months.
What’s the plan now, given that seven months of negotiating has been lost?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT: Speaker, from last December up until October when the election was over – that, in my mind, equals to be about 10 months – they did nothing. So they can sit here and talk about what we’ve done in the last seven months.
The other thing I would say is, the Member across the way did, he support the 2 per cent escalation clause? Because I’m sure that the Premier would have brought that back to his Cabinet at the time and they would have had that discussion.
So if they supported that, then they intentionally hoodwinked the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then they tried to convince them that this was a good deal, that there were no repercussions, that there would be no debt owed at the end, $30 billion. It was misleading, it was misrepresented and he probably supported it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
F. HUTTON: Speaker, what is the Premier prepared to give up in negotiations in order to get more power, because when he said he may talk about changes to the deal, the Premier of Quebec, Christine Fréchette, said as well –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
F. HUTTON: – that there would have to be something that they would get in exchange? What’s he willing to give up?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT: He’s not willing to give up the future of the province.
PREMIER WAKEHAM: That’s exactly right.
Speaker, what we’re not prepared to do is we’re not prepared to simply turn over and sign a deal that would have handcuffed Newfoundland and Labrador again and had another repeat of the 1969 deal.
I have spoken with the Premier of Quebec. She is fully aware of what we are looking for and what I’ve asked for in terms of more transmission, more power and more value. I have spoken with the prime minister who is also very interested in the opportunities for development in Labrador. So we’re looking forward to negotiations and getting the job done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, it’s nice to hear that the Premier is finally picking up the phone to talk to these people.
Speaker, has the report been shared with Hydro-Québec and, if so, what do they have to say about it?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, apparently, they never heard the question.
F. HUTTON: My mic is on there now, Speaker.
Speaker, has this report been shared with Hydro-Québec and if so, what did they have to say about it?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the report was made public today and I have also already asked our chief negotiator to reach out to the CEO of Hydro-Québec. I’ve also shared the report with the Premier of Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
J. PARSONS: Speaker, when I asked about changes to the multi-year capital works program, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure told me I should do my homework. Well, the funny thing is my numbers align perfectly with the effected communities and MNL. The three-year funding over four years, means $2.6 million less for the seven municipalities affected.
Will the minister consider some time of stop-gap measure to address this mistake?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
First, I want to make clear, it wasn’t a mistake. I made the decision with a clear mind. It was a mess when I entered the department and it is not a mess any more, thanks to the changes we brought in and this will make this funding program a better program –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
B. PETTEN: – with transparency. It has parameters and it got rules, something it never had before when the previous administration used it as their own personal slush fund, I refuse to let that happen and now we have parameters around it and it will be a better program for years to come and I make no apologies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
B. PETTEN: They’re rowdy today, Speaker.
I make no apologies for making a smart decision.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Corner Brook.
J. PARSONS: I disagree with the hon. Member there that this is a slush fund in any way. It’s a very valuable program for municipalities that was in the PC blue book that there would be more multi-year capital works. Not only is this program less money, but it’s going to start intake a year later, in April 1, 2027, which means no projects will get designed or completed during the next construction season.
The minister says he recognizes the need to get tenders out early, so will the minister consider doing intake earlier so municipalities can get shovels in the ground?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
I made it clear to all mayors affected. We are going to try to do earlier tendering, and I’ve committed to doing to that, but I want to make something clear to the Member opposite because he’s playing with the truth, and he knows the difference; $40 million is sitting on the books that’s not been used.
Those municipalities that say they’ve been hurt, they’re not. They have $40 million for this year that they say they have no money – $40 million. I’ll tell MNL they have $40 million that they’re not using. They need to get it out the door by 2027, and we will get earlier approvals out in fall this year. They’ll have their money for April ’27 to start new projects next year. All factual information.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Corner Brook.
J. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, is it the minister’s position that we throw out the baby with the bathwater here? That because a few municipalities can’t get their funding out, is it because of training gaps from Municipal Affairs? Are there other ways that this could be done so that the funding can get spent?
Are the seven municipalities that are still in the program, do they have $40 million outstanding? I doubt it.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN: Speaker, I tell the Member opposite, we have towns in this province in some of that seven, and some of that old, two hundred – towns, some of the towns that were in the 22, they’ve had money there since 2017. It was incumbent upon us as a province, me as a minister and us as a department to start getting money out the doors.
MNL want the infrastructure projects, well spend the money. We’re going to help you spend the money. Get it out the door. There’s lots of infrastructure money with the federal government. We’re working on that. Towns have been notified. They’ve been explained all this information. So the story you’re making there is not a story. This is a better program. I stand behind it, and if you want to see –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Member for Waterford Valley for your co-operation.
B. PETTEN: They’re very rowdy today, Speaker.
SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Minister.
The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.
I couldn’t grasp the Placentia part. Sorry.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, failure consult seems to be a pattern of this government. Why did the Conservative government announce the closure of Horizons 106 without first consulting with one of the key partners responsible for operating the facility and supporting its residents?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Supports and Well-being.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
Horizons at 106 has funding until December 31 of this year. The former administration even put out an RFP saying that it was going to be closed and replaced.
Mr. Speaker, we will have our homework done. Right now, the team at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has met with End Homelessness St. John’s last week. They’re meeting again this week. We will have those discussions and everyone – and I’ll tell the people of the province, there will be no one left behind at 106 Airport Road.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, if End Homelessness St. John’s was caught off guard by this decision, how can people have any confidence that there is a real transition plan in place for the 75 people who are currently residing there?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
End Homelessness St. John’s should not have been caught off guard. They were well aware of what was happening. They even put in a proposal, Speaker.
Right now, we have a plan going forward. That plan will be shared when it’s solidified. All partners will be brought to the table for that discussion, and I can certainly tell the people of this province that everyone at Horizons at 106 will be looked after and will be cared for with wraparound supports after December 31, 2026.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, we have heard from residents and we see online an increase in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units being used as trap houses.
What is the minister doing to address this issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Supports and Well-being.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
One of the Members opposite just said shameful; it was shameful what was done for so many years before we came into this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. WALL: With respect to trap houses, Speaker, we are working diligently with the Housing Corporation and with the RNC to make sure that we are closing the trap houses.
It’s very difficult and, as the Member opposite can appreciate, it’s very heavy when it comes to emotions when people are in these situations. We are doing our part. We will ensure that we can work with the people of the public to make sure the trap houses are closed and to provide safer communities for all of us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, according to people who are contacting us and what’s online, trap houses are putting people in harms way. Families need these units.
Why won’t the minister do something about these trap houses?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
I’ve had conversations with Members opposite regarding trap houses. I did not have any email or correspondence from the Member regarding a trap house.
Speaker, we are doing our part, and we’re going to work with everyone that we can to ensure that these trap houses are closed. As I said, it’s a very difficult process, as you can imagine, but we are doing our part. We are not taking it lightly and this government will ensure that the safety of the people in the public, regarding those trap houses, will be made better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, previous government held three days of debate in the House of Assembly –
AN HON. MEMBER: Four.
J. DINN: Four – in which we had access to experts involved in the negotiations including J.P. Morgan, Power Advisory and others, all of whom could have chosen not to attend. Opposition parties even received extra funding to hire their own experts.
So now the Premier tells us the panel that he established has chosen not to present and then report and answer the questions.
I have one simple question: Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let’s talk about facts. Let’s talk about what, exactly, has happened here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Let’s about the fact that a signed MOU was brought into the House of Assembly. What we have now is a report that is open to everyone. Everyone in the public in Newfoundland and Labrador will have this report.
If the Member opposite wants to ask questions about the report, we’d be more than happy to listen to him but I will tell you that we are interested in moving forward.
This report outlines significant deficiencies in the MOU but we’re going to make sure that we focus on more power, more transmission and more value.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
Unlike last year, we have no knowledge of the experts consulted by the panel – in fact, we have no ability to question the committee or the experts that they consulted.
So how, exactly, is this transparency and how, exactly, does this inspire confidence in the independence of the committee and its finds, if they avoid scrutiny?
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.
It’s funny that he would ask questions like this given the fact that he supported the previous panel which was quite biased. At the end of the day, when these panels report, the independence is theirs and theirs alone. We never see any of the correspondence from these independent people, not one little bit.
He can talk all he wants about last year and how it was. We have, clearly, said that we’re not tearing up the MOU. The MOU is the framework for what we are doing, going forward. This report lays the foundation that supports the good and the bad inside of that MOU because if they had read it, they would have seen that the report isn’t all bad. It does say there are some good things in there. So what we are going to do is utilize that in order to get the best deal for –
SPEAKER: The minister’s time is expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN: Speaker, if government, when they were in Opposition, had a chance to form the previous panel but they walked out. Actually, they walked out on the vote. They turned tail and ran.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. DINN: The Premier has said –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
J. DINN: The Premier has said that partners can come to the table and negotiate with us, however, the independent review committee lists board decision gate five recommendations the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must make. In fact, recommendation five calls for the preparation of a fully articulated negotiating strategy and best practice on government process.
So I ask the Premier: What is the timeline for these decisions and recommendations to be completed before partners can actually come to the table to negotiate?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, since we received the report on April 30, we have already started the process. We’ve already started the process of developing what the negotiation strategy should look like.
L. STOYLES: (Inaudible.)
SPEAKER: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North, you need not rise to speak anymore today, you won’t be recognized.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what we have done, as I said, the report talks about making sure that we set-up the appropriate committees. We’re in the process of doing all of that. We’ve already started to look at the economic opportunities for this province. We’ve engaged with officials from Mines and Energy and Finance to make sure that was done, because that was something that was missed in the previous report.
Maybe the Member opposite should have taken his time before he decided to stand up and say yes –
SPEAKER: The Premier’s time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN: Speaker, this report is based on a lot of likelies and determining that the MOU was not in the best interest of the province, the IRC noted that the Churchill Falls power purchase agreement does not include access to Hydro-Québec transmission to markets beyond the Province of Quebec.
Now, given the unsuccessful past history of court challenges, how likely is this to happen really?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the truth is it couldn’t happen because of the 1969 agreement that a former Liberal government put in front of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we were saddled with for more than 50 years –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: – and that’s exactly what we’re doing, Speaker. We’re going to negotiate and we’re going to make sure that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WAKEHAM: – the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get the transmission they deserve, get the power they deserve and get the value they deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.
Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Question Period on Tuesday, May 19, 2026. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.