PDF Version

June 1, 2021

RESOURCE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Krista Lynn Howell, MHA for St. Barbe - L'Anse

aux Meadows, substitutes for Lucy Stoyles, MHA for Mount Pearl North.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Scott Reid, MHA for St. George's - Humber,

substitutes for Paul Pike, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Abbott, MHA for St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi, substitutes for Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lloyd Parrott, MHA for Terra Nova, substitutes

for Craig Pardy, MHA for Bonavista.

The

Committee met at 6:02 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Warr):

The meeting last night, May 31, of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and

Recreation, is there a mover for that, please?

P. FORSEY:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Mover, MHA Forsey.

Seconder? MHA Brown.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

Okay, tonight we're

considering the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology.

Probably what I'll do is just start here on my right. Before I go ahead, I just

want to make sure that when it's your turn to speak, just wait for your tally

light to light and you're free to go.

We just

want you to introduce yourself. Then, we'll go to the department and the

minister's opening remarks.

K. HOWELL:

Krista Howell. I'm the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Member for St. Barbe -

L'Anse aux Meadows.

L. PARROTT:

Lloyd Parrott. MHA for Terra

Nova and critic for Industry, Energy and Technology.

J. BROWN:

Jordan Brown, the MHA for

Labrador West.

S. KENT:

Steven Kent, Researcher for the Third Party caucus.

S. REID:

Scott Reid, MHA for St.

George's - Humber.

P. FORSEY:

Pleaman Forsey, MHA for

Exploits.

M. WINTER:

Megan Winter, Researcher with the Official Opposition caucus.

J. ABBOTT:

John Abbott, MHA for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

P. TRIMPER:

Perry Trimper, MHA for Lake

Melville.

P. LANE:

Paul Lane, MHA, Mount Pearl

- Southlands.

CHAIR:

Thank you to the Committee

Members.

Minister?

A. PARSONS:

Andrew Parsons, Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

J. COWAN:

John Cowan, Deputy Minister, Industry, Energy and Technology.

C. MARTIN:

Craig Martin, Associate Deputy Minister for Industry, Energy and Technology.

G. SKINNER:

Gillian Skinner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Industry and Economic Development,

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. SMITH:

Alex Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister of Mining and Mineral Development,

Industry, Energy and Technology.

P. TOBIN:

Pierre Tobin, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy, Industry, Energy and

Technology.

P. IVIMEY:

Philip Ivimey, Departmental Comptroller, Industry, Energy and Technology.

F. LANGOR:

Fiona Langor, Assistant Deputy Minister of Business and Innovation, Industry,

Energy and Technology.

T. MUNDON:

Tansy Mundon, Director of Communications.

M. NESBITT:

Megan Nesbitt, Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate and Strategic Services.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Can I

have the Clerk call the first set of subheads, please?

CLERK (Barnes):

The first subhead is

Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 through 1.2.03

inclusive carry?

Minister, opening remarks, please.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you.

I'll

make it very quick. I'm happy to have the team here. In the grand scheme of

things, we don't have a lot of time and there's probably a lot to cover, so I'll

keep it brief and turn it over to my colleagues to get at it.

CHAIR:

MHA Parrott.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Minister.

Can we

obtain a copy of the minister's briefing binder?

A. PARSONS:

I think we have four copies

here. We have one for the Official Opposition, NDP and we have two for the

independents, which I think should do. We can provide them to everybody.

I'm not

sure if we have them here, do we? Yeah, we have them here.

L. PARROTT:

Just for clarification, is

it okay if I leave my mask off while this back and forth is going?

A. PARSONS:

That's fine by me.

CLERK:

Yes.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Can you

outline the department's attrition plan? How many positions have been removed

this year through attrition?

Do we

need to identify ourselves every time?

CHAIR:

Just raise your hand and

wait for your tally light, whoever is speaking.

A. PARSONS:

What we can do is undertake

to provide that information. They don't have the actual number here, but we can

get that to everybody. That's not a problem.

L. PARROTT:

Do you know how many people

are employed in the department?

A. PARSONS:

I don't.

I'll

toss it at –

OFFICIAL:

A. PARSONS:

L. PARROTT:

How many retirements have

occurred in the last year?

A. PARSONS:

That might be a little hard

and I'll tell you why. We have about three months there where the department –

we're only going since August, so the number might be off. What I would suggest,

just to make sure we get it right, I want to make sure we – when you go back to

last year we've only actually had nine months of information. So I don't know if

we have that here. I just want to make sure we don't put in something that

involves TCAR.

L. PARROTT:

Right, I don't believe we have that.

OFFICIAL:

Eight retirements.

A. PARSONS:

Eight? Okay.

L. PARROTT:

I'd ask any of the questions

that you don't have the information for, just indicate that you'll provide the

information at a later date.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah.

What we can do is any information that is provided will go to everybody

without asking. Everybody will get the same thing.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you very much.

How

many vacancies are currently not filled in the department?

M. NESBITT:

We currently have 53 vacancies.

L. PARROTT:

Intentions to fill them?

A. PARSONS:

There are none that I'm

aware of that are not getting filled. Some are having difficulty for various

reasons: some are high turnover by nature and some because we're still coming

through the pandemic, but there's no intent to move anyone.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

In the

last nine months or 12 months, have any of the positions been eliminated? If so,

can you indicate what they are?

M. NESBITT:

Other than through attrition, no.

L. PARROTT:

So through attrition though,

will they be backfilled or will they be left vacant?

Are any

of the positions now redundant?

A. PARSONS:

I have no idea.

M. NESBITT:

No, the ones that remain after the attrition plan, those vacancies remain on the

books.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

How

many layoffs have occurred in the department in the last year?

A. PARSONS:

Layoffs?

L. PARROTT:

None? Okay.

How

many new hires have taken place in the last 12 months?

M. NESBITT:

Two in the last (inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

Of the two new positions

that have been hired, I assume the 53, has there been an effort to fill those?

Are those two a result of that or is the 53 just sitting there stagnant?

M. NESBITT:

There are a number of recruitment actions that are ongoing in the process to

fill the vacant positions.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you.

How

many contractual and short-term employees are currently in the department?

M. NESBITT:

Seven contractual.

L. PARROTT:

Short-term?

M. NESBITT:

Zero.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Did the

department receive any funds from the COVID fund? If so, what was it for?

A. PARSONS:

Was it the federal fund or

the finance?

L. PARROTT:

Both actually.

A. PARSONS:

Both. Okay.

CHAIR:

Can I just interrupt here

for a second, please. I don't think I was quite clear with regard to the

answering of the questions. If the minister is directing the answer to come from

one of his staff, just raise your hand and say your name.

It's

only for Broadcast. We can see it here but the Broadcast Centre downstairs needs

to know that. Raise your hand, say your name and then give the answer.

Thank

you.

A. PARSONS:

Do you have that broken down

by division?

P. IVIMEY:

To a certain extent (inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

Yeah, that's fine.

A. PARSONS:

I'd say just go general, but

then as we go through each one, there is a breakdown of that and I think it

might be easier.

P. IVIMEY:

We did receive money from the COVID fund, from the provincial COVID fund from

the Department of Finance. That would've went towards a couple of initiatives

within the department, so that would have gone towards the Small Business

Assistance Program and as well the Tourism and Hospitality Support Program. We

also would've received funding from the federal government as well in terms of

oil and gas industry support. You'll see that as we go through the Estimates as

well.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Minister: Has COVID impacted the department, or your ability for service

delivery?

A. PARSONS:

Well, I'm going to speak

sort of generally here and I will leave it open to – again, I can only speak to

the department since August, so I cannot go back in time to March, we'll say;

different department and I wasn't involved. Again, I don't remember getting

asked this question. I don't think you were the critic when we did it first.

L. PARROTT:

I wasn't, no.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah, so I don't remember

getting it then.

I would

generally say no. We're managing to get – in fact, we're probably getting more

meetings done. We get a lot of interest as it relates to mining, or different

players or business opportunities and now it's easier for these groups to meet

with us virtually than before with the travel. So there are certain ways that it

has helped.

haven't had any complaints. We have a lot of staff working from home, but

everybody is managing to do everything online or virtual. So I think about the

IET front-line regional development officer in Stephenville is still managing to

get contacts there. I haven't had anything brought to me.

somebody wants to put their – I think Gillian might want to chime in on a

couple. Me, it's been great.

G. SKINNER:

I just wanted to add on the

COVID-response programs, the fact that our staff have had to add the delivery of

and approval of probably about 5,000 applications under those programs. As the

minister pointed out, the ability to work online, using different resources and

how we've worked, the staff have been able to deliver on those additional

commitments due to COVID. So that would be outside of how we deliver, but just

the additional volume.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

If I could go back to the

identified previous question: Four positions through attrition.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

Thanks, Philip.

I don't

know if there's anything to follow up on that.

L. PARROTT:

No, no, that's fine.

I won't

just say August, but someone from the department can ask, I guess, COVID has

presented great issues for everyone and, obviously, the ability to meet

virtually, the lack of travel and different things. Has the department

identified any savings as a result of the way of operating over the last 12 to

18 months?

A. PARSONS:

Absolutely.

I don't

know if we have a cumulative number, but as we go through this you will

absolutely see savings from – this department in particular – trade shows, not

going. I can't say whether that's a good thing or a bad thing in terms of what

the value is of going, but there are absolutely savings as you go through each

one on the different trade shows, on just different in-person visits, travel

that's not happening.

I don't

know if I can go further than that. Alex Smith might be able to talk about the

mining side.

A. SMITH:

The field program for the Geological Survey last summer did not go ahead due to

COVID concerns, so there are some fairly significant savings associated with

that.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

We will

move over into executive and support services there, 1.2.01, Executive Support.

Last year, Salaries went over budget by $38,900. Can you explain – that is an

anomaly, I guess.

A. PARSONS:

I'll take a stab at it and

someone can correct me when I fool it up.

I think

what it was is we had a change out of executive staff. We had one ADM go out and

became the ADM for the Health Accord people, for Dr. Parfrey and Sister Davis,

but she was still being paid from our department even though she was seconded.

At the same time, we had an ADM come in. I believe it was Megan Nesbitt. I think

I covered that off there. There was a portion of time where we covering both

salaries.

L. PARROTT:

Are any of the 53 vacancies

from Executive Support or are those vacancies from elsewhere in the department?

A. PARSONS:

I'm assuming elsewhere. I'm

not aware of any vacancies on the executive side.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

We'll

go to 1.2.02, Corporate and Strategic Services. In '20-'21, there was a

significant savings in various line items, such as Employee Benefits, Supplies

and Professional Services, but the budget for '21-'22 has not been decreased.

Can you explain why there's no decrease?

A. PARSONS:

I guess what I can do is

when you go down through this whole one you'll see savings in Salaries,

obviously, due to vacancies. The Employee Benefits I think was seminars and

conferences that did not happen. Less than anticipated travel, obviously, when

we look at T and C there. You're looking at about $80,000 difference. Less

office expenditures. There was no need for Professional Services expenditure for

promotional efforts. You'll notice the next one, Purchased Services: Again,

trade shows make up the biggest part of that.

I think

the reason you'll see most of them are back to normal is that we anticipate a

normal year. We are banking on a normal year and preparing for that. Now,

whether that happens obviously depends on a whole bunch of things, but we're

preparing for that fact, that we can get through the next year. If the trade

shows are there, then our people will participate.

L. PARROTT:

I guess the reason the

question is asked, because we're three months in now and maybe three months away

from being normal, I guess. So you're six months into a 12-month cycle and the

budget hasn't changed.

A. PARSONS:

No, but, at the end of the

day, like everything with COVID is a guess. We might be back to normal in two

months. We might be back to normal in six months. It's better to go –

L. PARROTT:

And we might be locked down.

A. PARSONS:

Exactly. So I mean all of

this, let's be honest here, the same with the last budget, a lot of it is

guesswork and trying your best to anticipate. The best thing is to go with what

he have. I would rather go high and not spend as much than go low and we're out

of budget and getting dinged on that end.

L. PARROTT:

Yeah, fair.

So we

go to Revenue - Provincial, can you please give me an overview of the revenue,

the $86,000 that wasn't generated but it's carried over to this year?

A. PARSONS:

That was the Houston

Offshore Technical Conference. Normally, I think there are groups that come

along with the province and they pay to participate.

L. PARROTT:

Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

And they did not come. We

did not get the revenue that was anticipated there.

OFFICIAL:

The conference didn't

happen.

A. PARSONS:

The conference didn't

happen, but normally these groups would come along and be a part of it and

nobody went.

L. PARROTT:

We charge a fee or is it a

cost, I guess.

A. PARSONS:

We charge a fee to go to

that?

M. NESBITT:

Yes, we do. We own the

booth. We cost share the event with Noia and ACOA and the delegates pay a fee in

order to get the benefits from the conference and the booth.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you.

Last

line item, we only went through the ones right? When we pass, it was just –

CLERK:

We're only at 1.2.03

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

That

was good. I'll hand it off to –

CHAIR:

MHA Brown, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03

inclusive.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the

one there 1.2.03 this bracket, this Administrative Support, Capital. It's

budgeted $100, nothing happened. What is the reasoning for this?

A. PARSONS:

It's a placeholder for

capital expenditures.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

And there haven't been any.

I think there was one maybe a couple of years ago. I'm trying to get this right.

Last year in Alex's shop there's one but it's a placeholder. I think there was

something down there, was it in the lab?

J. BROWN:

Oh, yes, yes, yes.

A SMITH:

A new analyzer, ICT for the

lab.

J. BROWN:

Okay, that brings back

memories now.

A. PARSONS:

It's a placeholder again but

there is nothing budgeted to happen.

J. BROWN:

Other than that for this

particular section, I have no other questions for this

section here.

CHAIR:

Can I have the Clerk call

the next set of subheads, please?

CLERK:

Are we voting the –

CHAIR:

Okay, yes. We'll vote on

those first subheads.

Looking

for a mover to approve 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

Mover

MHA Brown; seconder MHA Parrott.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.

CHAIR:

Second set of subheads,

please.

CLERK:

Okay.

Mining

and Mineral Development, 2.1.01 through 2.1.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

2.1.01 to 2.1.03 inclusive.

MHA

Parrott.

L. PARROTT:

2.1.01, Transportation and

Communications: A significant savings in 2020 to 2021, but this year's budget

has not been decreased. Can you please explain why?

A. PARSONS:

So this is the Mining and

Mineral Development, Geological Survey?

L. PARROTT:

It is, 2.1.01.

A. PARSONS:

So this is what Alex

referred to earlier: The field season had been cancelled last year.

L. PARROTT:

Yes.

A. PARSONS:

But it will be up and

operational this summer.

L. PARROTT:

Under Professional Services,

the budget for Professional Services has been decreased by $21,000. Is there a

reason?

A. PARSONS:

There was an extra

expenditure last year. It came from an airborne geophysical work plan. That was

budgeted last year, but that's not a year-over-year thing. It was a special

budget last year. I don't know if I have to add anything else, Alex?

L. PARROTT:

So that project has come to

an end?

A. PARSONS:

That project is complete. So

you'll see there it's $271,700. Pretty much all spent, and then back to somewhat

normal.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Can you

please give an overview of the variance in the line item for Purchased Services?

What accounts for the savings in 2020 to 2021?

A. PARSONS:

Same thing. Less than

anticipated analysis going on. So the same way there's less field work, I'm

assuming that there's less work being done in the lab, but anticipating that

work will continue on again as per normal this summer. I think everything is

looking good on that front, Alex?

A. SMITH:

Yes. We are proceeding with the field program for the Geological Survey this

summer.

L. PARROTT:

I see it comes under

Purchased Services, so I assume that all the lab work happens outside of

government offices. Do we contract that out, is that?

A. SMITH:

So we have a lab within government that does basic analysis for metals. There

are some more detailed analyses that are sent away, chronology-type of stuff

that we can't handle in-house.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

A. SMITH:

But most analysis is done in-house.

L. PARROTT:

To the tune of $229,000 gets

sent away, or is that a combination of in-house and …?

A. SMITH:

Well, that's supplies for the lab. That would also include just general

purchased services. Supplies for the lab would be included in that, as well as

analysis outside of the lab.

L. PARROTT:

Okay, thank you.

Under

Revenue - Provincial, $250,000 in revenue was not received. Why not?

A. PARSONS:

Yes. Do we have that? The

$250,000 in the revenue there, provincial.

A. SMITH:

When we submitted the proposal for the airborne geophysical surveys, a revenue

item was added during the budget that wasn't planned for. Part of what the

geological survey provides is free public geoscience to help incentivize the

mineral exploration industry. So we had no opportunity to collect revenue.

L. PARROTT:

Alex, can I just get you to

bend you mic back towards you a little bit. You're a little hard to hear.

A. SMITH:

Do you want me to repeat that?

L. PARROTT:

Perfect.

No, I heard you, but it was just a little – yes.

Can you

provide a list of projects which will take place this year for Geological

Survey?

A. SMITH:

We can provide a list. I don't have it off the top of the head, but we can

certainly provide a planned field program.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Budget

documents talk about an extra $2.5 million for geoscience. Is this mineral

geoscience or geoscience in support of the oil industry? And where will I find

it in the Estimates book?

A. PARSONS:

It is not oil industry; it

is geoscience. I don't know if Phil or Alex can talk about where we have it put.

A. SMITH:

It wouldn't be in this book. I haven't actually seen the Estimates from this

latest budget, but it is intended to be geoscience. It is one-year funding for

data collection, which could be similar to the airborne geophysical survey.

L. PARROTT:

So is the funding coming

from provincial government?

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

L. PARROTT:

And it is not in Estimates?

A. PARSONS:

Listen, I can throw Siobhan

and them under the bus right quick.

L. PARROTT:

No, I'm just saying, it is

$2.5 million.

A. PARSONS:

It is provincial funding;

there is not federal funding. It is geoscience, not oil, but where it is

supposed to be or …

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

$2.5 million.

A. PARSONS:

I thought it was – do we

have $1.7 million?

L. PARROTT:

You have $2.5 million now,

Minister. Hold her to it.

A. SMITH:

There was $1.7 million for the Mineral Incentive Program, which is an ongoing

funding, but there was an announcement of $2.5 million in the Budget Speech. It

is not included in our working binder because it was after this.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

A. SMITH:

I haven't seen the actual Estimates document.

L. PARROTT:

Can the minister provide us

with that information after tonight?

A. PARSONS:

Yes, absolutely.

L. PARROTT:

All right, thanks.

A. PARSONS:

I can guarantee you it is

there or there is going to be a racket.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you.

2.1.02,

Professional Services: Last year Professional Services went over budget by

$51,200. Can you explain why?

A. PARSONS:

Yes, so this came from a

2017 grievance proceeding under the Miner Rights Adjudication Board. It led to –

there were some compensation expenses incurred. Maybe what I can do is – I don't

know if, Alex, you have the background in this. Something came from then, it

only got decided last year and somebody got paid out but I'm not quite aware of

the …

A. SMITH:

Generally the expenses for

members of the Mineral Rights Adjudication Board comes from our salary budget.

There was a dispute for the 2017-related fees to one of the board members and

there was a settlement. Because there was a settlement, it came out of our

Professional Services instead of our Salaries.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Was

that adjudication anything to do with the, I guess, the gentleman that was on

Dragon's Den ? Is that the same?

A. PARSONS:

Mr. Brace. No, I don't that

was the same one, because his was not launched until 2020. I think it was

something along those lines or more recent.

A. SMITH:

It definitely

wasn't that.

One

other thing about the board is it's a very minimal budget reflected in our

budget and the amount of grievances is a function of how many grievances are

filed. It's really tough to budget for.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Purchased Services last year went over budget by $114,500. Can you explain why?

A. PARSONS:

Which one? Where?

L. PARROTT:

2.1.02, Minister, Purchased

Services.

A. PARSONS:

Purchased Services?

L. PARROTT:

Yes, below Professional

Services.

A. PARSONS:

The long and short of it,

this has to do with the Moneris fees. I guess we have to pay banking fees. It's

weird because I actually asked the same question. The more claims that are

staked, the more that we actually have to pay. We only budgeted a certain

amount, but there were so many stakes that were claimed last year that we

actually ended up paying more. Is that right?

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS:

Cool.

L. PARROTT:

So year over year, we expect

more claims to be staked again this year I assume than were planned last year, I

guess.

A. PARSONS:

Yes. It's one of those

things were last year it was budgeted at $69,500 and it went up. This year

you'll see the budget is for $83,500. Now, it's like any year; it's hit or miss.

I'd love for it to be higher because that means there's more work going on.

L. PARROTT:

2.1.03, Mineral Development,

Salaries in '20-'21: There was a salary savings of $213,400. In the previous

year there were also salary savings. Can you please comment on this and are

there positions vacant right now?

A. PARSONS:

It's definitely vacancies.

I'll let Alex jump in there on the detail.

A. SMITH:

The Mineral Development

Division houses the mining engineering section, which has several engineering

positions that are often difficult to fill. That would reflect the salary

savings. We've recently filled two positions and we're seeking to fill the

third, but it's hard to attract a suitable candidate.

L. PARROTT:

Obviously, government – and

the minister and I agree on this – are bullish on mineral development and

mining, current operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'd just like for the

minister to comment on the state of Tata Steel, IOC, Valentine Lake, Tacora: any

of these that you see as …

A. PARSONS:

Well, I think Alex can jump

in because he's been dealing with them primarily. I've had general calls, but to

be honest with you I don't hear a whole lot from them. They're up and running.

To be honest, when I first got in I had the early calls with the different

groups, but they're generally working away; you don't hear from them. A lot of

them are just talking about how much more they can do.

One

thing we are trying to work with them on is the tech side saying: Okay, let's

all invest here. Is there a way we can make your operation more efficient, maybe

save some money somehow? Can we find different ways to produce? I'll let Alex

jump in because he might have a better rundown, where he deals with them every

day.

A. SMITH:

We had anticipated at the start of COVID that the mining industry would be

heavily affected. I guess in the early days the commodity prices dipped, but

since then, they've recovered to the point where commodities are higher than

they were when COVID hit. IOC and Tata, for instance, are benefiting from

extremely high, almost record-high iron prices.

there anyone else in particular …?

L. PARROTT:

Actually, my time has

expired, but I have a couple of more questions when we come back around.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA

Brown, 2.1.01 to 2.1.03.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too,

would like a list of the ongoing fieldwork for this coming year. Also, when you

update him on why that money is not listed for the stuff, can you let me know

too?

A. PARSONS:

Anything we send out will be

uniform and to everybody that's attending.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you so much,

Minister.

Another

general question there: In the Greene report they mention about 5 per cent

equity stakes in mining as well. I want to know if this is something that this

department is currently exploring or looking at to look at those equity stakes.

A. PARSONS:

In the mining?

J. BROWN:

Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

It's not a conversation I

have had yet, not that I'm aware of. Like I say, to be honest with you, it's not

a conversation we have had. We have not been approached by anybody about it.

Right now, most of our attention has been on – we have the report, the report

has been reviewed, but it certainly has not been actioned in that regard. Right

now, we're dealing mainly – when we talk about the Labrador portion, we're

talking over in your neck of the woods. We don't hear a lot, to be honest with

you, at all.

Lately,

we had the Joyce Lake conversation that's going on. We were talking to them. In

Newfoundland, obviously, it's a pretty big gold play. You still have fluorspar;

you still have different groups going on there. Equity has not been a

conversation. I'm not saying I'm opposed to it at all, but it's just not a

conversation we have had yet because of the ongoing – the top issues we're

seeing every day, which would be Muskrat, Come By Chance, Terra Nova and the

rest of the oil and gas industry. That's consumed a lot of the oxygen in the

room.

J. BROWN:

Not the sleepy old mining

industry.

A. PARSONS:

The mining industry –

there's the saying that usually when you're not hearing it, it's good news.

We're not hearing anything.

J. BROWN:

That's good.

A. PARSONS:

It's because it's good news.

Like I say, great recovery. They've been contributing to the community.

Sometimes you just have to stay out of the way.

J. BROWN:

Absolutely.

Perfect. Thank you, Minister.

Speaking of up in northwestern Labrador with the direct-ship ore, is there any

work being done up there with the geoscience on the direct-ship ore?

A. SMITH:

One of the programs that we have proposed for this summer is based out of

Schefferville. We're currently considering Public Health considerations where

Schefferville is in Quebec and the work would be in Labrador. We're trying to

work that out, but one of the planned programs is based there.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Thank

you, Deputy Minister.

Just

going back to that there. Obviously, with the (inaudible), any work planned to

be done with the Strange Lake or with the (inaudible) arm deposits that are

currently held by government?

A. SMITH:

Both those are recommendations from the PERT report, but they're not being

advanced at this time.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Any

geoscience or any work being done with those things or are they going to be

idled this summer?

A. SMITH:

There's no geoscience planned in the Strange Lake or Julienne Peninsula, no.

J. BROWN:

Thank you.

Going

with that there now, how many projects are currently up for environmental or

review from the department for new operations or new mineral deposits?

A. SMITH:

New operations, there are a couple that have been recently released: Maritime

Resources' gold project in King's Point area; Vulcan Minerals is going to

process some old gypsum tailings in the Bay St. George area; and the Joyce Lake

iron ore project, Direct Shipping, is under evaluation, as is Marathon Gold.

J. BROWN:

Anything like that. Quarries

and pit – would this be covered under Mining and Minerals or would quarries and

pits be under another section?

A. SMITH:

Quarries are handled by the Mineral Lands Division of the department.

J. BROWN:

Currently, the state of the

review – when they had the quarry and pit review, where is that right now?

A. SMITH:

We just filed or posted the What We Heard document for our quarry review. The

comment period for that is ended and we are now evaluating the input to feed

into potential changes to legislation.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

Also

with this now, with tailings and all that stuff under there, is that currently

under this section, or would tailings be under the Department of Environment?

A. SMITH:

It would depend on what you want to know about the tailings but –

J. BROWN:

Reclamation, dust control:

things like that.

A. SMITH:

Under the Mining Act , any operation

needs to have a development plan, which would outline how they're going to

handle their tailings. A rehab and closure plan which would outline how they

rehabilitate at the end of operations. There are certain issues with tailings –

dusting would be one – that may fall under the purview of Environment.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Perfect.

Thank

you, Deputy Minister.

Those

are all my questions for this

section here now.

CHAIR:

Okay, Thank you.

Just a

question toward the Member for Lake Melville or the Member for Mount Pearl

North, is there one going before the other tonight?

recognize the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you.

Minister, I'm not doing line by lines because of my limited time; I have just

some general questions.

Minister, can you give us a little more insight into what the plans are for

Nalcor. I mean, we have Nalcor, we have NL Hydro, we have OilCo, you have the

department: there is obviously an awful lot of duplication I would suggest –

well, I don't need to suggest, I'm sure you know that – a lot of savings that

can be found. Muskrat Falls is pretty much clued up.

Can you

give us any more detail as to what this may look like? Will OilCo remain stand

alone? We only just created a stand alone a year ago. Is it the plan to stay

that way or to have one entity, two entities or three entities?

A. PARSONS:

Well, I guess the first

problem is I'm not going to give you the level of detail you want because of

various reasons, one being do I know 100 per cent where this is going to go?

Absolutely not.

There's

no doubt that we are now at a point with the project where it's 99 per cent

complete. We know that the timing is still on, we know the cost estimates have

been the same since last September, we know that there's power being generated.

So perhaps the biggest task that corporation ever had is just about complete, so

now is the time. But there's going to be work that has to be done.

We know

that the CEO has always indicated that he – 2021 was going to be his last year.

So that tells you there that there will be changes in the organization from that

sense. That was always the plan of Mr. Marshall. I haven't heard anything

different.

But I

don't want to prejudge. I also have to be careful, because there are two things

to keep in mind here – and I'm just sort of tossing it out there. There's the

Nalcor that gets questions asked and is villainized and we all like to talk

about. Certainly, I did when I was on that side, and I've done it on this side.

But then there are the hundreds and hundreds of employees that work for Nalcor

and have no

part in any of the big decisions. They have to go home tonight and

they have to go to sleep and they have to pay the bills. So I'm careful about

that, too. That's why I'm a little bit always guarded with my language.

Plus

the fact, too, that by saying something that you might think gets you some

applause, publicly, you may bring about different repercussions from a legal

point of view. I don't want to do or say something that causes trouble down the

road.

So what

I can say is that generally I agree that, obviously, we have duplication there.

I think there is always a way to streamline just about anything, but when you

take the corporation whose biggest goal has now been accomplished, we have to

look at what does it look like.

So I'm

not going to prejudge it. I do not have in mind exactly what that is going to

look like. OilCo, as you say, same thing, it only came about two or three years

ago.

P. LANE:

Not even that.

A. PARSONS:

Right. I think it was 2018

or 2019, I think. So that's there, very new. So we're going to look at them.

I've

spoken to the board and they are absolutely up for it. They say why wouldn't

you, why wouldn't you look at us to see what we can and how we need to do it.

They were formed differently than Nalcor. It was different legislation that had

some of the issues that Nalcor presented were not there with OilCo because they

could be handled through the legislation.

I know

it's not the answer you want, but it's no different than when I'm out talking to

the media. There's still some time required and it's not a conversation you want

to have publicly or, sort of, speculate about publicly because it does cause

some harm to people that none of us want to see harmed.

The

other thing I will say is regardless of what the future holds you have to look

at the silver linings. One of the silver linings out of Muskrat was that we do

have a lot of people that have a lot of expertise that we can hold on to for

various means. They've built that up.

I've

always been told that we've built some talent. Similar to the oil industry, we

have all this talent that was not there and that has now been built up and we

are in danger of losing that talent. Now, the trick is you don't want to lose

that talent. Everybody in that field will tell you how long it took to built it

and you don't want to just let that dissipate.

P. LANE:

Okay. Thank you, Minister, I

appreciate that.

I agree

with you. I mean, despite my feelings about what went on with Muskrat Falls and

everything else, the reality of it is I hang that on a handful of people, who I

won't name, but I could name. You're right, there are all kinds of people

working there that are doing great work and they have families. For me, it's not

about doing anything to harm them, but the reality of it is that the project is

winding down, we do have duplication and we're up to our neck in debt. So I

think we do need to do something, but obviously it has to be done thoughtfully

and I would agree with that.

Minister, I'm assuming now, it should go without saying, but I would guess that

the public consultation that's currently going ahead right now on the PERT

report, if there was going to be a proposal to make any significant changes with

Nalcor, NL Hydro and so on, you would have your own separate public process.

Like, you wouldn't say: Oh, well, we did the PERT report consultation and nobody

really said anything so, therefore, we have free rein to sort of do whatever.

A. PARSONS:

Sorry, you're saying to have

public input on a corporate reorganization within government.

P. LANE:

I guess, Minister, what I'm

saying is if you're going to make any – I mean, that would be, potentially, a

huge undertaking, right, I would think for any of these things. It's fine to say

we're going to do a public consultation on things, but if we're going to make

major changes to Crown corporations and everything else that could have an

impact on the public and so on, I would hope that there would be at least

reaching out to stakeholders who may have an interest in it. As opposed to just

going ahead and making wholesale changes, and then saying: Oh, well, we

consulted with everyone because we did the PERT report and you could've sent in

an email to engageNL.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah. So, again, just

tossing it out there in no particular order, I thought you meant we're going to

have a public engagement session with anybody who wants to, can have input on

it. Quite frankly, there are a lot of voices out there that I don't need to hear

what they have to say. What's their expertise, besides commenting on a poll? Do

you know what I mean?

But

what you're saying, the second time there, absolutely.

P. LANE:

Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

Absolutely. Look, what I

would say is this, the PERT report is one thing. These were conversations I was

having, we were having, other people – you were having – well before Dame Greene

came out with that.

P. LANE:

Absolutely, 100 per cent.

A. PARSONS:

And I will say that one of

the benefits of being a small province is that a lot of people take the time to

correspond with me with their thoughts and feelings on just about any number of

issues. Some of them thank you for your time, some may not agree. Some of them

you may follow-up on. This is one where there have been lots – there are lots

out there.

What I

would say is that, at the end of the day, I've been tasked with doing it. It's

like anything, when you're tasked with governing, you go out and do it, and if

people don't like what you do then you're not going to have that opportunity

much longer.

P. LANE:

Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

I've always liked to say

that I'm going to listen to as many people as I can before I make – or we make –

the decision.

P. LANE:

Sure.

A. PARSONS:

Right. Listen, let's be

honest here, is hydroelectricity my background? No, it's not. So, again, I need

to listen to a lot of people to figure out what's best. We're not just talking

about production and management and sale of energy, we're talking about

corporate structures and a whole number of things. But, thankfully, we have a

lot of lessons in the past to learn from. There are a lot of good people out

there in this province that we're going to be listening to before we move

forward.

P. LANE:

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Minister are there any plans to sell off any transmission assets and so on to

Newfoundland Power?

A. PARSONS:

Not a question or a

conversation I'm having right now at all.

P. LANE:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

No.

P. LANE:

Okay.

final question before I run out of time. I have more, but I've only got time for

one. On the technology piece, which I really believe there's a lot of – as

government has said, and I agree – there's an awful lot of opportunity. A lot

more opportunity than I really had thought of until I started talking to people.

Even the gaming industry is pretty amazing, actually. I met with this gamers

group. I was shocked to learn that there are all these companies are actually

doing it and the potential that's there.

Even

talking to the gamers group, they're saying a lot of it is you need to have

people with certain skill sets and so on to make this take off. I'm sure that's

the same for anything in tech.

Is your

department working with CNA or MUN or whoever to try to get people trained up

for all this stuff or –

A. PARSONS:

If I didn't know the

difference, I would think I gave you that question to ask me.

No,

absolutely, that is exactly where we are going, and it's probably one of the

most exciting parts because it is new. The same thing, you come in – same as

you, I didn't have a lot of background in that area and there is a lot of

promise and it is one of those things where you're proving that a pandemic

doesn't hurt you; location doesn't hurt you. We have companies in Newfoundland

and Labrador that are expanding in light of geographic constraints, COVID

constraints or any other number of constraints.

But one

of the biggest issue has been the talent pipeline. One of the biggest issues

that come from that – it is like many things in government: If it is just within

my shop, I have control. But that issue is beyond IET. It affects Education and

it affects over in Minister Byrne's department, Immigration. We can't just

provide that talent from here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to have

talent coming from elsewhere.

Same

thing, we have a number of different opportunities on the education side. Our

thought process – or certainly mine – has been K-12, let's get in there. So we

are investing in groups like Brilliant Labs doing coding. Tom Osborne just

announced the plan. Ten schools are pilot projects and there is going to be

money going in there so that people can come in there, get university credit,

get the training and get a bursary going towards CNA or MUN to do this computer

science-type course.

We're

working with private colleges, as well as MUN, as well as CNA, to improve the

offerings that are out there. We need to put the skills that are there, that we

need – we need to make sure that is represented here. We're talking about

microcredentials. I just met with Keyin College; I've talked to CNA; I've talked

to CompuCollege, you name it about what can we do there to get people in there

and get them out in the industry.

The

companies will tell you that these are the skill sets that we need, whether it

is stack engineers, whether it is coders, whether it is digital experts. There

are a million things that I certainly don't have much background in, we need to

build that pipeline. We are working with our post-secondary institutions to do

that and they have been really responsive.

I tell

you, I always had a complaint about the school system. I always said it was

tough to break in. We've talked about financial literacy or coding or this or

that, you know. It was hard to break into that curriculum. They have really

taken it and run with it – the school district, the Department of Education – so

there is a lot of work going on together. And, of course, techNL, which is sort

of like the advocacy group of this industry, has been right into it. There is a

lot of good going on there. There is probably going to be – the companies will

tell you – anywhere between 2,000 and 4,000 jobs are going to be available and

in many cases they have jobs that they just can't fill.

I do

happen to follow a lot of these companies, whether it's on Twitter or whatever,

and every day: We're looking for this person; we're looking for that person;

we're looking for this. Now we just need to make sure our people have that

background and that skill set to go there.

The

other thing is you look at the oil and gas industry. I've always been hesitant

to tell people. They say: Well, what am I supposed to do? Well, if you go out

and say, well, you should retrain, then you're giving up on the oil industry.

But at the same time, I've had people in the oil industry come to me and say:

You know what? I'm pragmatic; I don't mind looking to retrain. So taking their

skills, whether it's an engineering background, and just applying it somewhere

else.

I've

actually met people – I think it was over in the Eastern Health Living Lab –

people there who were oil and gas and are now down working with 3-D printers,

building off hip joints. It's amazing stuff, right.

I don't

know if that answered it. I just ranted on.

P. LANE:

No, no, it's good.

A. PARSONS:

It's exciting.

P. LANE:

I think it's very exciting.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

P. LANE:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

MHA Parrott, do you have

anything left in 2.1.01 to 2.1.03?

L. PARROTT:

I do.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

L. PARROTT:

It's been a tough year, and

obviously we've had some great success in mining, but we've had some failures

too. Just a question about – I assume it's still the Beaver Brook Antimony Mine

– the mine just outside Glenwood.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah.

L. PARROTT:

It shut down during COVID.

Any ongoing efforts to reopen or do we know what the status is?

A. PARSONS:

I'm actually supposed to

meet with them. We have had conversations, and I'm supposed to meet with them –

if it's not next week, it's the week after – to talk to their CEO about what we

can do. Like I said, I don't have anything to report except to say (

a) I know

they are in difficulty and (

b) we're willing to work with them on their issues.

Actually, I think the Minister of Finance – obviously, given her previous role

here and her background and her new role – is willing to talk to them as well.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

One of

the things that has always come to my attention – and full disclosure, I grew up

in Wabush, Labrador, the same as Mr. Brown did. Mining is a big part of

Labrador. I look to Wabush 3, Voisey's Bay underground and different places, and

I understand that certainly with Wabush 3, the procurement process is a little

different and you do see a lot of out-of-province plates doing work there, a lot

of out-of-province materials coming in.

What

really bothers me is Voisey's Bay underground. I'll say Voisey's Bay underground

currently procures all its fuel from Quebec. It procures all of its materials

from Quebec. If you take the time to visit Voisey's Bay, you will find every

single vehicle that's up there carries a Quebec licence plate that operates here

in Newfoundland 365 days a year for multiple years. There has to be opportunity

in that for this government. Part of that, perhaps, is a road to Voisey's Bay,

which is something that was promised, and a power line, which is something that

was promised. Instead, we have more diesel generation plants and no path

forward. What's the plan?

A. PARSONS:

Okay. Before I chime in, I

don't know if John or Alex wants to chime in first and then I come in?

J. COWAN:

(Inaudible) diesel generation. I know that the company had been exploring wind

and alternative energy sources. I haven't been part of those discussions

recently but they have been investigating that. Our government certainly is

interested in alternative energy. In terms of the road and the cost and the

transmission line, the cost of those is extremely high, especially the

transmission line. I know that the cost of a transmission line to the North

Coast was estimated to be in excess of $1 billion.

A. PARSONS:

Alex, before I jump in, do

you have anything?

A. SMITH:

I do know that when they were doing feasibility studies on the Voisey's Bay

underground, they considered the transmission line and discounted it because of

the timing risk associated with environmental assessments that would be

associated with it at the time.

With

respect to benefits, there is a benefits agreement with the province that is

probably more stringent than other benefits agreements – first and fair

opportunity to Newfoundland procurement. I would also point out their training

program and their partnership with the Indigenous communities up north. They're

shown as a model for other mining companies with respect to the Indigenous

partnerships.

L. PARROTT:

Yes, no question. I agree

their model, certainly with Indigenous people, is great and it is great to see

that Marathon Gold is taking a step in the same direction.

I guess

my point is that when you look at diesel generation plants – I mean, through no

fault of our own, North Atlantic isn't operating, but we ought to have been

supplying the fuel there from day one and we haven't been and it is a huge miss.

I can tell you from personal experience that if I was going to take a vehicle

and go to a job site anywhere else in Canada with Newfoundland plates on, it

would not be allowed to happen. It happens up there on a daily basis and we're

the ones that are responsibly for it. I would suspect that this department, the

one that regulates mining, would be very interested in something like that, as

would SNL and other portions of government.

A. PARSONS:

All I can say to you is

that, honest to God, since August 19, that issue has never been raised with me,

but the purpose of meetings and situations like this is to be aware. Obviously,

I mean, that is the kind of stuff that the people talk about and the people

hear. It has never been brought to me up to this point. Now that it has been,

yes, I have no problem looking and seeing what's going on and if there is a

solution or what is actually going on.

L. PARROTT:

One other question and then

I am finished with the section, and it is pretty simple. Where I live and

certainly other parts of the Island – I mean, I have recently flew in behind

where all the gold exploration is going on and in a helicopter and had a look at

what is going on. I will say it is astounding and it is exciting and there are

lots of good things happening.

If we

have one or two mines that want to begin construction and open in Newfoundland

over the next 12 to 24 months, even with Muskrat Falls online, and if we were to

take Holyrood off-line, do we have the ability to power them?

J. COWAN:

Yes, absolutely. You're talking about Valentine Lake; there are 20 to 40

megawatts there. With Muskrat Falls there are 168 megawatts, I think, after

Holyrood is taken off-line, which is 490 megawatts. There's a 160-megawatt block

to Nova Scotia. Even with the Supplemental Block, there's still power there. We

also have a Reliability and Resource

Adequacy Study at the PUB. They're looking at a P90 versus a P50 on the

system. That could be an additional 60 megawatts of capacity on the system. So

there is capacity.

At the

end of the day, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has a duty to serve. If there

was a customer there that requires power, they will provide that power to them.

They also have additional generation sources. They could look at on the Island

at some point, if Muskrat Falls becomes fully subscribed; there's the Bay

d'Espoir plant, so there's additional generation that can be gained from that.

L. PARROTT:

Yes, I asked the question

based on a big mining company that looked to set up operations in Grand Falls,

Bishop's Falls. Obviously, my understanding is they could not do it because of a

lack of power.

J. COWAN:

Right.

That

was a while ago, but I was in the department at that time. They wanted in excess

of 500 megawatts of power at the time, which was well above what the system

could handle. Again, Hydro has a duty to serve, so they would find that power or

they would create that generation.

We did

look at alternatives to try to find them power. We looked at non-firm power, so

they could take power in the summer when we have lots of power. When we get

close to peak, they could come off and drop the load. We certainly investigated

that and we investigated that with other companies as well.

L. PARROTT:

Okay, thank you.

No more

questions.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA

Brown, do you have anything else in this section?

J. BROWN:

No, I'm good for this

section right now.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Is the

Committee read for the question?

Shall

2.1.01 to 2.1.03 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.1.03 carried.

CHAIR:

MHA Parrott, if you just

want to use your two minutes, we will start in – I'll get the Clerk to call the

next subheads, please.

CLERK:

Energy Development, 3.1.01

through 3.1.08 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.08

inclusive carry?

MHA

Parrott, do you want to use your remaining time to start it off here?

L. PARROTT:

Yes, let's go.

3.1.01,

Energy Policy: Under Salaries, can the minister please give an overview of the

Salaries line? Was the position left vacant for '20-'21?

A. PARSONS:

The variance would have been

due to vacancies within the division.

I don't

know if there are any further details on that one. Craig, maybe?

C. MARTIN:

It would have been due to vacancies within the division. The manager of – I

can't say which position it was, but one of those was vacant and recruited over

the course of the last year. That pretty much covers what the vacancies would've

been over the last year.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Under

Professional Services, can you please give an overview of the $271,500? What

accounts for the increase we're seeing here?

A. PARSONS:

Okay, so I know that last

year's dip was due to lower than anticipated services.

As for

the extra hundred, Craig …?

C. MARTIN:

That relates to a federally funded initiative relating to high-efficiency wood

stoves that's being pursued. You'll see down below there's $80,000 offsetting

revenue on that same line item, (inaudible) –

L. PARROTT:

Sorry, did you say

high-efficiency wood stoves?

C. MARTIN:

It's planning for high-efficiency wood stoves.

L. PARROTT:

Has anyone talked to the

Minister of Forestry about woodcutting permits?

A. PARSONS:

That's a federally funded

initiative.

L. PARROTT:

Okay. Yikes.

Purchased Services: Can you please give an overview of the $35,400? Only $6,200

was spent last year, but $35,400 is budgeted again this year.

A. PARSONS:

That would be – let me see

now. Is that staff working from home? Staff working from home and we anticipate

people coming back in sooner rather than later. So that's why you'll see the

exact same figure is budgeted in. We have had different points where people were

back and then they're gone home and they're back again.

L. PARROTT:

Under Grants and Subsidies,

I'm just wondering, is that the diesel subsidy? Why would it go over budget in

particular last year?

A. PARSONS:

I think it was higher than

anticipated subsidy expenditures.

Craig,

did you want to jump in about why it's gone over $660,000?

C. MARTIN:

Two items there in particular; one is that the diesel subsidy program was

slightly over the budget. I think it was about $2.3-something million. The other

portion, as well, is we had the Interest Assistance Program in place last year

under the COVID relief with respect to people who ran into problems with their

billings. That's also being paid out of that fund.

CHAIR:

I remind

the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.

MHA

Brown, 3.1.01 to 3.1.08.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

Atlantic clean energy plan, how is that going and what are the talks and

everything like that with the – I guess it's the Atlantic Loop and all that as

well.

A. PARSONS:

Well, I'll let John start

off and then I'll chime in.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

J. COWAN:

Amongst the officials, there have been discussions with the federal government

and the four Atlantic provinces, utilities from each of the provinces. There's a

draft report prepared talking about opportunities within the region – I don't

believe the report has been released yet, so they're still in the editing phase

– from the Atlantic Clean Energy Partnership, looking at opportunities in the

four provinces.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Another

question too: I know you were talking about the availability of power to the

mining industry there in the last

section when it comes to generation. If the

mining companies expand to what they want to expand – obviously, their amount of

electricity, especially in my region, is an excessive amount of electricity that

they're going to be wanting – do we have capability in Labrador to provide that

efficiently, or will there be a significant upgrade cost required?

J. COWAN:

It's an interesting question. Certainly, with Muskrat Falls, that could serve

the Island and Lab West. IOC certainly is interested in getting into greener

energy to improve its product. There is power to serve IOC. They're interested

in Muskrat Falls' power.

Again,

there are opportunities for other generation in Labrador. There are

opportunities related to the Upper Churchill Falls powerhouse there down the

road. As the plants expand and the mines come on stream, it takes years to get

those mines up and running. Hydro would plan to provide that generation when the

generation is required.

J. BROWN:

Perfect.

Talking

about Lab West, I know as you said, in the Supply Report there were 17 different

options or combinations of options to go with. One of the options was to connect

Wabush yard to the Mont-Wright yard and create a redundancy loop. Also, that

would draw power (inaudible). Is there any headway with that project?

J. COWAN:

That project has been investigated for a long time; I certainly remember having

the discussion with Jim Haynes a number of years ago. He's a very reputable

individual in that area. There would be great value in having that redundancy

loop. Hydro, again, is constantly look at the system in Labrador to make sure

that it can serve the people of Labrador. If and when that loop is required,

they would then invest in that.

J. BROWN:

Perfect.

Now,

going north to Menihek dam, the current project for the new yard upgrades and

lines to go up to Tata Steel, is there any option to go and connect the rest of

the mines up there with power from the Menihek dam?

J. COWAN:

I have not been approached by that. I remember dealing with the Menihek dam and

the transmission lines, and working with the federal government to try to get

those lines built. Certainly, if the power is there, the opportunity exists and

the companies express interest, there is no reason why we wouldn't investigate

that.

J. BROWN:

The Joyce Lake plan calls

for diesel generation to their mine. The lines are going to pass right by their

rail-switching yard. Wouldn't it be energy policy to ask them to go on Hydro

compared to adding more diesel generation use in our province?

J. COWAN:

Yes. It would only be preferable to use diesel in peaking situations.

Absolutely, the department and Hydro should be investigating opportunities to

provide green energy to those locations.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

The

Churchill Falls, right now they're obviously going through some upgrades, which

are finding efficiencies, and they're creating more energy from the original

service plate. Is that a new block of power being created? Is that earmarked for

Labrador industrial use or is it going to be sold on the open market?

J. COWAN:

The upgrades that I am aware of at the Upper Churchill Falls – so they were

upgrading some of the exciters, so it is not a big amount of energy being

produced right now. The real opportunity is in the future. If you upgrade all

the exciters, there is approximately 300 megawatts. If you upgrade the

powerhouse, there is another 1,000 megawatts. But right now that additional

power would fall under the existing contract, of which CF(L)Co, the province,

own 65 per cent and Hydro-Québec owns roughly 35 per cent.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

Any

other upgrades of that? Obviously, we talked about the Labrador Interconnected

and the interesting arrangement that it is. Does the department look at anything

to remove the Labrador Interconnected, put it in the interconnect with the

Island and force the same rates upon us as the Island right now?

J. COWAN:

No, the government has never discussed that. The power that is in Labrador from

the Upper Churchill, that 2.5 cents, that power is there for Labrador. So, no,

there is no discussion to change the rate structure in Labrador.

J. BROWN:

Remote diesel right now: I

know in the past we've talked about removing the North Coast, South Coast and

moving them to more energy-efficient systems because, obviously, we need to

reduce our carbon footprint. What current plans does the department have right

now on getting these smaller communities off diesel or minimizing their diesel

use?

J. COWAN:

We are actively working with the communities. It was in a plan that had been

announced previously by the provincial government in terms of reducing diesel

use in those – there are 19 remote systems in the province and most of them are

in Labrador. Nunatsiavut is vigorously investigating renewable energy

opportunities, so that would be wind/hydrogen/solar. High-efficiency wood stoves

also provided real opportunity on the North Coast of Labrador.

The

province is actively investigating. We have proponents visiting the department

to seek out opportunities. That is a definite area of interest for government.

J. BROWN:

Moving on to hydrogen, I

know, obviously, that's a big thing now; a lot of the world's leading

technologies. There are pretty exciting things in the world of hydrogen, both

green and blue hydrogen. Does the department have any research or any

development with its energy policy on the opportunities to create blue and green

hydrogen?

A. PARSONS:

What I can say – and it's

more on the general level and I'll leave it to Craig or John to jump in – is

that even prior to the Greene report we had been having conversations with

various firms; you would get people that would contact the department to have a

meeting and talk about their idea. The reality is that it is pricey and so

you're trying to figure out who's real and who's not real.

What I

can say is since the Greene report you have multiple companies, outfits

contacting us because we have the resources there that would help them get their

hydrogen to whatever market that is. It's something that's actively being

explored, but it would involve partnerships. Right now, it's coming in, but I

would say that there's more attention in the department paid to that now than

there ever has been prior.

I'll

let Craig and John jump in too, because they have a little bit more knowledge on

that than me.

J. COWAN:

Just really to reiterate the minister's point. Obviously, the department is

interested in bringing as much value as it can to the province. We have excess

energy. We don't have excess capacity. Our clean hydroelectric energy can be

used to create hydrogen.

To the

minister's point, we have proponents approaching us and we are clearly

interested in it, as is the province.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

When it

comes to that, obviously, I know you have energy versus capacity. Any current or

upcoming projects or anything that are being discussed by the department to add

capacity to the current electrical system?

J. COWAN:

The projects that have already been presented before the PUB would be Bay

d'Espoir, Unit 8, which is a 150-megawatt capacity project. There's an

opportunity to gain some additional capacity from the Grand Falls assets,

Exploits assets. Again, I talked about the powerhouse, Upper Churchill,

additional capacity there.

There

were other projects on the Island: Portland Creek and, another one, Round Pond.

Both of them have capacity associated with them. The most economical project

would be, right now, Bay d'Espoir, Unit 8.

J. BROWN:

(Inaudible.)

Moving

on to that there now, would the province entertain – or this department

recommend – removing the moratorium on rivers on the Island for hydro

development?

J. COWAN:

We haven't had that discussion in the department.

A. PARSONS:

Not at all.

J. BROWN:

Not at all. Okay. Perfect.

CHAIR:

I remind the hon. Member his

speaking time has expired.

J. BROWN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

MHA Parrott, 3.1.01 to

3.1.08.

L. PARROTT:

Just back to 3.1.01,

Purchased Services. You indicated that the savings came from people working at

home. Can you give us examples and tell me exactly what savings there are from

people working at home?

P. IVIMEY:

Some of the savings you see there underneath Purchase Services is, for example,

we pay leasing costs on the photocopiers for Xerox. We pay per copy, per what's

being printed in the office. Obviously, if you don't have staff within the

office and everyone is working at home, your Xerox, your printing costs and your

copying costs are way down.

well, water cooler rentals and stuff like that, water coming in to the building

– again, there is no staff in the building so we're not replenishing the water

coolers around the office. It's just various miscellaneous kind of office-type

conditions like that, which are really just showing savings there.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, there was an indication that this was interest relief.

Interest assistance relief was the word used. Would you have the number? How

much of that was interest assistance relief? If you don't, can you get it for us

in the package that's provided later?

P. IVIMEY:

Yeah, the amount was $488,000 for last year.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Just

one question of interest with regard to Grants and Subsidies, diesel and all

that good stuff. Is this number affected at all by the shutdown of the North

Atlantic oil refinery and the five cents that's been tacked on to price and

different things?

C. MARTIN:

No.

L. PARROTT:

No? Okay.

Under

Revenue - Federal, how is this $80,000 number generated? Where is it coming

from?

A. PARSONS:

It's from the feds for a

project that's a joint fed-prov. project that's not announced yet that will be

announced very soon. It's completely funded by the feds.

L. PARROTT:

Joint project funded by

them?

A. PARSONS:

Yes.

L. PARROTT:

Okay. All right.

The

previous minister talked about a renewable energy plan. Is there an update on a

renewable energy plan?

A. PARSONS:

Well, I don't know what the

previous minister said was the timeline. In my head, it's always been that it

will come out in 2021.

L. PARROTT:

It was supposed to be August

A. PARSONS:

Yes, I can't say if it's

August 1.

L. PARROTT:

I'm joking.

A. PARSONS:

We don't have a timeline

right now except 2021.

L. PARROTT:

So you're hoping to get that

this year?

A. PARSONS:

That's absolutely the hope.

There's more attention paid on it, I think, now even than there was six months

ago. Just speaking anecdotally from what I hear and who contacts me.

L. PARROTT:

Come By Chance oil refinery,

something that affects every man and woman in Newfoundland and Labrador in my

opinion. Can you provide any information on the current future of the refinery

and what's the challenge? What happens if we can't find a new owner, I guess, is

what I'm …

A. PARSONS:

Well, what I can do, I'll

sort of speak generally, and then I'll toss it over to Craig, I think, has

probably been most intimately involved from our team. It's generally been with

John, Craig and Paul Parsons, who's not here.

As of

today, right now, we do know that Silverpeak is engaged in conversations with a

prospective buyer. Again, as I've always said, this is their deal. We hold

certain levers, obviously, environmental, liability. Right now, we have that

funding package that's been in place since January, which expires the end of the

June. I think up until now we've probably expended about $9 million of that $16

million. Basically, they send us a bill or an invoice or a claim every month. We

examine it, make sure that they've met all the conditions: primarily keeping the

place warm, keeping bodies there, all stuff that – you know this stuff.

Right

now, I can say anecdotally that the union has met with the prospective

purchaser. There are a lot of different things, but, at the end of the day, we

cannot force the deal.

Now,

we've only been planning up until June. After that, what happens? I don't get

too caught up in it because I've seen this job long enough now that things

change so rapidly. What I will say – and one of the troubling things – is that

refinery capacity around the world is going down every single day. You're

looking over in different European countries or over in Africa; you're seeing

the refineries shutting down or you'll see a country has two; now they're down

to one.

I will

say there is not a long list of people that are looking to come to take over a

refinery. That's the sad truth. So we're working on this one here.

I don't

know if Craig can add anything to it, any colour or – we also have to be

careful, because again, it's not our deal to talk about and I don't want to put

something out there that messes it all up.

C. MARTIN:

Just to follow up on the minister's statement. It is a challenge to say much

about it, given that they're in their own internal commercial discussions right

now. But as reported in the media, they are in active commercial discussions

with a potential buyer and things are happening right now in real time.

L. PARROTT:

So while I understand the

commercial sensitivity and certainly the competition bureau portion and all that

good stuff, we do hold the indemnity to the licences and environmental

responsibility if it falls through.

Now,

back in December of last year, I believe, there was an application for North

Atlantic tank farm incorporated. They did incorporate, I don't know where it

went past that. I've asked the question several times about whether or not

there's a possibility that the tank farm is separated from the refinery, and I

believe, personally, that's a bad idea. Maybe you can or cannot comment on that.

What I

will add to that is that while I believe that the refinery business is in a bad

place, I also believe that Newfoundland is left in a worse place if we don't

have a refinery. When you look at someone who supplies 100 per cent of our

propane, 100 per cent of our jet fuel – if planes start flying again – a big

portion of our diesel, certainly for the thermal generation plants, and we now

have to ship it all in. We don't have the capacity to ship in propane, contrary

to what people have been saying. We almost ran out of fuel a few weeks ago,

contrary to what the company tried to make government believe. But, listen, that

52 million gallons of fuel that came in on a Friday and barely passed the test –

failed first test – started going in the tanks, but we could've been without

gasoline for an extended period of time. And that's the truth of it.

So is

there a secondary plan if the refinery doesn't succeed?

A. PARSONS:

Well, what I can say right

now is we cannot – I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do. We have that one

refinery. We are helping to fund to keep it warm so that a private deal can take

place. I don't know if the province is in a position to go and take it over, to

expropriate it, to buy it. I don't think that's our primary line of business.

I get

the other side, the risks of it, but if the province gets in to buying

refineries then we – that's the problem. I get what you're saying, but right now

we have been importing. It's not an ideal position. That's the reality. It is

not an ideal position.

L. PARROTT:

I appreciate you candour,

and I understand plan A, but I guess – I'll use propane as an example – the

reality of propane is that there's no ship in North America that can ship to

that refinery. So they can't get to those holding tanks, it has to come in by

truck. The East Coast of Canada does not have the capacity to ship propane here

via road. I'm sure you would agree with me that Marine Atlantic does not have

the capacity to ship propane here via ship – TDG and all the restrictions that

are associated with that.

didn't run out last year on the basis that the refinery had a full tank of

propane when they shut down. They managed to have shipments coming in plus

disperse what they had in their tanks. That isn't how it is anymore and we could

very well, at some point, run out of propane. Do we have a plan? There has to be

a plan B.

A. PARSONS:

Right now, I can just

honestly tell you – and, Craig, I'll let you jump in here if you want – the same

level of fear is not being brought to us. We're concentrating on trying to help

this company sell the refinery. Yes, there are lots of possible this could

happen or that can happen, but I can't get caught up in that and I'm certainly

not going to go out to the public and –

L. PARROTT:

I'm not asking you to do

that. I'm asking you (inaudible) –

A. PARSONS:

– put the fear of God into

them.

What I

would say is, look, generally speaking right now – the other side I will put out

there: The minute I start looking at a future where it's not there, it won't

take long for people to say: You gave up on that some quick.

The

reality is, right now, my attention is on trying to help to do what we can to

move the refinery. If that deal does not happen, then we will move forward and

we will see what the other options are. Right now, we also cannot force the

company to negotiate with anyone. We have certain levers we can pull.

L. PARROTT:

Yes, I know. Absolutely.

A. PARSONS:

But right now there's a

prospective deal and that is the hope.

What I

will say is I think, overall, the deal we achieved in January is a hell of a lot

better than the deal we would have achieved in September, October when it first

came out. I think time will show that we made the wise move in making the deal

and making it when we did.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

3.1.02,

under Petroleum Development, Professional Services: Can you please give an

overview of this line item and what accounts for the savings last year and where

will this year's money be spent?

A. PARSONS:

Professional or Purchased?

L. PARROTT:

Professional Services,

Minister.

A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Less

than anticipated consulting service requirements.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Under

Purchased Services, last year Purchased Services went over budget. Can you

please detail why?

A. PARSONS:

Variance due to higher than

anticipated Purchased Services expenditures due to the renewal of various

software maintenance agreements.

Some of

this software that we're using, you don't know that it's going to expire then.

It came due; you have to pay for it. Shouldn't have to pay for it this year.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Excuse me.

remind the hon. Member that his speaking time is expired.

MHA

Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Chair.

Can the

minister provide an update from anything with rate mitigation right now?

A. PARSONS:

What I would say is I can't

provide a whole lot more candour or information than the Premier provided in the

House today. It is ongoing. There's a team working on it that's led by Brendan

Paddick. The feds have Serge Dupont. Like everything, it takes time. It's like

any of these high-level, complex negotiations between the federal government and

the province, there are a whole lot of factors at play.

The

only thing I would say that changed over the last year is that we do know the

drop-dead date that we need to have in place is there coming upon us. It does

add a little more urgency. Not that there wasn't urgency before, but it is like

any of us in life, when you know the end is in sight, that creates an urgency.

That's

basically all I have. I don't have a lot more answer than that.

J. BROWN:

No, that's fine.

Can the

minister provide an update on the Labrador-Island Link and the software with

that?

A. PARSONS:

I'll let John jump in, but

what I would say is the software side – I think that's the GE you're talking

about?

J. BROWN:

Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

From what I understand that

has been moving forward. I think they're actually better off than they were six

months ago. John may have some more in-depth knowledge on it.

J. COWAN:

It is progressing, for sure. The interim bipole software has been working, as

I'm sure you know. There is roughly – the 260 megawatts is the turbine one at

Muskrat Falls, so power is flowing to the Island at roughly 150 megawatts.

Testing

is ongoing with the next round of bipole software; the overall completion date

for the project is November 15. There's been no shift in that date for a number

of months, so things have been working very positively with the project.

J. BROWN:

Can the minister provide an

update on the synchronous condensers at Soldiers Pond and how they are

operating?

A. PARSONS:

The same thing. I think that

there's been progress on that. They had to come in and do pretty extensive

replacement I think it was.

J. COWAN:

It was synchronous condenser number three; I think that is now up and running.

It is either one or three. I pretty sure it is three. Remediation has taken

place on that and it is now available to provide voltage control on the system.

Likewise, work on synchronous condensers one and two are progressing. They're

not on critical path so they expect those to be prepared and ready in time.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

The

Labrador-Island Link, I know there were some issues with cable and some other

things in the past. Have there been no other issue with the transmission lines

outside of that?

J. COWAN:

Yes, there was an icing event back in February that caused some issues with some

of the parts of the line. Those were repaired within a month and there haven't

been any issues since.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

We're

talking about wind, solar, hydrogen: all these other options. Like you said,

there are partners coming forward wanting to explore the opportunity of setting

up here.

Would

the 2012 amendment to the Electrical Power Control Act have to be amended to

allow these people to come and do work with it?

A. PARSONS:

That's the one where the

amendment –

J. BROWN:

Nalcor (inaudible).

A. PARSONS:

I can't remember what the

bill number was, but (inaudible) monopoly bill –

J. BROWN:

Bill 61, I believe. Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah. Do we require

legislative change, John?

J. COWAN:

I know there was an order-in-council related to onshore wind. That order, if we

got to that point, may have to be rescinded, but I don't believe we'd have to do

anything legislative, no.

J. BROWN:

Okay. So there are no

barriers for, say –

A. PARSONS:

Put it this way: It would

not be an issue, from my perspective, policy-wise, to change legislation to

allow for that. Not at all.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Just making sure.

Now,

there were some talks about work at Grand Falls dam and all that stuff there,

too. Are there any planned upgrades or anything like that for that or Star Lake?

What's the other thing, the other one? Any of those ones, any ongoing work that

would need to be completed on those older dams right now?

J. COWAN:

The remediation on the dam – so work has been ongoing on the dam since I was

first in the department, which would've been in 2012-2013. Hydro has a fairly

robust capital plan. The assets have come a long way since that time. I think

there's roughly a $20-million spend. I'm not sure exactly what the capital

budget is this year; I would have to look into it. I certainly can find that

out.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

Now, I

know there has been a drier season in some of the reservoirs. Obviously, we as a

province have to sell power to Kruger. Is this going to be an ongoing problem

with the water levels in any of the reservoirs?

A. PARSONS:

Say that one again, Jordan.

J. BROWN:

You know this past season

that we've had the reservoirs lower.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah.

J. BROWN:

Is this going to be an

ongoing issue with the reservoirs for the Island's dams?

A. PARSONS:

It's not been identified

that I'm aware of. That one was unusual and there's some talk that – I don't

know if it was completely just drying out or if it was a management issue as

well. I don't know if there's anything else to add. It's not a top-of-mind

concern, nor have we had anybody come and say this is something you guys need to

be prepared for on an ongoing basis.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. All right.

J. COWAN:

If I can just add to the minister's point. The hydrology reports this year were

probably the best they've been for the Island since I've been around this, which

is almost 11 years ago now. So the water on the Island, actually, is probably

the best it's ever been.

J. BROWN:

Okay, it's just this one

particular event with their dam.

J. COWAN:

With Grand Lake, yes.

J. BROWN:

Royalties and Benefits:

Obviously, I know we have an extensive royalty plan and everything like that. I

know that the PERT report talked about getting rid of or selling off some of the

benefits or some of the agreements we have with the offshore oil for cash. Is

there any talk in the department having to do with any of that?

A. PARSONS:

No.

J. BROWN:

No, okay.

A. PARSONS:

No.

J. BROWN:

No, all right.

A. PARSONS:

Not right now. It's not a

conversation –

J. BROWN:

You're prepared to have.

A. PARSONS:

No.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Other

than that, I will move along there now because that's my last question for that.

A. PARSONS:

If I could jump in, Mr.

Chair.

CHAIR:

Yes.

A. PARSONS:

It's 7:31 there. Can I

suggest we take a five-minute washroom break, everybody stretch their legs and

then we come back? Is that cool?

CHAIR:

All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

There we go.

Recess

CHAIR:

3.1.01 to 3.1.08.

Mr.

Brown, if you would like to continue on with the time that you have remaining.

J. BROWN:

Yeah, I'll start right here.

Oil and

Gas Corporation, what is the current activity and anything that is going on

inside that right now? Like operational activity or anything like that that is

going on right now at the Oil and Gas Corporation?

A. PARSONS:

You mean –

J. BROWN:

Like ongoing projects or

anything they're currently doing.

A. PARSONS:

They have their ongoing

seismic work that was contracted so they are still doing that. Plus, they are

actively involved in any negotiation or matter we're dealing with in the oil and

gas sector, we'll say. If I'm talking to Terra Nova then OilCo is a part of

that.

J. BROWN:

Okay, so they're current

activity is current projects but also any potential new and upcoming projects.

A. PARSONS:

Absolutely.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

Anything to do with that

industry, current or prospective, they are absolutely involved in. Plus, the

fact that they deal very much – Dr. Richard Wright, I think is his last name, he

is very involved in the seismic side trying to get the best data forward and put

out there.

J. BROWN:

Yeah.

All of

Nalcor's oil and gas side, is that completely all moved over to Oil and Gas now

or is there some stuff –?

A. PARSONS:

Pretty sure.

P. TOBIN:

All of the former Nalcor staff involved in the oil and gas part of the business

were transitioned over to OilCo. So as the minister correctly points out, they

are involved with seismic and those sorts of activities, but they also manage

the existing equity positions that the province, through a management services

agreement between OilCo and Nalcor.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Perfect.

So all

oil and gas activity is over in OilCo now?

P. TOBIN:

Except the ownership of the existing equity positions that rest with Nalcor but

being managed through a management services agreement by OilCo.

J. BROWN:

Okay. That makes sense,

absolutely. I just wanted to get clarity on what is going on there.

there any upcoming projects that will probably in the near future that OilCo is

doing right now or is there anything that they – or is it more or less status

quo right now?

A. PARSONS:

What I would say is that

there are always a lot of interesting things on the horizon. One thing that

obviously gathers a lot of attention is Bay du Nord. We know that it was placed

on hold this year, but there's a lot of potential there.

So,

obviously, OilCo and our department would be in conversation with Equinor and

other people to talk about that. Really, there was a lot of work that went on in

that prior to the end of 2020. Now, Equinor themselves are sort of in a

discussion about where do they want to situation themselves in the future in

terms of their different options. So it's our job to put forward the best case.

Craig,

I don't know if you want to jump in on anything else that we're …

C. MARTIN:

No, I mean most of their day-to-day activities are involved in, really,

primarily two programs. One would be the seismic program, which is one arm of

OilCo. That's the acquisition of the data and the review of the data analysis

and dissemination of the data. Then the second piece, obviously, their primary

role would be the management of those existing assets in terms of the mancom

meetings, decisions, financing, all those types of arrangements.

J. BROWN:

Perfect, thank you so much.

CHAIR:

I remind the hon. Member his

speaking time is expired.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

I certainly recognize the

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks

to the Committee for an opportunity to participate with some questions.

I'm

looking at my points and my time, I think I'm going to go from maybe the

smallest to the largest. Let's see how well I do with that.

First

of all, Minister, I wonder if you would entertain a letter from the Goose Bay

Airport Corporation to look at drill core storage that is down in Otter Creek.

We've had some conversations in the past. So this is drill core from previous

mining exploration. It's actually tying up some opportunities for the Airport

Corporation to expand, and it's in a previously – well, it's still a

provincially owned building – it was the Wildlife Division and adjacent

buildings. It would be nice if we could get it relocated somewhere else.

I can

offer up some alternatives now as we're looking at some other buildings. I just

wondered what might be a good arrangement. Perhaps I can get a letter drafted

and sent to you explaining what the issue is.

A. PARSONS:

Absolutely.

P. TRIMPER:

Okay, thank you. That would

be great.

A. PARSONS:

What I would say, though,

just my opinion, is that if you send a letter but it concerns other departments,

just cc the other departments on the same letter. Like you say, if it involves

government space, I would cc TI on that as well so we all have access to the

same letter. If it's a multi-department issue.

P. TRIMPER:

Sounds like a plan, thank

you.

A lot

of what I'm thinking about here this evening is how can we generate additional

revenues? One area that I've been working on, and it doesn't completely apply

here, but it's in the forest industry, and an opportunity for Crown Lands to be

charging a lot more for stumpage and royalty fees. So that's the theme I've got

running through some of my questions and some of my points.

I am

curious, in terms of the manufacturing responsibility of this department, does

this department have a role with those involved in secondary processing of wood

products? I don't see reference to it in the document, but it's manufacturing so

I'm wondering if it's caught in there. I'm just trying to think of a financial

strategy here.

A. PARSONS:

I'm trying to think now. We

obviously do have input with manufacturing that would fall here, but I don't

know if Gill might want to jump in. I don't know if we have any particular

specific ones.

G. SKINNER:

Nothing specific, but we do work with Forestry and companies that are looking at

this space. We've had some different discussions in the last year or two with

some different companies that are interested. We work with them on a case by

case and look at, from the secondary processing perspective and from a

manufacturing perspective, is it in line with, kind of, the export potential

that we would be looking at or how it would support other local development?

P. TRIMPER:

I'm thinking, as the

minister responded earlier to my point, this may be a multi-departmental

opportunity. I've been speaking with Forestry. We have locked in, as they say,

stumpage royalty fees for many years. We are not very nimble. If anyone's had to

go out and buy a two-by-four right now, you know exactly the point I'm getting

to. We're still selling, as a province, our raw materials for a very low price

and the next step in the line before it gets to the consumer is making a lot of

money. I'm just wondering: How can we get in on that action? I'm just wondering

what role your department may be playing there.

G. SKINNER:

Yes, again, as you pointed out, it's really a collaborative relationship with

FFA in this case. That's why in our forestry strategy we are a key partner and

player looking at innovation and R & D but, also, within the sector, what are

the opportunities for actually exploring new opportunity. We are working with

them on those specific ideas and commitments as we have laid out. There's

certainly opportunity to further explore those.

P. TRIMPER:

Okay, great.

Alberta, for example, is a jurisdiction that's just moved to do this. There are

some amazing numbers there in terms of revenue generated.

Twenty-three years ago or 22 years ago, I spent a year and a half of my life on

a wild scheme; nevertheless, I still think it has some opportunity. My colleague

from Labrador West just referenced it lightly, but in terms of proceeding with

Gull Island in terms of a next opportunity on the Churchill River, where is the

department in thinking about installing some extra turbines and/or is that the

reference you're making in terms of powerhouse enhancements? Because I would see

that being a lot less risk to develop, say, two more turbines

Back in

'98-'99, we were looking at rerouting Lac Brûlé in the Romaine River to put more

water in. I'm dealing with flood situations on the Churchill River and I watch –

and I just showed my colleague from Mount Pearl – a lot of water being spilled

over because we don't have a way to capture it and so on. I just wonder: Is this

concept of extra turbines being considered as well or is that a part of the

powerhouse considerations?

J. COWAN:

My understanding, having been at the Upper Churchill, is there is space within

the Upper Churchill for an additional turbine. So what has been discussed is not

those additional turbines, it would be exciters, so upgrading exciters on the

existing turbines –

P. TRIMPER:

Those 300 megs, yeah.

J. COWAN:

Yeah, and an actual upgrade at the powerhouse, so that would be exclusive of any

additional turbines.

P. TRIMPER:

Okay. I'm just trying to

wonder what the capital cost might be for that versus proceeding with Gull

Island.

J. COWAN:

I do agree that the capital cost for that type of a project would be

significantly less than developing Gull Island.

P. TRIMPER:

Another good way to generate

some revenues.

Then, I

guess, I have another point on the mining side and royalties. I learned

recently, from a little bird, that IOC in its 83 years of operation, we make 5

per cent royalties from the IOC operations. I guess there's not much opportunity

to go back and open up this deal, but I was quite surprised at the low

percentage rate. I understand it comes back to some historic arrangements that

were set up. I'm looking at iron ore at $240 a ton and I'm thinking: Wow.

I don't

know if anybody has a comment about mineral royalties and these new projects and

how the department approaches them. I'm sure folks are trying to get the best

deal we can each time. I'm just looking at the tremendous windfalls for some of

these companies right now.

A. PARSONS:

Alex, did you …?

A. SMITH:

The taxation for IOC is certainly based on pre-Confederation legislation. In

considering whether to adjust such things, we have to consider how potential

investors in the province would look at the jurisdiction if the rules are

changed mid-development. So that's certainly a serious consideration in any kind

of change after the fact.

P. TRIMPER:

I guess that's always the

fear. I've spent a lot of my career with the mining industry and certainly when

times are good the opportunities are there and I see entities falling over

themselves to get in there.

wondered if the officials here could provide just a very easy to understand

ratio – and this is almost a communication piece. For every dollar, for example,

we invest – let's go to the oil and gas industry – in exploration, what would

our return be? Do we have those kinds of numbers?

As I go

through the budget and I go through the documents, in all these great projects

it's talking about how many tons and so on, but what does the province receive

on each of these projects and/or if it's safe and commercially sensitive, can we

go with for every dollar we put in we receive $100 back in oil revenues from our

existing projects.

A. PARSONS:

What I would say is I think

we do have some numbers we can provide. So instead of throwing out something

that may not be accurate – because I know I saw back when we did the exploration

incentive I had some charts that we were looking at, the problem is I just

cannot –

P. TRIMPER:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

– recall them now. I know

that, in fact, the PERT report might have had some mention of for every dollar

invested what was that return. But I don't have it right here at this moment.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

OFFICIAL:

Yeah.

P. TRIMPER:

Yeah. I'm just looking at

world decisions and what happened last week and some of the shocks through the

industry and so on, I think it's going to be really important for our province

to have these kinds of communications to push back on those who will start to

drift in another direction.

One

final point, and I heard my colleague from Terra Nova talk about data centres

earlier and bitcoins, and I'm seeing an opportunity. We still are being courted

in the Upper Lake Melville area for data farms and cryptocurrencies and so on

about the possibility – I've been pushing whenever somebody will listen about

the idea of having an industrial park set up at Muskrat Falls where we can take

power off directly, it doesn't have to be converted and run a series of these

clients and we can perhaps handle them all in one-stop shopping there. I'm not

sure where that is on any planning radar, whether it has ever gotten that much

traction, but we do continue to have some courting; although, I would suggest it

has slowed down dramatically.

J. COWAN:

We've discussed opportunities of companies hooking up at the busbar next to

Muskrat Falls to reduce the transmission costs and we have had proponents

suggest that they hookup and build next to the Upper Churchill Falls. I mean,

there are things that we would certainly consider.

P. TRIMPER:

Yeah. It must be like the

Field of Dreams , we'd have to go

first I think.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I'll

turn things back to MHA Parrott, 3.1.01 to 3.1.08 inclusive.

You did

have some –?

L. PARROTT:

Yeah, I do, lots.

CHAIR:

Okay.

L. PARROTT:

I'm here for a while.

The

icing event that was referenced earlier as being minor. Any idea what the cost

was?

J. COWAN:

I don't know if I referenced it being minor. The remediation took place within a

month so it was reasonable. I would have to look into the cost but I can

certainly get that for you.

L. PARROTT:

I would suggest having

helicopters flying around with graphite rods is probably not reasonable, that's

why I would like to understand the cost.

J. COWAN:

Right. So I would think that Hydro-Québec, they used that process where they

have those helicopters drag that pole along the lines so it has been found to be

an efficient process to de-ice the lines. I agree, helicopters are not cheap.

L. PARROTT:

I would also like to

understand the procurement process for these helicopters coming in because it

has been indicated to me that there was Newfoundland helicopters that were

capable of doing that work.

J. COWAN:

Absolutely, I will contact Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and find out – or

Nalcor, I should say, and find out why.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you.

Offshore wind, I haven't heard a whole lot of discussion about it now – a few

years ago, but I haven't heard much since. But Copenhagen infrastructure and

Beothuk and a few other people were talking and very bullish on it. Has there

been any path forward? Is there still a plan?

A. PARSONS:

It is absolutely a

conversation. Number one, you have the renewable plan that will be focussing on

that. There are players out there, they are coming to us: we entertain them. We

try to work with them to see what they want, what they require. That is

basically what I can say at this point, that we are absolutely open to it.

Whether it's onshore or offshore, that's something where we need to be. In fact,

when you look at it, it's a no-brainer but it comes down to capital expenditure,

capital investment and what are you going to be prepared to put in.

L. PARROTT:

So some of the proponents

offshore have been pumping LNG back into the ocean floor and there is a belief

that it is retrievable and there is a lot out there. With an LNG transshipment

terminal – there is a market in Europe – any further discussion? I know there

was some significant engineering done.

A. PARSONS:

There are multiple

conversations ongoing on LNG. I don't know how much is there, it is a huge

amount, as you know and I'm sure we could go to OilCo –

L. PARROTT:

Some say over a billion

barrels.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah, there is a ton there.

The companies have never wanted anything to do with it, but I think with

everything going on in the last year, I think they are slowly starting to turn

their heads to the fact that this may be a revenue stream, but you need that

other partner to come in that is going to build the transshipment, that's going

to figure how to do it.

What I

am going to say is that, while it has been around for however long in the

conversation, there has been multiple conversations happening but it is the same

thing. There is permitting, there is land acquisition, they have to raise

capital. There's some excitement there, but I always temper that with it takes

time.

L. PARROTT:

Yes.

Terra

Nova – a sensitive topic, I understand – I'm just wondering if there's any

update that can be given on the vessel given the fact that, obviously, parts and

capabilities are here for everything up until we get to the hull.

A. PARSONS:

Right now, that is a project

that is probably the biggest pressing issue that we are dealing with. Lots of

information out there, which is fine, but it won't be coming from me. We're

dealing with the seven partners.

What I

will say is that when this is all said and done, I will have no problem

communicating the province's position on this. Right now, it just wouldn't be

fair to do that. When you're dealing with multiple partners, each with their own

mindset and space where they want to be and different goals and aspirations, it

makes it difficult.

L. PARROTT:

I'll ask this, and you may

or may not be able to answer, but is there any fear of a ripple effect from the

failure of Terra Nova? In my mind, as goes Terra Nova, as goes West White Rose

and other projects and we're left with somewhat of a monopoly in the industry.

A. PARSONS:

It depends on who you talk

to. Does anybody know? I don't think so.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

A. PARSONS:

What I will say is that I've

heard it, I get it, and I've heard the other side and I get that. But I don't

think there's anybody, except for probably the biggest player, Cenovus, who is

going to tell you, especially on the West White Rose, what their intention is,

but we will see.

L. PARROTT:

Bay du Nord is, obviously,

bullish. We all believe that there's a huge potential and all that good stuff,

but potential doesn't get us anywhere. Equity stake, is that still on the table?

A. PARSONS:

Equity stake in …?

L. PARROTT:

Our equity investment in Bay

du Nord.

A. PARSONS:

That's a conversation that

I'd be willing to have, but it's not escalated to that point right now. Again,

right now, we know that it's a significant resource. There's a lot of talk in

the industry and on the street about what's there and what the plan is.

I think

the biggest issue I deal with is that there's not going to be anything tomorrow.

We have all these people out there right now wondering what can they do today.

Even with amazing news, you won't see anything happening tomorrow and that's the

tough part.

L. PARROTT:

Yes.

West

White Rose: Again, I think that the general public doesn't necessarily

understand, but oil rigs aren't one size fits all. We have a substantial asset

between here and Texas that is substantially completed. My guess – I'm guessing,

speculating – the only way that proceeds is if somebody comes in and buys it

out, decides to move forward and, obviously, buys the rights. Have there been

any conversations on that?

A. PARSONS:

There are ongoing

conversations. I think Cenovus still has to figure out where their place is and

what they want to do. I think a lot of these companies have spent the last year

trying to protect their bottom lines, protect their internal, so they're not

worried about spending the money. I think – this is just my speculation, as well

– that the asset is far enough along that it has a hell of a lot of value. It's

not so early on that it can be scrapped.

L. PARROTT:

Can't walk away.

A. PARSONS:

But that's just my opinion.

I'm not the guy sitting with a billion dollars.

L. PARROTT:

Yeah, we agree. We have the

same opinion on that.

CNOOC

is here doing a drill right now with the Stena Forth; it's one hole. Obviously,

we need more exploration going on than that. I know that government incentivized

exploration and it didn't appear as if there were a lot of takers. Obviously, we

haven't seen much uptake on exploration rights offshore; actually, no offering

this year in some of them.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah.

L. PARROTT:

What's the plan? Everybody

knows that the offshore is driven by exploration.

A. PARSONS:

Absolutely.

There

are two things here: There's what you can control and what you can't control. We

cannot force companies to go out. I just think it was the worst year in a number

of years, all round. These companies, they're not putting the money into

exploration that they were. They were just not going out there; they were trying

to protect the bottom line.

I think

we can do what we control. Number one, we did put the money into exploration

incentive. If you think about it, it's not a small step. It's not like an

Alberta in 2000 with a ton of cash that can go out and spend it. We don't have

that ability; we have to use ingenuity to get us there, but I think we showed

that was the step we were willing to take.

The

other thing is that we continue the investment into seismic this year. I think

it was around the same ballpark. So that investment, I think, shows that we're

trying to do what we can. What I think is that all the signs are pointing in the

right direction in the sense that the price continues to go up, it's recovered

very nicely. It makes it easier for these companies to figure out are we going

to put that money into it next year.

L. PARROTT:

So we're a full year behind,

though, on exploration. Would we not have been better off taking less money to –

and by less money, I mean go out for bids and see where they come back, just to

see if we could attract people. Obviously, our goal is to make money and

generate revenue for the province, but one is better than none I guess is my

point.

A. PARSONS:

Put it this way: I think

everybody is a year behind when it comes to that; we weren't the only ones hard

hit by this. I like where we are. The reality is that when this hit in March

versus – it's hard to be able to position yourself when you don't know where

this is going to go. These companies didn't even know. All they were doing was

just trying to turn off the taps and trying to not bleed.

It's

easy to say we could do this and do that, but at the end of the day, these are

multinational billion-dollar companies and we're a province of 500,000 people.

That's the difficulty.

L. PARROTT:

Right.

I'll go

section 3.1.04, Royalties and Benefits. Professional Services: Last year

$157,000 was budgeted and nothing was spent. This year it's $142,900.

A. PARSONS:

I'll let Craig talk about it

because Craig would understand Royalties and Benefits, what was normally done

and what we didn't do last year.

C. MARTIN:

Professional Services around Royalties and Benefits is normally kept there in

place because – again, similar to what Alex indicated earlier on their judiciary

board – a lot of that goes through dispute resolution when issues arise and

professional services are required on that front. Really, what it has come down

to is we've had lesser – or even, last year, nothing going on from a

dispute-resolution perspective whereby those professional services were

required, and no particular project where they were required at that point.

L. PARROTT:

3.1.05, Oil and Gas Industry

Support, Grants and Subsidies: Can you give me a breakdown of the $10.9 million

and how much of this was the Innovation and Business Development Fund and how

much was the oil and gas recovery fund?

P. IVIMEY:

The breakdown of the $10.9 million that was spent last year: Approximately $1.9

million was related to the Innovation and Business Development Fund and $2

million of that was related to oil and gas industry support funding, with the

remaining $7 million going towards NARL that we spoke to earlier.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.

I'll

turn it over to MHA Brown, 3.1.01 to 3.1.08.

J. BROWN:

Absolutely.

If you

wanted, for the 3.1.05, the breakdown there from the federal – so what was

received in 2021. Was that the money transferred to the federal government to us

for the offshore oil and gas relief?

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Then,

obviously, the budgeted for this year, that's the remaining amount of money for

this year that has to be disbursed?

A. PARSONS:

I'm trying to think now. Is

that the breakdown there? What's the breakdown for the $325 million?

OFFICIAL:

Yes, that's the breakdown for the $325 million.

A. PARSONS:

I think it's $13 million for

the Innovation and Business Development Fund. There's $9.6 million budgeted for

NARL and about $302 million, $303 million for Oil and Gas Industry Support.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Then,

obviously, the $6 million from provincial revenue, that's the money that was put

in for NARL?

A. PARSONS:

No, that would be money

associated with the Innovation and Business Development Fund.

J. BROWN:

Okay, so that's that.

3.1.06,

Oil and Gas Corporation, obviously, we discussed this before, the extra increase

in funding this year, what project was that for?

A. PARSONS:

I'll let Pierre explain that

variance.

P. TOBIN:

A pretty basic thing going on there. During

Budget 2020 , it was the first year

that OilCo's budget was separated from the Nalcor budget, so due to the COVID-19

circumstance as well as constraints on the release of the

Budget 2020 , essentially the budget

didn't get updated to reflect OilCo's true budget.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

P. TOBIN:

And this year it does.

J. BROWN:

Okay. So it was the start-up

year variance and then this is what it should be now.

P. TOBIN:

That is correct.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Perfect. Thanks.

That is

all for me for that. Thank you so much. That is all my questions for this

section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We'll

turn it back to MHA Parrott.

L. PARROTT:

So out of the $320 million

that was allocated from the federal government, how much is left?

A. PARSONS:

If you take out the $175

million that has been conditionally promised to Terra Nova, what's left after

that, plus the $32 million that is tied up with the supply side that is waiting

to be spent?

C. MARTIN:

Right now, in terms of actually committed: There is $41.5 million committed to

the West White Rose Project that was announced there back in January, I believe.

There is $38 million committed to the Hibernia Project There is also a proposal

in from Hibernia for approximately $26 million that was still being reviewed at

this point – it hasn't been awarded. There's the $32 million RFP that went out

with respect to the Oil and Gas fund. There is $175 million that has been put

there right now in the MOU to Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT:

So, obviously, I don't

really want to think about it, but what happens to the $175 million if something

– I mean, obviously, the clock is ticking on it.

A. PARSONS:

Yeah.

L. PARROTT:

It is a very sensitive topic

but we have to …

A. PARSONS:

What I would suggest is that

given the partners that are in Terra Nova, there has not been anybody coming to

look for that money –

L. PARROTT:

Yeah.

A. PARSONS:

– because they know that the

money is committed. However, I am quite confident – and I'm hoping that I don't

have to worry about this plan B, but if something were to go sideways on that,

I'm pretty confident that money could be reallocated to something else and I bet

you there would be a lot of demands. Nobody is coming at us because it has been

committed for six months.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

Oil and

Gas Co. and the Moya Greene report both indicated that we're not globally

competitive, and I think there are lots of arguments why and why not. Is there a

plan to change that?

A. PARSONS:

Well, it's frustrating at

times, and I'll tell you why. The argument I always get is: How do you compare

to Norway? I say: Well, b'y, Norway is a country and we're not. That's one of

the biggest frustrations. Even if you look at the task force report, they came

up with X number of recommendations. There's only so much we can do as a

province within the federation, but we also have to deal with – the federal

government is a player in this and we have the C-NLOPB on the safety side. A lot

of the recommendations – and I just use that as one example, but it's hard to

compare ourselves to Guyana or to Norway or anybody like that because we're not

in the same boat as them.

I'd

like to think, as a province now, number one, I think that we can compare – we

are competitive, but the good thing about doing this task force now is we have a

bunch of smart people in the industry who knows a heck of a lot more than me

that have come in and said: All right, here's the different things you can do.

That's, right now, basically what we're going to do. But the big part of that is

we have to get the feds and C-NLOPB on that implementation committee because

some of the recommendations are tripartite and it's hard to – do you know what I

mean?

L. PARROTT:

I do.

A. PARSONS:

That's the frustrating

thing. Again, the other thing, too, is that I have to work based on the

situation we find ourselves in;

whereas, if you're the Energy Minister in

Norway, you're reaping the benefits of decisions made decades in the past where

you have this legacy fund. Do you know what I mean?

So I'm

always open to consideration, but I think that we've done a lot of work over the

last little while that, hopefully, now we can turn around and spin it out into

making it better. Plus, the fact that you throw in – I mean, put it this way,

and you know this, the minute you try to do something with oil now, I have

various media outlets that do nothing but criticize you.

L. PARROTT:

It's all good, though. We're

not here to please the media.

Obviously, through industry and the task force and others, we've heard that a

part of the problem is we make it too hard to come and too easy to leave. Have

there been any ongoing conversations with the feds? Environmentally, obviously,

there's been bills passed and stuff, but we don't appear to get the support that

we need in order to attract, to force people to go to work early and make them

stay here.

A. PARSONS:

Well, I could toss it over

to Craig and John to see if they – or Pierre, I don't know if Pierre has

anything to add.

I mean,

to be honest with you, like, right now we have these agreements in place and

they seem to be working, but at the same time it's up to the C-NLOPB a lot of

times to figure out whether they're going to – are they going to make a decision

on something. A lot of the regulatory side there's not a whole heck of a lot we

can do. The big thing we can do is provide support and provide an attractive

royalty regime, which I think the companies would show that we're in the

ballpark.

L. PARROTT:

Okay.

3.1.06,

Grants and Subsidies, can you give me a breakdown of what the $33 million was

used for?

A. PARSONS:

So I think that's the one

Pierre just did.

P. TOBIN:

And I can give a breakdown of the $33 million.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, absolutely.

P. TOBIN:

I explained why the overage, if you like, from the past budget here this year,

but with respect to the breakdown, it includes a net operating cost for OilCo,

including Bull Arm Fabrication, of approximately $7.4 million, which is

comprised of your standard stuff: Salaries, Professional Services, computer

software, hardware and so on for OilCo proper. But also with respect to Bull Arm

operating costs associated with a major fabrication site: snow clearing,

insurance and utilities.

The

balance of the $25.8 million, it involves 3D-seismic geoscientific studies and

resource assessments from the geoscience side of OilCo. The bulk of that is the

3D-seismic program taking place in the current year.

L. PARROTT:

Do we have a long-term plan for Bull Arm?

P. TOBIN:

It's a major fabrication facility in the province, as you well know. Right now,

it is being managed through OilCo. There's a dedicated person there making sure

the asset is protected. In the capital budget this year, we have $4 to $5

million to make sure critical stuff like the roofs in the main building there,

the module hall, the shops associated with the module hall, flood protection for

the main module hall, which, of course, it is the key building on that site. So

we're making sure that the site is protected.

Right

now, there are a couple of semi-submersibles that are cold stacked there. We

have the Terra Nova FPSO that's there at the quay. That's pretty basic. We have

DF Barnes who has a lease there. They're looking for more work for the site. But

it gets down to where that work is. We've come through a COVID year, obviously,

which is were activity has been very, very low.

Winning

work on an international basis that has not been mandated to the province

through benefits agreements is very difficult stuff to do.

L. PARROTT:

Yeah, so in 2016 there was

an EOI that came out from Bull Arm, and, obviously, it went by the wayside;

multiple proponents with interest, and some with very serious long-term plans.

It never came to fruition. You can go to NorSea and different proponents that

were globally recognized that had plans and the government ignored.

The

only way that anything happens in Bull Arm is if there's – as my question was –

a long-term plan. Nobody is going to lease the site for a year or two years and

try to develop it. There's no way to develop a site in one or two years.

I'll

ask again: Is there a long-term plan for Bull Arm?

A. PARSONS:

This is the part where I could say we're here to do the budget Estimates line by

line. I think we've given an answer as to what's going on. I could get into the

back and forth of we're going to do this and do that, but I don't know if that's

going to satisfy you.

I think

we're doing what we can, based on – it's the same conversation on just about

anything. Whether it's the oil and gas, we should have done this, or the Bull

Arm, we should've done that, or electricity, we should do this; the reality is

that's a difference in opinion, strategy and direction. I think we're doing what

we can based on the situation we find ourselves in.

Now, I

know that's not going to satisfy your question, but what I would say is that I'm

also not going to try my best here tonight to convince you otherwise.

L. PARROTT:

Fair.

3.1.07,

Loans, Advances and Investments: I expected to see about $111 million here for

the equity investment in Bay du Nord and it's not. Has it been deferred? What's

going on?

A. PARSONS:

You expected to see how much

there for Bay du Nord?

L. PARROTT:

$111 million was the equity

investment that was committed. It was in the budget last year; it was in the

budget the year before.

A. PARSONS:

Well, given the fact that

it's delayed, there wouldn't – you know what I mean?

L. PARROTT:

It remained in the budget;

it was just deferred to next year. That's why I'm asking. It's not even a line

item anymore is what I'm asking.

C. MARTIN:

Essentially, where we are at this point is – as Equinor themselves noted – the

project has been deferred at this point in time. As the minister indicated there

earlier, we're still talking back and forth with them. They're not currently in

active negotiations ongoing because they've turned somewhat internal, in the

sense that they're looking at the project as a whole at this point in time,

given their more recent exploration activities.

So at

this point in time they're dealing with the partnership group and their own

internal activities, in terms of looking at the project overall. As a result,

there's no anticipated need to expend the funding in this current fiscal year.

CHAIR:

MHA Brown, did you have any

further questions in 3.1.01 to 3.1.08?

J. BROWN:

I have one, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay.

J. BROWN:

3.1.08, Energy Initiatives,

the $250 million: Is that our payment for the Muskrat Falls Project that is

coming due?