Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Question Period on Monday, May 25, 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.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I will agree with is that if we had to rush ahead with this MOU as it was currently set up which they wanted to move ahead with quickly, our province would be in a bad place long term. We recognize that in the report here that was provided by the Independent Review Committee. We understand that efficiencies that are highlighted by that, we need to get a review done. We had that done and now we look forward to negotiating a deal that will be actually the best deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: And as I have said before and I’ll repeat, the first thing we need to do is we need to get a deal and we need to get a better deal than what was envisioned in this MOU. That’s why we have talked about the need for more power, more transmission and more value and those are the things we’ll be talking about negotiating on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said in a recent scrum that there would have been changes to the MOU.

I’ve got to ask him again: Did he know about the 2 per cent escalator clause when he sat around the Cabinet table?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Which of the Premier’s three timelines is accurate?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, again I’d be happy to answer the questions. It’s his job to answer the questions which he’s not doing, he’s deferring, but I can tell you that I knew what was in the MOU. I was confident we would have negotiated good, solid, final agreements for the people of this province and, not only that, I would have been open and transparent about it as well.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’ve been quite clear on what we need if we’re going to move forward as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. For too long, we have been held captive – for too long. That original MOU would have allowed us not to do anything other than sell power to Quebec. We need an alternative, that’s why we’re asking for more transmission, that’s why we’re asking for more value, and we intend to get both.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Clarity is the farthest thing from what’s happened in this situation since this Premier has taken over.

Concerns were referenced in the Premier’s biased report as coming from – and I quote – expert advisors. Yet, the Premier still hasn’t said the names or the qualifications of these so-called experts or insisted that the panelists do so.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let’s talk about economic value. The fact that the previous MOU didn’t even consider what the opportunities were to develop industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, they failed to do that. They simply focused on how much money can we get and how quickly can we get it. They just simply wanted to sell it all, take as much money as they could upfront and pay for some of their election promises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: But I tell you what is concerning. What is concerning is when they make a statement that they didn’t listen to their negotiators, they didn’t listen to their own people, they didn’t listen to their financial experts when they included that 2 per cent escalation clause. I’d ask the Member opposite: How did that happen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member that you address the Chair.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, we put in an independent review committee that has done their work. They have presented a report. I might add, two members of the independent review committee that were appointed by the previous Liberal government. Now they’re not good enough anymore. They’ve turned around and they’ve done a job. They’ve turned around and saved this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from entering into another bad deal, just like 1969.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Once again, Speaker, we turned around and actually engaged and put it in regulation. We took the shackles off of the independent review committee. The previous independent review committee was handcuffed by the fact that they could only look at certain things. They could only speak to certain people. We put it in regulation that says they could go out and receive submissions from anybody they want. They could see whatever documents they want. They did that. Over 350 submissions were received by the independent review committee, and, clearly, some of them were from people on both sides of the House and all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The report also notes: Implementing the Schedule F principles-based block-pricing model will be particularly complex and will require detailed negotiations.

So I ask the Premier: Isn’t that the point of Schedule F, confirm that our province gets the right price based on broader market value for market prices both externally and to its own ratepayers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think what the Leader of the Opposition is missing is that those same players are still players in this review that we’ve got conducted here. We had the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro here that we’ve asked questions for the whole time that we asked; the assistant and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

C. PARDY: They are still part of it. Guy Holburn, who was a significant expert witness at the Muskrat Falls inquiry, was part of the ones that were part of the IRC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, would they be not experts, the ones I just mentioned? Would they be not experts? The ones that the then-government brought in last January?

Would the chair or the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro, not be classed as an expert? Would Guy Holborn, Dr. Holborn who was a significant part of Justice Richard LeBlanc’s inquiry on Muskrat Falls, that the hon. Member was part of, would he not be an expert because he was involved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

C. PARDY: I may have missed a question there but I’d like to stand on it. I would say the number is, how many experts did they bring into the House – and we don’t want to look back. What they brought in, I’ve just listed three experts that we would know that are directly involved with it. What he wants to know is a number of extras. How many more experts were involved.

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

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

C. PARDY: Imagine, no energy plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SPEAKER: I would ask that you address the Chair.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

How many more are there? Well, we know there were more that they would have referenced, but the report writers and the authors were these mentioned, these people that I had just referenced in the House. They are experts.

Who they consulted with for their opinion – and they are very knowledgeable in and of itself – would the leadership of NL Hydro be well aware of what the needs were in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The experts that came into the House of Assembly, we didn’t ask them who they consulted with. We didn’t need to know. If the experts came in and they were notable experts, then listen, that is what we want to know that they had people that they would consult with. They did their consultation and they came back with a report – a report that corrected the errors of the previous government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

C. PARDY: Absolutely not – absolutely not. We can agree and the Opposition would agree that what I listed, they were experts. Who those experts consulted with, that’s what they want to know. The report stands on itself.

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

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

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I would like to hear the rest of that thought and say we want to be upfront with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and tell them who the panel spoke to, but I don’t think that is ever going to come. So if something is not being told to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I say to the Premier and I say to the Finance Minister, the lack of openness and transparency is on them and that’s their legacy.

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

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: In August of 2025, a Liberal government press release dated the MOU. As my colleague just said, it would bring over $225 billion in new revenue in increased power capacity, but the Independent Review Committee included on page 38, the total financial benefit to the Provincial Treasury of the overall MOU is best represented by the net present value amount which is estimated at approximately $31 billion including estimated rate mitigation costs rather than by the $227 billion nominal amount presented in government documents.

Of the $31 billion, $9.2 billion will be seen prior to –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

F. HUTTON: Thank you, Speaker.

The Premier and Energy Minister, last week, used a strategy to criticize us for the 1969 Churchill Falls contract, which we all know is lopsided. The public can see through that though as, obviously, none of us had anything to do with public policy back in 1969. Many of us – well, I was – but others here weren’t born. If it was an option, however, we wouldn’t bring back the negotiators, the architects of the 1969 deal to give us advice. However, Muskrat Falls, also known as a bad deal, yet the Premier has decided to bring back those architects to advise on Churchill Falls, again.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I think that the Member opposite ought to take the time to read the credentials of the people who we have appointed to the negotiating committee because what he just said doesn’t reflect their ability or anything to do with the work that they’ve done in the past. They are professional people that we have engaged with who will do a tremendous job. I’m glad and proud to have all three of them on the Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: There are a couple of times I stood in this House for, at least a statement, as far as what I knew. They were all in Cabinet back in the decision when they knew they created the budget that we came in on. There was no $1.5 billion in that budget, a budget line for this coming budget. It wasn’t there. Was there $1 billion there? There was not $1 billion there. Was it half a billion? No, it wasn’t, but there was an amount there, but the Leaders of the Opposition and the Energy critic will stand up time and time again and say that we’d have no deficit. We wouldn’t have a deficit this year, next year, next year, next year after. Wrong. Incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

According to a notice on the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services website, on June 1, 2026, the community walk-in clinic and newcomer health clinic will relocate temporarily from 50 Mundy Pond Road to 850 Topsail Road to accommodate renovations. The notice recommends they check Metro bus for schedules. The clinic regularly turns people away because appointments are filled.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I was pleased to attend the We’re Here For You Canada events yesterday hosted by IPV survivor and advocate, Sarah Sherman.

Joined by my colleague and members of Unifor, we had fulsome discussions as to why intimate partner violence must begin in this province with a declaration that it is an epidemic to continue raising awareness and ensure proper supports are in place for those experiencing violence.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Speaker, we’ve made significant inroads and you would talk to any of the advocates out there, they will say that this government is a changed government that’s going to actually change the way these issues are dealt addressed. We are going to deliver, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: When it comes to gender-based violence, Speaker, we are not going to politic on the backs of (inaudible.)

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

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 Monday, May 25, 2026. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.