Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Question Period on Tuesday, May 26, 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.

Yesterday, the Premier admitted in this House he does not know who the invisible and so-called experts are that the panellists relied on for his biased report. He actually said it would be inappropriate for him to know who was giving him advice on the biggest opportunity in our province’s history.

Why is the Premier comfortable taking advice from unknown individuals?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition wants to focus on process, let’s actually focus on the MOU that they signed, that they were prepared to make the final agreements on, that would have significant costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let’s talk about some facts.

The Liberals intervened in the MOU negotiations in a way that superseded Hydro’s governance role. Against expert advice, the Liberals insisted on inserting a costly 2 per cent escalation clause which put our province at risk of a $30-billion loss.

Again, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Why did you include that 2 per cent escalation clause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I understand why the Premier doesn’t want to speak about process, because he knows it’s a flawed process.

Today, VOCM reported: Despite numerous attempts, the Opposition Leader could not get answers from government about naming experts in the report. The answer we did get from the Premier is he doesn’t feel like he needs to know who the experts were. That is even more troubling.

Why is the Premier putting blind faith in unknown experts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about flawed. Let’s talk about a flawed MOU, because that’s exactly what’s at the heart of this discussion. It’s an MOU that they were prepared to sign up for.

We did an independent review which highlighted several challenges with that. Let me read another fact: The Liberals failed to produce a long-term economic plan or an energy plan to find out how much energy Newfoundland and Labrador would actually need over the 50 years.

Speaker, all they did was simply focus on how much money can we get in our coffers. How quick can we get it in there before the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to want to know why this Premier won’t focus on the future. All he does is continue to focus on the Liberals. It’s very strange.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Yesterday, when I asked if the Premier knew the identities of the experts, his answer was: I’m not privy to that information. That independent review committee is truly independent. I did not influence them in any way.

Speaker, how does knowing the names of these secret experts result in influencing a report that’s already written?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me tell you what we are doing. We are absolutely focusing on the future, and that is why we would never agree to the existing MOU.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: That is why we asked for an independent review to be done, why we asked for it just right after the deal was signed.

What we are doing now, we are focused on getting more power, more value and more transmission for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, during the good old days of openness and transparency, the four-day MOU debate by the Liberal government, they made available the experts to answer questions about anything that any MHA had. J.P. Morgan and Power Advisory were those experts.

Since the Premier astonishingly admitted yesterday that he doesn’t even know the identity of the experts that he’s relying on for the biggest deal in our province’s history, does he at least know their qualifications?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues to talk about the experts that they used, the experts that they had. Well, why did they not listen to those experts? Why did they go against their own negotiating team when they turned around and arbitrarily – this former premier and the former premier before him – a 2 per cent escalation clause was added to the MOU against the advice of their own financial advisors.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Can you please explain that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, one of, if not I would suggest, the most important part of any deal with Quebec is getting the right price. You need experts to give you that advice.

I ask the Premier: Will he take the time to find out who is giving him this advice and tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who they are?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the independent review has identified serious flaws and weaknesses with the MOU that the Liberal government, the previous Liberal government, were about to sign up the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the next 50 years.

We have a new negotiating team in place. We will negotiate a new deal that brings more power, more transmission and more value for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Yesterday the Minister of Finance insisted we don’t need to know who the experts are because the panellists were the experts.

I ask the Premier: Which of his three hand-picked panellists is an expert on electricity, market, pricing analyst and price forecast?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact that this government failed to do an economic plan to understand how much electricity we already needed. The fact that they signed a 2 per cent escalation that would cost taxpayers $30 billion in completion of this. The fact they overinflated the numbers and said $225 billion to our coffers should tell the public everything. All false. Then on top of that, not one but two premiers knew this and they voted for it and they signed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Why does the Minister of Energy choose to use nominal values when he’s talking about one side of the deal, but MPV values with the other because the public need to know the difference. The Energy Minister can tell the public what the difference is and why he’s trying to use one when he talks about their deal and another when he talks about ours.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: It’s pretty interesting that the MHA for Windsor Lake would say that after they did it during the whole four days of the debate, after they did it when they brought this to the public back in December.

They utilized numbers that were 10 years old. They showed jobs that didn’t exist. They overinflated everything and now, all of a sudden, it’s a big issue.

Let’s use the number they had. They said $33 million. Now, if you’re smart and you’re in the public and you’re taking a billion dollars a year and it’s a 50-year contract, perhaps he should explain how $33 million equals a billion dollars a year over 50 years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: We don’t get an answer, but we continue to get questions, because they’re not acting like they’re in government still.

Speaker, yesterday the Premier, as I said – and today – acted like he was in Opposition and continues to ask me questions about what I knew and whether I knew about the 2 per cent escalation clause.

I’ll turn around and ask him: Did he know about the 2 per cent escalator clause?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I know exactly where we’re to, we’re siting on this side of the House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Why are we here? Because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted against a Liberal government that was going to turn around and put an MOU in place that would have turned around and had a 2 per cent escalation clause, that had no economic plan.

But you know what, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did. They protected their children. They protected future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because the former Liberal government would have signed that MOU and we would be stuck with it for the next 50 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: The Premier knows where he is, but I don’t think he knows why he’s there because he continues to act like he’s in Opposition.

Did the Premier know about the escalator clause?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Once again, Speaker, the fact of the matter is the escalation clause is put in the MOU by the former Liberal government against their own financial advisors. He still hasn’t explained why they did that. Simply answer that question, then we can talk about the rest of it.

But what we know for sure is we know that we had a flawed MOU that we’re now going to repair. We’re not only going to repair it, we’re going to fix it. We’re going to get a better deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. More power, more transmission and more value for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I ask if the Minister of Jobs, Immigration and Growth knows about the escalator clause?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Here’s what we know, Speaker: We know a whole lot of facts. We know that the MOU left Labrador with a very small portion of power, not enough to suit the needs going forward. That’s not hyperbole; that’s a fact. We know that they were prepared to sign away the future of this province. Again, not hyperbole; it’s a fact.

We known that they actually hid the details from the public and from us. Absolute fact. We know that when they met with Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan, their so-called advisors that were only allowed to advise on GNF, they ignored what they put forward and put in a 2 per cent escalator clause that would cost us billions. They voted for it. They supported it and they hid it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I’m not sure what the Minister of Energy said was hid, because during the course of the debate, all MHAs should have been aware of the 2 per cent escalation clause because the now Minister of Immigration asked the experts, who were here and available, all about the 2 per cent clause. The managing director of J.P. Morgan – a qualified, accountable expert who we know their names and their qualifications – said to the minister, a 2 per cent escalator is appropriate in this House of Assembly. It was discussed and every MHA who was paying attention would have known.

So I ask: Did the Premier forget the debate he sat in on or is the reason he didn’t bother to vote because he wasn’t paying attention?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: The bigger question is when Mr. Rawlings came in here and he specifically said he was only allowed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: When he came in here, he was only allowed to comment on Table G. That’s his words, not ours. They purposefully had them mislead us. There is zero question about what happened here.

At the end of the day –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: – the 2 per cent escalation clause hid the $30 billion that it was going to cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was no debt, which is absolutely false. We’re left with a $30-billion debt, a 1969 deal and hidden agenda by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Unbelievable that the Minister of Energy, a Cabinet Minister of this Crown, this government, has said that the former government advised experts to mislead the House of Assembly. Not only that, these experts that sat here and were qualified, took that advice to mislead Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask the minister: Is that exactly what he is saying?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: What I will say is not only did they say they could only comment on what they were at to advise on which was Table G and Table F, but I can also say that the IRC has proven that when they offered advice, that government failed to listen.

Two previous premiers, all the Cabinet ministers decided to hide that from the public. They did not listen. They voted for it. It leaves us with $30 billion in debt. The MOU was a bad deal. We will get a much better deal for the men and women of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, the report has stated that the levelized cost in the MOU was 7.9 cents per kilowatt hour, yet Danny Williams and Bern Coffey said it was 2.7 cents.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: Who do you believe: Williams and Coffey, who you hired, or the panel who you hired?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: What we will believe is the number that we bring back to the public. What we will believe is a number that will be far better than the number that was offered up in the MOU.

We will deliver a better deal, one that brings more value. One that brings transmission, one that brings enough power for us to develop our own resources instead of watching Quebec exponentially grow their iron ore mining: 145 per cent versus 25 per cent for us. It is clear that they did not know what they were doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: I ask the Minister of Energy to give the dates and the calculations to figure out how he comes to the 145 per cent for Quebec growing their mines.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: 145 per cent is easy data to get. You can go into any newspaper and google how much Quebec is growing their mining industry. It will show you pretty clear.

Listen, here’s the deal –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: At the end of the day, we sit here and we are looking at a flawed process that we have tried to correct. We have the Opposition trying to get us to negotiate a deal which we will negotiate for the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we’re not going to do it in public. He knows the difference.

You don’t negotiate in public, and certainly you don’t negotiate with all of the flaws that were in this publicly because we wouldn’t have anywhere to start from.

So we will go and deal with Quebec. We will deliver more value, more transmission and more power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: That last time, it was a very simple question, and he said it was a very simple answer, but he wouldn’t provide it. It’s the same minister who sat here on this side of the House and said I’ll answer any question, any time, and he hasn’t answered one question since he’s been named minister.

Speaker, I’ve asked about this deal and what will be in the Premier’s MOU. Big surprise, the Premier hasn’t made one commitment yet, so I’ll try again and maybe the Minister of Energy will.

Will he confirm that any payments that this province receives from Gull Island will not go down over time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: What I will guarantee is once we get through a negotiation process and we have a deal that offers Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the best future possible, then we will understand specifically and exactly where we stand with Gull Island, with CF1 expansion, CF2 expansion, where we stand with an economic value to our whole province where we can develop mines, hopefully get secondary processing, have an ability to develop a province that they were going to fail to do. Leave it to our people, look after our children, our grandchildren and make sure that we have the most prosperous, beneficial deal that this province can receive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, will the Premier confirm that there will be no minority shareholder rights for Hydro-Québec on his deal?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, what we have in front of us is a failed, flawed MOU. That’s the first thing we’ve got to talk about: How do we make it better?

But just to give you a quick example, the amortization period for the loan on Gull Island was 65 years. The actual contract agreement was for 50 years.

Think about it. You’re a taxi driver and you get a taxi licence for five years, but you take out your car payment over 10 years. After five years you no longer have a taxi licence, but you have a car payment for another five years. The same thing with this agreement here.

Speaker, 50 years of a contract and 65 years we’d still be paying for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, the Premier continues to talk about the new transmission he’s going to get.

Who will be paying for the new transmission in his new deal?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, we have a great negotiating team in place, and we will deliver for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, just like we said we would.

We have stopped this MOU. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador actually stopped it when they voted us in power. We’re going to make sure that we provide, as I have said continuously, more power, more transmission and more value.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, we heard that the panel would not meet with Hydro-Québec.

Shouldn’t the panel want to hear from the other side of this deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I find it amusing that the Member for Windsor Lake wants to negotiate in public.

The panel had to look at an MOU that they delivered. They had to look at how they could shape our future. They took the MOU. They got a firm understanding of what was contained inside the MOU. They found the flaws. They brought them back.

This government will now, in turn – not publicly, but we will – take those flaws, take the MOU and we will find a path forward that delivers more power, more transmission or more value. We are not going to give it away like they wanted to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: The minister who said he’ll answer any question any time, I think what he really meant was he won’t answer any question no matter who asks it or when they ask it about any issue.

Speaker, the panellists heard from over 300 people but not one of the two major players. Make it make sense to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Hydro-Québec has important context to provide, from their perspective of course, but how do you assess a deal from only one side?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: It’s really quite interesting that the Member for Windsor Lake would bring that up, because I can tell you, without a doubt, that’s the same question I asked them about their negotiations from their advisors at JPMorganChase and at Power Advisory. I specifically asked if they used Quebec’s numbers and if they had sat with Quebec in order to get those numbers. The answer was no and they expected us to believe that was okay.

When you want to talk about how we got to where we are through that MOU, it was a flawed process. We will now take that MOU, and we will fix what was wrong and we will deliver more power, more value and more transmission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, at some point in time this minister, this Premier and this government is going to have to tell the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what they’re doing. They continue to talk about what the Liberal MOU looked like. They’re just scurrying away from the flawed process that they’ve created and this is the process that this province is in right now.

Will the Minister of Energy tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that he is okay with them not knowing who the experts are that advised on pricing? That he is okay with him not knowing about how they came to the conclusion on pricing? That he is okay with him not knowing about how they came to the determination of what the contract length is? That he’s okay with telling them about how equity and debt should be allocated on all these projects? Because this is what’s happening. The individuals making the biggest decision in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador have no idea where they’re getting their information from.

My question is: Why are they okay with it and why should Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be okay with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I said earlier, the facts matter. The facts in this particular case –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Yeah, we certainly do know the facts.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: We certainly know that there was no economic plan at all in the MOU. In other words, it was simply a case of – they didn’t even recognize how much power we ought to keep so we can build our own industries in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We’ve heard significant increase in the mining sector on the Quebec side of the border and very little on the Newfoundland and Labrador side of the border, even though it’s in the same trough. Why? Because Newfoundland and Labrador didn’t have access to power, but they didn’t think about that.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Do you agree now that the 2 per cent escalation clause was wrong?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, no answer so we’ll try this.

Doctors are criticizing the new health app MyChart. It is allowing patients to see devastating medical results before their doctor does. Patients are learning they have cancer or miscarriages without proper support or information.

Will the Premier commit to updating the app to avoid these situations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, we’ve become aware of some people actually looking at very troubling reports without actually engaging with their family doctor. There is an option there where they go in before they actually have a chance to see that the reports are available, before they look at them.

Speaker, we’re advising them to consult with their doctors if they need to have that level of assurance, or actually call family members before reviewing it. We are reviewing it with Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services. MyChart is improving access to health care, it’s also putting a lot of the knowledge and power back to the patient.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Trades NL is warning that the government’s timeline for the Bull Arm floating dry dock is far too slow and could cost Newfoundlanders and Labradorians major defence contracts and jobs. Equinor and BP funding is stretched over five years while workers and industry leaders are saying the opportunity is now.

Why is the government accepting delayed timelines instead of fast tracking the project to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don’t miss out on the economic opportunity and the associated jobs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s great to see that the Member opposite thinks this is a great project. It’s great to see that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, we talk to Trades NL on a regular basis, as we do Equinor and BP. They are all on side with moving this ahead.

As we hit DG2, DG3, this process will go forward. The tender for the dry dock FEED process has gone out, so the process is moving faster than anyone would have thought it would. We will be ready to build a dry dock as soon as this project gets approved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

We heard in Estimates last week that the government did not send out any tickets for the first half of the school year for vehicles illegally passing school buses when the stop arm is extended.

Given the grave safety concerns with our most vulnerable, we do know there was a mail strike, but why did the minister not have contingency plans like sending tickets via courier for this very serious infraction?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Speaker.

When I came into this role, Speaker, I did multiple interviews with media outlets. I also thanked the Members opposite and the former administration, but also for taking care and looking out to public safety and traffic.

I already made it very clear that I’m not here for knee-jerk reactions. I’m not here to do things just off the cuff. I’m here for public safety. We’re going to roll this program out and we’re going to do it properly and efficiently for all of us.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Speaker, the RFP for the swing vessels, we know, was not awarded yesterday. In a news release back in December, the government said, quote, “This initiative fulfills a commitment made during the fall election campaign to procure four new vessels: three to be built in the province to replace aging ferries and one new swing vessel.”

Will the minister now admit this is actually another broken election promise?

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

You know, it amazes me. The Opposition, they’re more caught up in my failures. We’re not about failures. We’re about representing the people of the province.

We committed to building new ferries in the province. We’re committed to carrying on. We committed to doing the swing vessel. We’re not giving up on that. Our glass is half-full, Speaker, not half-empty like the other side.

We will get the swing vessel. Whether we build it or not or get it from a broker or get it from another supplier, we’ll get there, and we’ll also develop an industry for ferries in this province like we promised to do.

We’ll continue on our commitments and we’re not in the negative world. They can stay negative. We want to stay positive. The people of Newfoundland deserve better.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Yesterday, in response to my question of how government plans to address the staffing shortage at the Stavanger Drive urgent care clinic, the minister responded her department is trying to change the culture, where if there’s a problem, we’ll just take the easy way out.

So I ask the minister: What does she mean by the easy way out, and what exactly is the culture her department is trying to change?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I’d like to thank the Member opposite for the question because it gives me a chance to clarify yesterday when I was talking about some of the responses we got back when we expressed concern about the Urgent Care Centre not staying open as long as it was scheduled.

I did talk about taking the easy way out and about the culture there where there was a problem. One of the suggestions that came back to me as minister is at the higher management level of maybe we need to reduce the actual times.

In actual fact, Speaker, not only are we committed to keeping the Urgent Care Centre open at the hours, but actually extending the hours. So what I’m pushing back is basically –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister went on to say if NLHS was having trouble staffing the Urgent Care Centre, they would close it earlier. “Actually,” she said, “I’m going to say honestly, it’s ridiculous, but these are some of the options that were put back to me.”

The minister attended the safe staffing levels breakfast hosted by the Nurses’ Union this morning.

I ask the minister: What should the clinic do if it does not have enough staff? Should it keep operating and risk patient care and health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, as minister, I’m committed to patient safety. I attended the breakfast this morning, and in actual fact, we are struggling. I’ve inherited a system that I’m struggling with.

Basically a lot of issues with recruitment; but retention is so vital for our nurses. It has to do with safety in the workplace, also work-life balance.

I hope the Member opposite was joking, because I don’t think any decent person or any person with any kind of mental capability would suggest us putting workers and patients at risk. I think he must have been joking, Speaker.

We are committed to actually addressing the shortages and the closures. We’re going to work on keeping the centre open on the regular –

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: I’m not joking; I’m actually looking at believing that the minister is blaming the people who work there for the problem.

So I ask the minister: What plan does her department have to make sure that the urgent care clinic at Stavanger Drive is fully staffed? What are the plans to address that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, that’s very low. That’s a low blow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. EVANS: That really is. I have to call the Member out for that.

In actual fact, Speaker, as Minister of Health I basically take a lot of time to make sure that we acknowledge the work and the struggle for the last years, especially during COVID and post-COVID, what our front-line workers had to put up with. We appreciate them. We respect them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, there are a lot of problems in health care right now. I didn’t create them, but I’m going to make sure that when we address them, we look after the front-line workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. O’LEARY: Speaker, our nurses are under-resourced and burnt out. The solutions are clear. We need to increase the hiring of medical professionals. We can also set enforceable staffing standards and mandate public reporting to protect nurses from unsafe workloads.

Will this government pass safe staffing legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, we recognize that vacancies are creating a lot of problems, not only for patients, but for the health care professionals in the field that have to deal with the vacancies.

One of the things that we’re addressing is we are investing in recruitment and retention. We are also making sure that we don’t leave the vacancies out there.

One of the things we’re doing is we are working closely – working closely; a novel concept from the past government – with the Nurses’ Union to have a travelling unionized nurse locum to go out and address vacancies when they exist, when they’re happening, so we don’t have chronic vacancies, we don’t have nurses stressed about if they –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Tuesday, May 26, 2026. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.