Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Question Period on Thursday, May 21, 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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Premier initially delayed releasing the review panel report so his hand-picked panellists could speak. He then changed his mind and said they would not be speaking publicly. Now, we’ve heard excuses that they could be seen as modifying the official report if they spoke.

Why are we hearing excuses now – from the media not the Premier, I might add – after the fact? Why can’t the Premier pick a story and stick to it?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the only excuse here is that this Liberal government tried to push through an MOU that would have cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador and set us back for another 50 years, just like the 1969 agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: They should be ashamed of themselves for not talking about the challenges that were in the MOU.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: The report has clearly outlined that this MOU was flawed, and they should be worried about how we fix it.

That’s right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, why does the Premier’s hand-picked panel have such little faith in themselves that they’ll worry so easily that they’ll slip up if they talk about and undermine their own report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let’s talk about slip-ups.

Was it a slip-up that the Leader of the Opposition and Cabinet allowed a 2 per cent escalation clause to be included in the MOU that would have cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador more than $30 billion potentially, when it was not recommended by their own financial advisors, when it was not recommended by their own negotiators?

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Why did you vote for that? Why did you put that in the MOU?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, are the panelists afraid to speak because they may have to disclose information that, perhaps, hasn’t made it into the secret report?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, if the Opposition had spent half as much time being concerned about what was in the MOU before the Independent Review came out, perhaps, you would have had all the answers done (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Let me refer you to page 21 of the report. The combination of misaligned amortization and power purchase agreement periods and the proposed pricing model leaves unpaid debt, dividend and equity balances at the end of the 50-year PP contract.

Did the Members opposite know of those critical flaws in their MOU? Did they know about them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, that’s great information. Unfortunately, we don’t know where that information came from because the report refers to vague – and I quote – experts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HOGAN: The report will not name them or make them available.

How can Newfoundlanders and Labradorians trust that these aren’t armchair Facebook experts instead of world-renowned subject matter experts like we engaged and made available in this House of Assembly?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I go back, again, did the Members opposite, as a Cabinet, turn around and vote to include a 2 per cent escalation clause in their contract, that’s in the MOU, that would have resulted in a potential $30 billion of increased debt for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Did they vote? Did they know, when they voted for the MOU, that Quebec would be the –

J. KORAB: That’s shocking.

SPEAKER: I ask the Member for Waterford Valley for your co-operation.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WAKEHAM: When they turned around and signed this MOU and voted for this MOU that they were – Quebec was the only customer we would have, again, for another 50 years just like 1969?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

We’ve also been told the Premier is worried the panellists – and I quote – could inadvertently disclose commercially sensitive information.

I remind everyone in the House, here now, that during the MOU debate, our invited guests could decline to answer questions which are commercially sensitive, subject to Cabinet confidence or solicitor/client privilege or otherwise excepted from disclosure under ATIPP.

So why doesn’t the Premier and the panel recognize that they can still speak and protect sensitive information at the same time?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let’s talk about information. Let’s talk information. Let’s talk about the fact that –

B. DAVIS: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: I ask the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville for your co-operation.

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Let’s talk about the fact that mining in the Province of Quebec, in the Labrador Trough area, has gone up by 125 per cent, while mining on the Labrador side of that same trough has only gone up by 45 per cent. Why? Because Quebec had the power, and nothing in this MOU we saw there was going to be a lack of power available to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador after 2041 to develop our own resources. We’re committed to making sure we get more power, more value and more transmission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I thought he was going to say more transparency, but it was more transmission because we know we’re not getting more transparency.

During the MOU debate, the now-Premier took issue with an exclusivity clause in the MOU which provided the time frame to negotiate only with Hydro-Québec.

Given the Premier’s stance then, will he confirm he will maintain his position and there will be no exclusivity clause if he signs a new deal?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I can confirm is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be bound by simply having to sell power to one person like the Province of Quebec for the next 50 years. That’s one of the things we’ve talked about that we need to negotiate. We knew we’d need more customers, but we also need to be able to develop our own industries. That’s why we’re going to look at an economic benefit analysis that doesn’t just look at who we’re selling power to or how much money we’re getting from selling the power. We want to use the power to develop our own industries right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, incredibly troubling that the Premier can’t even commit to his own words which he said on the House of Assembly floor.

Let’s look at some other things he said during the debate. He took issue with – in his own words, and I quote – Hydro-Québec having “control over the development … for the Gull Island project and the Upper Churchill expansion.”

Let’s try this: Will the Premier confirm he will maintain his position that NL Hydro will have full control of the development of projects on the Churchill River?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll tell you what I can guarantee. I can guarantee the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they have this Premier negotiating the contract and not the previous premier. Anyone who comes into this House of Assembly and asks questions like this and expects a government or anyone else to negotiate openly and publicly and still have some kind of strong leg to stand on when it comes to negotiating certainly a lawyer who knows the difference, the questions he’s asking make no sense.

We will negotiate the best deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They voted to give it away. In 1969, Joey gave it away. In 1990s, Tobin gave away the veto, and these guys just tried to give away the Upper Churchill all over again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Also during the MOU debate, the Premier now took issue with – in his words – Quebec having a share of the ownership of both the existing Churchill Falls development and the expansion plan under this MOU. Plus Quebec will have ownership of a world-class asset, Gull Island.

Will the Premier confirm – we already know the answer, he won’t – that he will maintain his position that Hydro-Québec will have no ownership of Gull Island?

I say to the Minister of Energy, this is telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what the Premier and the government’s position is on these negotiations, and big surprise, we haven’t heard it since January 2025 and we haven’t heard it yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’ll ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs for your co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I’ll go back again and say the Member for Windsor Lake sat on the LeBlanc inquiry. He knows how this works. There were three different models discussed there. He’s misleading, when he stands and says what he just said. The reality of it is that Gull Island, CF1 and CF2 are three entirely different things, and the water management was. These guys tried to put it all in one brown paper bag and give it away again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

On day one of the election, the now Premier committed to a referendum. Yesterday, when pressed on Power & Politics by David Cochrane, the Premier wouldn’t commit. In fact, Cochrane noted that the Premier’s answer was – and I quote – a bit of a dodge and that the Premier looks like – I quote – he just said it to get it off the table during the campaign. Then the Premier is – I quote – trying to get out of the referendum promise.

Will the Premier commit today to the referendum or will he continue to dodge the question?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I find it amazing that they want to put to cart before the horse. We’ve got to turn around and get a deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. That’s the first priority here because we know now clearly that the MOU that this former government were prepared to put Newfoundland and Labrador and handcuff us for another 50 years into the same deal as the 1969 deal, and we would’ve been stuck with it.

Imagine – imagine the fact that they introduced a clause that their negotiator said do not put in it, and they put it in, a 2 per cent clause that would have cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador almost $30 billion. They had a clause that would have allowed Quebec to control our river, once again, for another 50 years.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Premier’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I actually did get an answer to that question, which was will he continue to dodge the question, and the answer to that is clearly yes.

The Premier pointed yesterday to the federal government’s interest in the MOU as a new development, but the Premier failed to acknowledge it was our government that successfully got it on Prime Minister Carney’s list of nation-building projects last September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Will the Premier admit that it was the Liberals that moved this project forward at the federal level, and he hasn’t moved it forward at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what we can say is that we had a government who was prepared to sell our river, who was prepared to give the river back to Quebec for another 50 years. That we would not have enough power to develop our own industry. That we would not be allowed to transmit our power through Quebec again and we certainly weren’t going to get the value that we ought to have gotten from our own resources. I will guarantee the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we will get more value, we will get more transmission and we certainly will develop the Churchill Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. STOYLES: Speaker, earlier this month we asked the question regarding a woman who has been suffering from lockjaw. The minister said she would look into it but the patient is now back at the beginning, to navigate the layers and layers of red tape which are preventing her from getting the lifesaving surgery that she needs. This individual is in the gallery today.

I ask the minister to tell her directly, why it’s taken so long and it’s preventing her from receiving the lifesaving care that she needs today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

When patients run into issues, it’s very, very important for us to be able to support them, Speaker. In actual fact, some issues have come forward, I was aware of an issue in November, myself and my deputy minister actually addressed the issue. We didn’t hear anymore of it until in April and, in actual fact, late April.

Speaker, we are aware of it. We’re working with the issue. The thing is we will be supporting; we reached out to the patient. We are supporting the patient. What we found, Speaker, is there are several layers and the patient is having trouble navigating, we’re going to help the patient navigate. We will make sure this patient is looked after.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PIKE: Speaker, on March 20, the Minister of Education announced he will develop a steering committee that will make recommendations regarding changes and benefit improvements for early childhood educators.

It’s been two months, have you established your committee, Minister, and can you provide the House with an update?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Thank you for the question, very good question and a very serious question given the state of our early child care in this province.

I did announce that, but I also announced it in the coming months. So in the coming weeks, you can expect to see the early child care steering committee developed. We have taken the applications. We have already assessed them. We have names recommended to go on that committee. So in the coming weeks you should hear on that a little bit more. We will get that committee down to work, and we will be doing the same with the provincial advisory council on early child care education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PIKE: We certainly agree, this is very important. It’s important to get it moving as quickly as possible.

Speaker, next week is Early Childhood Educators Week, a week that celebrates the commitment and dedication of our highly skilled ECEs.

Will the minister admit that leaving ECEs out of the budget was a mistake and reconsider making improvements to the compensation and benefits of the ECEs that enrich the lives of children and families right across Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Thank you.

That is a good question. We value our early child care educators and, as I said, part of what they wanted, Child Care Now nationally, was to have a committee in place to formally address these issues around wages, compensation and benefits.

This is what we have in place in the coming weeks. We will be sitting down with these groups and working through that. We have it in our blue book. It is a commitment to address pensions and wages as we move forward. That will be a commitment that we will follow through on, but we want to talk to the sectors, the industry, and find out where they want to prioritize that list in moving forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PIKE: Just to remind the minister, benefits were the priority and that’s the area in which they want to move.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

P. PIKE: The Conservative blue book said there is a crisis facing students in classrooms. It promised to expand school meals for K-to-12 students, hire and retain more teachers, reduce class sizes and improve students’ access to school psychologists; but the Conservative Budget book addresses none of these commitments.

If the Conservatives believe that our public education is in crisis, why isn’t there more in the budget for education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Just to the brief preamble, the issue around early child care and the requirements they need on pensions, it hasn’t been determined which is their top priority. That’s what we’re going to work through. I’ve actually got a call from YWCA on that. They’re looking forward to having those discussions.

To your question on the budget, $1.5 billion is in the budget for education, $400 million for Memorial University, more than $32.6 million will be invested to address continuation of child care. The budget for educators and learning assistants –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

The federal government’s involvement in expanding Churchill Falls and developing Gull Island is only held up by the Premier’s inability to reach a deal. Now the Parti Québécois energy critic says Ottawa’s involvement is – quote – out of the question and a threat to Quebec’s energy sovereignty.

What is the Premier’s plan if the PQ wins the Quebec election in the fall?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I have said many times in this House of Assembly, I stand here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – and I will stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will make sure that the MOU that they signed and approved and were ready to move forward that would have handcuffed us for another 50 years will not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker, and I would remind the Premier that we all stand here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: Yesterday, the Premier told the media that Jerome Kennedy and the negotiating team started analysis two weeks ago and will start the negotiation in a couple of weeks, soon. The Premier secretly hired Mr. Kennedy four months ago, and given that they’ve offered no transparency on cost or scope, we have to ask what has Mr. Kennedy been doing behind closed doors for the past four months?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I am very proud to have Mr. Kennedy as a member of the negotiating team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: I don’t have to validate the work that Mr. Kennedy has done, and I can assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, he’s providing great service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in his current role.

What I’d like to ask the Member opposite. Where were you? Did you vote for that 2 per cent escalation clause that would have cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador $30 billion? Did you vote for the MOU? Were you aware of that clause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Premier and the House of Assembly that back when Jerome Kennedy was the natural resources minister, he said that Muskrat Falls was a project that would pay for itself. So his track record on hydroelectric projects, not exactly stellar.

Speaker, former Premier Danny Williams said in April, “… it’s probably the single biggest achievement I’ve had since I’ve been in politics, which is stopping that MOU ….” He said that in a media scrum. Yesterday, Mr. Williams said: “I didn’t kill the MOU.” And claimed he has had no involvement.

Since Danny Williams won’t decide, will the Premier confirm whether he was wrong last month or is he wrong now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I would say when the wannabe Leader of the Opposition has a question like that, he should understand that we have surrounded ourselves with the very best people. We have not turned comments off anywhere. We have listened to anyone and everyone who can provide solid advice. We certainly didn’t try to give away the province again, for the third time, as the Liberals have repeated, in ’69 it was Joey, in the ’90s it was Tobin and now it’s a reincarnation of Joey’s Liberals over there trying to give it back to Quebec.

They come in here and they’re more concerned about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – more concerned about Quebec’s stance than they are about our own. We are going to negotiate a deal that adds more value, more transmission and allows us to be in charge of our own –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: Speaker, I say to the minister opposite he feels so great to have the people who architect $13 billion for the ratepayers of this province, they’re on the hook for, a Member earlier said thank God, I’ll say God help us.

While we are pleased to see changes to the food fishery in the province the residents of the south and west coast are frustrated and angered by the decision to only have three days a week to participate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t address the preamble. There are a few facts that these guys always overlook. Let’s go to the first one, there would be no discussion about Gull Island today if Muskrat Falls did not exist, period. The only way Gull Island can be built is because of Muskrat Falls existence, fact one. Fact two, these guys failed to delver on Muskrat Falls. When they took over in 2015, if it was such a bad idea they could have shut it down. They could have shut it down in ’16. They could have shut it down in’17.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: They could have shut it down in ’18.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: As a matter of fact, in 2017, they came into this House of Assembly and said the project was 78 per cent complete and it didn’t get commissioned until 2022.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I’ve heard the Minister of Energy say this now, that it was important for Muskrat Falls to go before Gull Island but the fact is, Danny Williams initiated the Lower Churchill Project with a focus on developing Gull Island first. But the strategy shifted to Muskrat Falls as the initial phase in 2010. While Gull Island was considered more economical Muskrat Falls was chosen as a smaller, more manageable starter project to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to go it alone and avoid relying on Hydro-Québec.

I ask the Minister of Energy: Is Danny Williams right or is he right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s certainly a pleasure to get up and be a Member for the District of Ferryland and speak on the fishery and our government here, as well, have, certainly, spoken well on the cod fishery. I’ve met with the federal minister three times on the food fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O’DRISCOLL: We’ve made some changes to the food fishery this year, as well. We’d like to see some more changes and we, certainly, will be reaching out to the minister to check on that as well for the West Coast.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: I’ll say to the minister opposite, the government was very quick to pat themselves on the back for an announcement from the federal government but as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who advocated for years to see this change and they are the ones to be thanked.

I’ll say to the minister opposite: Will the minister admit that they failed to deliver for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador for a fair and safe food fishery?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

You know we had a PMR in here last week that we all voted to agree that the fisheries is certainly important for the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I met with the minister, as I said, three times over the past six months and the first topic of conversation was the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. They did make some changes and, again, I will be forwarding a letter to the minister to see more changes for the West Coast so they can have everybody fish for seven days a week during the year.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

All this government is clearly about is deflection and secrecy. Shameful.

The Conservatives have appointed Keri-Lynn Power to lead the Access to Information Review. While she is an experienced lawyer, she’s also a Conservative donor, having donated to the PCs the past couple of years. Why did the Conservatives think it was acceptable to appoint a political supporter to review legislation about what information the Conservatives will have to release or will they keep it all a secret like they’re doing with everything else?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Let’s have a conversation about donors, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Two hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars – Chris Hickman to this government – $237,000. In return, he got the opportunity to walk into the Premier’s office seven days a week whenever he wanted. You could see his vehicle parked out there in our parking spots. Not only that, he got $350 million worth of work from this group over here. Not only did they want to give away Churchill Falls, but they gave away the premiums.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m asking the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for your co-operation.

The hon. the minister.

L. PARROTT: Not only did they give away Churchill Falls, but they gave away everything else to the tune where other proponents that were –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy and Mines said the Premier had the foresight to understand that the MOU was flawed.

So I ask the Premier: If that was the case, why didn’t he and his caucus vote against the deal?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, right from day one when that announcement was first announced, I said we needed an independent review because we didn’t have enough information about it. We stood in this House and asked for an independent review. It didn’t happen. We stood in this House, we wrote letters asking for independent experts to come in, that didn’t happen.

They turned around and approved a review process that was flawed from the beginning, did not have the ability to ask the questions they needed to ask. We’re not allowed to ask the people who they needed to ask and as a result of that, we didn’t get it. We have an independent review done now.

I ask the Member opposite: Why did you vote for a flawed MOU?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, we did our job, what we’re paid to do, and actually voted (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: The independent review committee noted that a key outcome of the MOU is access to an additional 600 megawatts before 2041, but restricted to 500 megawatts post-2041. Yet, Schedule E of the MOU indicates that there will be an additional 360 megawatts available, bringing the total to 860 megawatts post-2041, not 500.

Since we are not permitted to question the IRC, will the Premier explain why members of the committee ignored the additional power? Was it an oversight on their part or did they deliberately exclude the information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

It would have been really good if he had to notice that when the MOU came out, if it was already there. They voted to support this. At the end of the day, we have one individual on the panel who walked away right after this gentleman over here became the premier and their terms of reference changed.

They actually voted – the whole Cabinet voted – that individual in, now he’s no good. They and him supported every part of this along the way and, here we are today, and their largest concern is that.

We, even with that power, do not have enough power to develop Labrador. That is why we are going for more power, and we will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: The minister, obviously, has been speaking to the people of Labrador, that’s for sure.

Speaker, the report of the review committee states that Gull Island is one of the best undeveloped hydroelectric power generation opportunities on the continent and a valuable opportunity for the province.

So I ask the Premier: Was his independent review committee simply a thinly veiled justification for his government to develop Gull Island on its own and risk another Muskrat Falls debacle?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Again, I would say that the Member opposite should do some research, because Gull Island isn’t one of the best, it is the best undeveloped resource in North America by far.

We know we want to develop Labrador. These Members haven’t taken into consideration Tacora, Kami, Rio Tinto, Iron Bear –

S. STOODLEY: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: No, they didn’t.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Mount Scio for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. PARROTT: – the $8.5 billion spent.

I would say to the Member opposite that’s over there chirping, perhaps she should go back and look at what they put forward, because none of them were in what they put forward. They were going to give us 10 million person-hours of work when it’s 10 times that amount. They didn’t know what they were doing –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, the independent review panellists received legal advice not to speak to the public about their findings.

I ask the Premier: Which lawyers gave this advice, was the two that were secretly hired back in January; the former premier, Danny Williams, or their own government lawyers? Who was it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Once again, Speaker, once again, the focus is not on the MOU, where it ought to be focused on because that Party over there –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – that Party over there voted in favour of an MOU that included a 2 per cent escalation clause that was not recommended by the financial advisors, was not recommended by their negotiating team and would have cost this province, potentially, $30 billion of extra debt.

I ask the Member opposite: Why did your Party support that?

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 Thursday, May 21, 2026. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.