PDF Version (Special Debate)

PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

June 14, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 15

The House met at 9 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with the motion passed on Thursday, June

10, we would now start debate on the motion on the Terra Nova FPSO.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

We're here today, Mr. Speaker – at least some of us – to debate the province's

position on the Terra Nova FPSO. The significant offer made by the province to

the partners and our government's decision that taking on an equity in the

project is too great of a risk for our province to bear.

First let me start by saying, regardless of the outcome

of the negotiations between the multi-billion dollar, profitable, big oil

companies to achieve alignment in the project, we are – and always will be –

there to support the women and men who are directly impacted. We share your

stress and we will do what we can to alleviate your anxiety and fear. We will be

there for you. We are there for you.

Beyond the details of this particular deal, there's a

more fundamental question to debate here today, one that has plagued our history

and one that we all must now face. It is our turn to examine the cognitive

decision-making in approaching deals such as the Terra Nova and how myopic

emotions have often lead to the wrong decisions in mega projects of the past.

We need to pause and reflect to ensure the decisions we

make today, while they may or may not be the right ones for an election cycle,

are, more importantly, the right ones for the future of our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

The

essence of this debate is government's scope and depth in supporting

multi-national, profitable, big oil companies. This is not necessarily a

question, however, of profit; it is a question of risk. I hope and pray that the

private sector finds a solution, one that enables them to make large proceeds on

that asset-life extension because those who assume the risk, deserve the reward.

The question we need to answer is this: Is the

province, in its current financial position, ready and able to take on more risk

in yet another megaproject?

We can never forget in the face of profits achieved and

uncertain commodities that the resource is ours. The oil is ours. We need to

ensure we do everything we can to develop conditions that allow us to realize

the maximum value with the least amount of risk for the people of our province.

I believe we have achieved that balance with the current offer on the table.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Industry, Energy and

Technology provided an update to the people of the province on the status of

negotiations on the Terra Nova Project. Despite efforts on the part of all

parties and a significant financial offer by the provincial government, the

future of the Terra Nova Project today remains uncertain and in the hands,

firmly, of its equity partners.

This was not an easy decision or announcement to make.

On behalf of our entire government, I wish to express, again, my continued

support for the hard-working women and men who have contributed so much to the

Terra Nova Project to date.

The uncertainty surrounding this project is stressful

for them and their families. I'd like to take this opportunity, again, to assure

them that we will continue our efforts to support the oil and gas industry and,

in particular, the workers and their families.

The Terra Nova oil field has been a source of

opportunity and pride for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador since its

discovery in 1984. It was the second oil field to be developed on our Grand

Banks, and production started in 2002.

Suncor holds 37.675 per cent ownership in the Terra

Nova Project and is the project operator. The remaining partners are ExxonMobil

Canada at 19 per cent, Equinor Canada at 15 per cent, Husky Energy – a

subsidiary of Cenovus – at 13 per cent, Murphy Oil at 10.475 per cent, Mosbacher

at 3.85 per cent and Chevron Canada at 1 per cent.

Since first production in 2002, these companies have

profited approximately $12 billion from this project and our resources.

Approximately 85 per cent of that oil has been depleted and the C-NLOPB

estimates about 80 million barrels are remaining.

The FPSO has been out of the field since December 2019

and is currently tied up in Bull Arm, as we all know. An estimated $600 million

is required to carryout necessary upgrades to the FPSO and subsea infrastructure

to return it to service to capture the remaining oil in the field. In addition

to this issue, there is significant partner misalignment and that's the crux of

it.

Over the past several months, our government has been

at the table with the partners of the Terra Nova Project. We have worked with

them to address these hurdles and barriers to get it back to production.

Recognizing the benefits attached to the Terra Nova Project, the provincial

government committed over $500 million in financial assistance over the

remaining life of the project.

This includes a direct contribution of $205 million

from the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industry Recovery Assistance

Fund, an increase of $30 million from the original MOU, as well as changes to

the royalty structure valued at over $300 million.

The provincial government is, and continues to be,

supportive of the province's oil and gas industry and the Terra Nova Project, in

particular, as demonstrated by this significant financial offer on the table.

However, the province has a duty to all residents and given the province's

fiscal situation, cannot support projects at all costs.

While the provincial government had discussed terms in

taking an equity stake in the project, the risk has proven to be too great. An

equity share would come with the associated costs of abandonment and other

uncertainties, not the least of which is the commodity itself.

The risk involved in the future of this project cannot

be on the backs of the residents of our province. In excess of 85 per cent of

current oil reserves for the Terra Nova Project have already been produced. Now,

unlike the current project owners, taking on an equity stake as a new partner at

this late stage adds significant risk for the provincial government.

While the current project owners are already committed

to abandonment cost at a future date, the provincial government, as a new equity

owner, would be committing to costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars

without any guarantee of a return. This stands in stark contrast to the project

owners who have already committed to the cost to abandon the project and have

already had an 18-year earning period. That's 18 years of making money from our

resources, which the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would not have had

as a new equity partner.

For the province's existing equity investments, the

province was in at the ground floor. For the Terra Nova Project, the province

would assume the full share of the abandonment costs associated with the equity

interest on a field that is almost 85 per cent complete.

A 15 per cent share of the asset life extension would

cost the province at least $90 million. The province would also be on the hook

for 15 per cent of abandonment costs after a non-guaranteed decade of additional

production, with some estimates putting the total abandonment costs at as high

as a billion dollars. These up-front and abandonment costs, as well as the risk

of cost overruns on the asset life extension, the possibility of an early end to

production and market volatility in the oil industry result in too great a risk

for the province to undertake at this time.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, Albertans learned that

their final cost – taxpayers' cost – for the now defunct Keystone XL pipeline

will be about $1.3 billion, as the project was officially terminated on

Wednesday. I am not prepared to burden the people of our province in our current

financial reality with that sort of risk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Suncor, the operating partner of the Terra Nova Project, reported a profit of

$821 million in the first quarter of 2021, including more than $350 million on

its investments in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore alone. In that same

quarter of 2021, other partners of the Terra Nova Project reported profits as

the following: ExxonMobil, $2.7 billion; Equinor, $1.85 billion; Cenovus, $173

million; and Chevron, $1.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, these companies are far better positioned

than our province's Treasury to assume the costs and risks associated with the

remaining production in the Terra Nova oil field. Our government calls on the

project owners to continue to negotiate over the coming days to find an equity

solution. We will be here to support that project and work with the equity

partners to ensure its feasibility in a way that benefits the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our government has demonstrated our commitment to the

hard-working women and men in our oil and gas industry. We helped secure the

$320-million investment from Ottawa and established immediately the Oil and Gas

Industry Recovery Task Force to help distribute the funding to maximize value

and employment. Thirty-two million of that fund has been dedicated to support

our local service and supply sector. We also committed $16.6 million to keep the

Come By Chance oil refinery in warm idle and ensure employment while the owner

continues to work towards securing a buyer or investor.

We also established an accelerated Exploration

Initiative to provide companies with the incentive to drill more wells in the

best prospects. This is a policy measure that will allow all future bid-deposit

forfeitures to be reinvested, resulting in an injection of hundreds of millions

of dollars in our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to ensure

Newfoundland and Labrador is a globally preferred location for investment in oil

and gas by emphasizing exploration in an environmentally sustainable manner to

drive discovery and production. The potential in our offshore remains great. In

the fall, Equinor confirmed that wells drilled as prospects, known as

Cappahayden and Cambriol, were successful. Just last week it was reported that

the Bay du Nord field is now estimated to contain one billion barrels of oil,

triple its initial estimates. We look forward to these exciting developments at

the Terra Nova Project. The province will support those projects in ways that

ensure the value and benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a

government that is a responsible steward of our province's Treasury now and for

the future. I'm frankly not willing to roll the dice with an equity investment

in a late-life project in place of oil firms that continue to book profits in

the billions using our resources.

Our government remains committed to ensuring the

long-term sustainability of the oil and gas industry and its workers. We

reiterate our call to the partners of this project to find an equity solution

and get the Terra Nova FPSO back in production. Our government will be there to

support the project as offered, in a prudent manner that benefits all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, given the fiscal flexibility of the

province, we can't afford to bet and lose. We've seen what happens when that

occurs. It would cripple our Treasury, our schools, our hospitals, our future.

We are still trying to right the wrongs of similar decisions in the past. While

we cannot be anchored in that position forever, we need to learn from those

mistakes.

Risk, in our current financial state, belongs in the

hands of the private sector. I wish them the utmost success, profits and

returns.

We will honour our commitment to the partners, but,

more importantly, to the women and men impacted by any decisions made. We are

asking the partners to come back to the table; a table that has now been set

with $500 million of government support to come to a deal that will allow a win

for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to say it's an honour to speak here today, but

it's not. For those who know me, I don't think anyone has ever seen me wear

black into this House. It's a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker, and it's a sad day for a lot of people who are employed in the

offshore. My heart goes out to them. Once again, we're sitting here having a

conversation with not all of the facts in front of us.

The first thing I'd like to say is I believe that this

government and all of the proponents involved in this deal should waive their

NDA and put the facts on the table and let Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know

what the real offer was and what's really at stake here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARROTT:

Failure after failure, Mr. Speaker. Now that the federal government has

abandoned Newfoundland, they no longer care about oil and gas, yet they're still

big on Saudi oil, I guess, where do we go? Where do we go?

I look back, I guess the first date that comes to mind

is January 14. On January 14, this government stood up in front of a province

and boasted about a deal for the Terra Nova, along with a federal minister who

said it was a great deal; a day before an election – a day before an election.

The day after that, on the 16th, that federal minister's own staff came here to

campaign for these same people. Now, they are in power and they're saying

there's no deal. That kind of tells you what it's all about.

We can talk about passion and we can talk about

everything, but let's go back in time a little bit and look at what has happened

long before the global pandemic, which is what this government has blamed this

on from day one. Let's be clear, the Terra Nova FPSO came in to dry dock in

2019; it did not come in in March when this global pandemic started. The failure

started long before. The Henry Goodrich came in long before; the West Aquarius

came in long before; and the Barents has come in since.

We failed. We had the previous minister boast and brag

about Advance 2030 – bullish on it;

650 different oil fields or finds out there that we would develop. Do you know

what we did instead? We hired a foreign advisor to see what kind of business we

could drag up in Guyana. We abandoned our own people; the men and women who have

built this industry.

All we have to do is go back to Hibernia and look at

the former Liberal government under Clyde Wells and understand that it was the

PCs that fought hard for this industry. It was Mr. John Crosbie that fought hard

for this industry while the sitting Liberal government abandoned it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARROTT:

Memories are short.

Last week, I sat down and I listened about how much was

there and how much wasn't there, and there are all kinds of different numbers

from an industry standpoint and the standard is generally PPP – proven, probable

and possible. Right now, we say somewhere around 115 million proven, probably

and possible. While we want to know what's proven – simple fact, and there's

nobody here that would disagree with that – the proven, probable and possible

has always been the indication, the key indicator, for industry to move forward.

When this oil field was found there was 278 million barrels PPP. Today, there

are 540 million barrels PPP. It's doubled in size. We have 115 PPP now and most

people in the industry would think that this going to expand over the life.

There's no question.

I listened to the Premier over there this morning. The

Premier says: People deserve a responsible steward. I could not agree more. But

do you know what else people deserve? They deserve a government that's going to

stand up for them; a government that believes in the people in this province and

gives them a fighting opportunity to move forward. We don't have that. Our

federal minister has been non-existent. Guess what? Our provincial counterparts

have not pushed any of the silent six, not one of them; haven't heard them

publicly call out anyone. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard anyone over here

say a word about any of this.

We all make mistakes. Both sides of this House have

made failures in the past. Some own it, some don't; some speak out about it.

None of them do. Not one.

This opportunity with the Terra Nova is an opportunity

for us to get people back to work. Now, we listened this morning to a briefing

where we were told that an equity stake would give us a marginal return – a

marginal return. When we asked about the indirect spinoffs they didn't have any

answers. As a matter of fact, they quoted a report that came from Noia. I don't

even know if this government did a report on the indirects.

The Greene report itself clearly says for every one

offshore job there is, there are five more created: One equals five. Seventeen

hundred jobs initially to get this rig back into service at $138 million a year

over a one-and-a-half to two- year process. Then a possible 10 years after that,

same kind of money; 1,100 people employed offshore with as many as 5,000

onshore. Then you have think about the message that this sends industry.

Now, it's all right to say this doesn't affect any jobs

going forward because the bottom line is all that these oil companies care

about. Well, guess what? The bottom line is not all these oil companies think

about. If you want to talk to the current Finance Minister and ask her about the

money that Exxon and Suncor and all these people have donated to H. Bliss Murphy

and all these places that we need to survive as a government.

We can't afford not to find a way for this to work.

That's just donated money, that's got nothing to do with the money that's

generated by the men and women that work offshore, by the economic spinoffs from

the businesses that are here, by the amount of produce and goods that are bought

and sold and by the royalties.

There is a big picture here and what I see, based on

the facts presented by this government, which are very little and I understand

there is a NDA, but they're not disclosing everything. I can tell you right now,

this is all about politics. This is about a federal government that wants to

reap the benefits from the Hibernia field and don't give a damn about Terra Nova

or the people in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARROTT:

It's time for the people that got elected to govern, not Opposition, to govern,

to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARROTT:

January 14, when this announcement was made, the next day there was an election

called. Guess what? This announcement was a MOU, a $175-million MOU between

government and the Terra Nova processors. Guess when it expired? In March. Guess

when the election was? In March. Guess how much conversation went on between

January 15 and March? Not a whole lot. Government will probably tell us after

that they negotiated. Well, I urge you, if you negotiated during that time, put

the documents on the table.

We're here this morning, while there is a group of men

and women outside of this building protesting for their lives, and we're in

here. We should have all been out by the door supporting them, or at the very

least listening to them. If you can't support them, you should go out and give

them the courtesy of your ear. It doesn't happen. I don't know if it's because

people are afraid to stand up in front of the people that elected them or if

they just don't care. I'm not sure. I'm not convinced. It's a pretty scary

thought.

If you want to look at numbers and hard facts, I'll

give you a few. The Premier, right now on the Terra Nova and all of our offshore

oil and gas, if you were to give him a grade, it's pretty simple, I'd give him a

zero. Finance Minister in her previous role, in the six years that we had to

build this up – because this all fell apart before COVID – in the six years

before this happened, I'd probably give her the exact same mark, a zero, because

there are no prospects in the future. We can talk about a billion barrels

offshore with Bay du Nord and all of those things that we like to flaunt around

as good news, but there's no good news today. In order for us to have a future

we need to have a present.

We talk about growing our population. There's going to

be a mass exodus. We talk about looking after our people. We talk about mental

health. We talk about all the things that we're here to do. We are supposed to

look after this beautiful province and the beautiful people that live in it.

Well, you're failing – you're failing miserably.

One other mark I'd like to give out and I'll give it

directly to our minister that represents us: Minister O'Regan. I can't even give

him a zero. It's ridiculous. For him not to be yelling and screaming on the

rooftops of this province fighting for every man and women that lives here, it's

shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARROTT:

For

nobody on that side of the House to be calling him out on it, even more shameful

– shameful. All Seamus has done is shame us as a province. It's absolutely

ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I have lots of friends that work on this

Terra Nova and all of the offshore oil and gas rigs. Let me tell you, they're

frightened to death. Is this a play so Ottawa can get more royalties from

Hibernia? Perhaps. Is this a play so Hebron can bring an FPSO up alongside and

spud another well nine kilometres away to get access to the oil from the Terra

Nova field? Perhaps, but all of those things are the wrong answers. We need to

be trying to do what we can right now. The only thing we're doing is forgetting

about our responsibility to the people that put us here.

Mr. Speaker, all the money, all of the thoughts and all

of these studies has been put in. You look to the Noia report. It just blows me

away. At today's current price, if we were to – not a projection, just today's

current price – buy into an equity stake and we only got the 115 million

barrels, that's $8.28 billion coming in directly. That doesn't include one

portion of the indirects.

I listened to these guys talk about well abandonment

fees. So they say somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion. What they don't

say is that is not the cost for us. The cost for this province would be based on

the equity stake. Why you can't negotiate a portion of what has already been

done bewilders me.

If we buy 15 per cent – let's just use Exxon as the

example – Exxon should be on the hook for their 85 per cent, if that's a fair

number. That should leave us somewhere in the vicinity of about a $30- to

$40-million bill for abandonment. I would suggest that's a realistic number, but

government won't disclose that number. If it is a billion dollars, it's a

billion dollars spread across all partners based on percentages. Again, a

billion dollars. If it's 15 per cent, it's not a billion dollars, but government

is trying to convince everybody it's a billion dollars. They need to come clean.

They need to present the facts.

On Thursday, we asked to debate this. They wouldn't

debate it because they said the information wasn't on the table. Monday morning

8:30, they give us a briefing and during the briefing, the House goes into

session. Shame on you. The session was still going on when the House started.

People didn't even receive the full briefing and, I will add, the briefing was

null and void of any facts and figures. It just wasn't there. It was just blank

words trying to convince us that we made a decision.

So, again, I say it: This government has some

information that they should pass along to the people. This is a decision made

to please their federal partners. This is a decision that they're not making.

They tried to convince us they're putting $500 million in. The money is not

coming from our pockets. They're putting $205 million in from the gas recovery

fund. Let's be clear on that – and I don't think anybody has said this; most

people probably don't know it – there are no more requests out there for this

money. The rest of the offshore is not begging for this money. Unless a new

request came in late last week, there are no more requests for this money.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

PARROTT:

Well, it just came in. That's what they say.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that we should go all

in on equity – not saying it. What I am saying is that we should be making this

decision based on facts. We should have all the facts on the table. We should

understand exactly what the costs are associated with it. Not some speculation

that it may or may not cost this. Government is not putting it out there. I

believe that this is a decision that's being made with nobody's best interests

in mind except a government that's afraid to look after the people that they

were put here to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

I'll try my best to keep my train of thought logical

and coherent and respond to some of the comments from the other side. I don't

believe there is any need to reiterate the comments made by the Premier, many of

which were also part of the briefing that was provided to all Members of the

this House of Assembly prior to coming in here.

Now, one of the values, one of the benefits of being in

this House for as long as I have is that I have the benefit of history. I have

the benefit of knowing how things used to be done and how they are done now. I

will point out just a couple of things that the Member said about having the

briefing Monday morning. Well, I can tell you two things. Number one, if we had

offered the briefing on Friday or Saturday, it probably would have been turned

down. I will also –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

PARSONS:

tell you what, I never said a word when the Member previous spoke. I would

expect to be afforded the same courtesy here on this debate.

The crowd opposite actually asked to have the debate on

Thursday; they wanted to have the debate prior to having any information. What

did we do? The staff, who I would point out were just insulted about not doing

an analysis, not putting together any information, not showing up to do this

work and not working over the weekend. The staff were insulted here – say you

didn't do the briefing.

The reality is that a briefing was provided on this and

we're having a debate on this. This is progress, I would point out, because I

can remember the last time, when I sat in the Opposition and we debated a

megaproject, the minister of energy or natural resources at the time said

publicly: We don't need to debate Muskrat because the quality of debate would be

so poor that we don't need to have a debate. There was no emergency debate.

There were no questions asked. We were basically insulted for asking for the

debate.

I will point out that we have progress here today. I

realize that if we had the briefing Friday, had the briefing Monday, had the

briefing Saturday or never had the briefing, the reality is that politically we

will get attacked for doing so. The reality is that we put a briefing together

and offered it to all Members of this House of Assembly, as we should, to have

this special debate.

The other reality, too, is that this matter will

continue on. Information will continue to be provided because I actually believe

that this deal can still happen, but I do not believe it is incumbent on

government to put everything into it. I do not believe it is incumbent on

government to risk the future of the province to make this deal. I don't believe

it's on us at all costs.

There was a lot of rhetoric in that last speech. I

wrote a lot of it down and I'm going to try my best to respond to it. Again,

everybody has had the information provided. The first thing is we talk about

waiving the NDA. I would say that the province would actually be open to doing

that. If you can convince the seven partners, multinational companies, to waive

their NDA, I guarantee you the province would follow suit. But the reality is

that this is a commercial transaction for which we are not a partner. We cannot

force them to do this. I would tell you it would absolutely be unprecedented.

You find me a government before or after that would do that, absolutely crazy.

You find me companies that would do that, absolutely crazy. But it's a nice

thing to ask for.

Again, we've put out everything we can without getting

ourselves in legal jeopardy, which, I would point out, I know there are certain

Members – not all Members. I'm not going to tie everybody in together because I

don't think it's fair, but there are certain Members that would love nothing

more than for this government to mess up the process by revealing all the

information. I believe that to be true, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I'll go through the points that I just made: We

were asked to have a debate before any information was provided. We felt it

responsible to do it today. I would point out that the self-imposed deadline by

the companies is tomorrow. That's their deadline, not ours. Government has not

imposed any deadline. That's their deadline. We're here debating it before then.

Again, I would point out that it's going to be far more of a debate than we were

offered on many other important topics in this province. I think we have made

progress.

I will point out we talk about the staff and no

analysis. People can insult me; people can say what they want about the Premier.

We're here. There were civil servants in that office all weekend doing work, and

for the Member for Terra Nova to insult them – and that's the second time this

session – it's unacceptable. Unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARSONS:

You

can fault me all you want, but to talk about those women and men that have been

working on this for over year and saying: Nothing was done; I don't think that

department has any analysis done. That is not how this works. Again, history

shows me that. I was not given an opportunity to have those briefings on many

occasions before; I never even got the opportunity.

We talk about failures of the past. The reality is –

and I'm not getting in stripes here – there have been many failures in the past,

tons. Many governments, all stripes, all kind of politicians, that's what

happens when you govern. You do fail. In this particular case, I can tell you

that the decision that we have reached, the decision that we have taken is to

avoid a failure in the future. That's what we are doing here. We feel that we

have put the work in. We feel that we have put the time in. We feel that we have

put the analysis in. I appreciate the frustration that people feel, and not just

the Members opposite, but members outside on the steps. I appreciate that. It's

hard not having all that information, the information we are privy to.

As one Member said to me: We can only hope that you are

doing what's in the best interests of the province. I can tell you, I truly

believe that the decision we have taken is in the best interest of the province.

Does that mean the entire province likes it? No, but we feel we are doing

something that is good for the entirety of the province. I would point out, the

most important part of the province are all those ones who are going to come out

here after us. This is a future decision. This is a decision to protect the

future. That's what we're all here for.

Now, I keep hearing: The government should do this, the

government should do that. I will point out, I will reiterate to all that are

out there, $500 million of value is certainly not nothing. I would also reject

the arguments from the other side who question me – I can tell you, I don't make

decisions based on whether somebody is going to like it or somebody is not going

to like it. We make it based on what we think is in the best interest.

I can tell you, the majority of messages, calls and

emails that I've had since Thursday were not about: Why are you not doing it?

Were not about: Why are you not taking it? Why are you giving $500 million? That

was the majority. That's true. If people want to they can ATIPP my emails to see

that. They can ATIPP that. I never got one negative email about not taking

equity.

But, again, what I will point out is that if taking

equity was the right thing, but not popular, we would do that. It's not about

being popular. The Member said about govern. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's what

we're doing. We are governing but we are governing for everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARSONS:

will also point out – I've been criticized since the fall, fair ball, that's

what happens here – I have been asked to spend the entirety of the $320 million.

We were asked by certain Members of the Opposition to spend it all on West White

Rose. We were asked by Members of the Opposition to spend it all on Come By

Chance. We were asked by Members of the Opposition to spend it all on Terra

Nova. I don't know how that's possible.

Now, what we have done is we have committed the lion's

share of that money, $205 million, to this project, to the detriment of other

projects that are out there. I will point out, we have taken $32 million and put

it to the supply and service side. Now, hopefully, that comes out soon. People

don't always realize, these are not companies that people always hear, but we

had a ridiculous amount of interest for that $32 million. What I can tell you,

in fact, is for the $32 million, we had over quadruple the dollar amount of

applications made. I think it was over 70 or 80 applications made for that.

That's money that you're going to see, that's jobs, that's work. But we felt

that was important. In fact, that was a task force recommendation which we

complied with because we felt we need to ensure that the supply and service

sector, which is also important, we need to get that done.

Coming back to it, we have been asked on multiple

occasions to give the money away; give the money away; give the money away. What

we've done, we have made decisions. They'll be questioned, that's fine. But what

I can tell you is this money is there on the table for the project and for the

owners. I can guarantee you that if this goes ahead, down the road somebody will

criticize us for giving that money. But that doesn't bother me because we

believe it is the right thing to do to make this project work.

But if it does not happen, the Member opposite said:

Well, there's no interest in that money. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, there

will be a lineup of people coming to get that money to put it towards our other

offshore projects, our other offshore jobs that will happen, people will get the

benefit of that federal funding.

Speaking of federal: I know that it makes good politics

to shout and scream and want to belittle your federal politicians. We've made a

lifetime of that here in this province and it's usually good politics. We talk

about: Well, where are the Members? Where are the Members? I think the word was:

give them the courtesy of your ear. I will say to the Members, I was out there

on the steps; the Premier was out there on the steps; the Minister of Finance

was out there on the steps. Right now, while we speak, Minister O'Regan is out

there on the steps speaking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARSONS:

You

might not like what he has to say. That's fine. That doesn't bother me one bit.

What I'm saying is that he is out there. We were out there. I was speaking to

TradesNL. I was speaking to Unifor. In fact, I can tell you, I was speaking to

Unifor yesterday, as was the Premier. We've been speaking on this every single

day.

It's like an iceberg, I would say folks. There's what

you see on the ground, just above the surface there and there's what's below.

For everything that people see in the news, I can guarantee you there is a

significant amount of time and effort that's being applied every single day

behind the scenes and under the surface. I can guarantee you that.

Now, again, the political rhetoric was: Stand up for

the people. It's time for you to stand up for the people. That's a line. I've

probably used it when I was in Opposition myself. It's a good line. It gets

attention, especially to those that are reacting with their hearts. But what I

would say, Mr. Speaker, is that number one: giving $500 million to this project

is certainly standing up. The other thing I would say is that the decision we

have reached in this matter, I can guarantee you, whether people like it or not,

it certainly is standing up for the people. I've had a number of people reach

out to convey that.

Now, one point is we talk about the failures. The

reality is we have multiple projects ongoing right now. We have multiple hopeful

projects in the offshore with great potential. I would not let one project

colour any government's feeling towards the rest of it, or their position

towards the rest of it or their outcome towards the rest of it. The reality is

to look at this particular situation and say that a government has failed or

that a government does not support oil and gas is a beyond ridiculous statement

– it is a beyond ridiculous statement.

The fact is that successive governments over multiple

years have gone out of their way to support the oil and gas industry. In the

same way, when I do an interview with people that question our government and

previous governments' support towards oil and gas, I'll defend it. Oil and gas

has helped to pay for our social programs. It's helped to pay for our education.

It's helped to pay for our health care. These are all good things and we believe

that will continue into the future.

Again, I do not believe the investment that is being

asked of us at this point is a good one for the province. I wish I could

disclose all the details, but the reality is that we can't. What I will say is

that a failure of this project will not rest on the shoulders of this government

or this House I can guarantee you. A failure here – I think we need to look back

at the ownership. I think we need to look back at the ownership that has taken –

85 per cent of this project is out of the ground.

We could talk about equity. Equity is fine; equity is

not a bad thing. We have equity stakes in three other projects, but each one of

them was on the ground floor, was in early. In this particular case, we are

being asked to come in with 15 per cent left and assume significant risk down

the line when the vast, vast majority of the project, the value is gone. I don't

believe that is right.

We come back to this ownership group. They are the ones

that have reaped that benefit and are now asking us to take on the increased

responsibility for the costs that are coming down the road, the costs that come

with decommissioning and abandonment. I don't think that's fair. The Premier has

already pointed out the numbers; I'm not going to repeat them. Needless to say,

these companies have a much healthier bottom line than this province. I can

guarantee you that; they have a much healthier bottom line.

I will point out – and I'll say it and hopefully the

companies are listening – there are other private interests out there that want

to get in on this. There are other private interests out there and they want in

on this. It's incumbent on the ownership to go to the table. We will assist;

we'll do what we can. We have half a billion dollars sitting there, but to come

back to us and ask to put it on the backs of 520,000 people, it's not right.

There are private interests here that are willing to

take this on. We've done everything we can, but I'll tell you what, I'm not

giving away my kid's future. I'm not doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARSONS:

Again, I have no problem with risk and I have no program with gambling. We all

believe that there are times to risk and there are times to gamble, but I'll

point out this, Mr. Speaker, I'm not risking my own money, I'm risking money

that belongs to everybody out there. That's the problem.

It's fine to take risk if you're a company. If you're a

company and you take risk and it doesn't pan out, you shed layers, you shed

people, you shed capital expenditure and you shed exploration. If we take risk

and it fails, we shed schools, we shed hospitals, we shed programs for autism:

we shed all of these services and we shed jobs and people. That's the problem

with risk.

I say, Mr. Speaker, hopefully I will get another chance

to speak to this. I think I've spoken enough here now. That's where we are. I am

glad that the Opposition – I'm glad that every Member of this House is here

speaking to it. We need to do that – absolutely. Your job is to question, to

hold us accountable and scrutinize – absolutely. But, again, I believe I have

made the point that we're all trying to get across here – from, certainly, the

Members here – is that we have all of the time in the world for those workers

that are out there. I've spoken to my share of them and there are a lot more

workers. But in this case, what the operators are asking us to do is not fair to

the people of this province; it's not fair to us. That is why, at this point, we

will just have to leave our measly little offer of half a billion dollars of

value on the table.

Right now, ownership in this project, an equity stake

in this project, according to the excellent analysis done by a lot of really

good public servants in my department, the Department of Finance and elsewhere,

the analysis that I've seen – and I've spent just a lot of time since August

working on – said it's not the right move. I believe time will tell. I believe

that at the end of the day, this will be proven to be the right decision. In the

meantime, I know that it requires debate and questions and we'll let the morning

continue on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just sitting back listening to all this today and

seeing the people outside, we can tell where the passion is here in Newfoundland

and Labrador. We've always been an oil and gas province and we should continue

to be as well.

Sometimes I question what I'm here for. The politics of

it all sometimes just drives me absolutely nuts; I'm not a fan of it. What I am

a fan of is keeping people here in Newfoundland and Labrador and protecting

revenues that are going to be sustainable for the future and our future

generations.

You throw out the numbers all day long and, again, I'm

here to put a face on some of those numbers that we throw out there; keep it as

personal as we possibly can. The Premier talked about an equity partner without

any guarantee of return. I would argue someone paying their mortgage, their car

payment, keeping groceries in their cupboards, in turn, to keep people here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, well, that's a good return for me as well. I would

argue that is the return we're looking for at the end of the day. If this

province doesn't make a dollar off this decision – not a dollar – but instead

keeps the 1,100 people working, then the 1,700 people working, $138 million in

wages and spinoff jobs, that alone right there should be initiative enough to

make this project as successful as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, my portfolio as critic to Population

Growth has never been more important than it is here today. If projects like

this go by the wayside – with all the work that's put into it, I understand. But

if projects like this are lost, and it's indicative of the future projects here

in the province, the mass exodus that we're going to see is going to create a

snowball effect that's going to destroy this province. It's going to absolutely

destroy it.

Our population growth is the key to our success in this

province, keeping people here and keeping us above water, keeping us afloat and

I don't see it. I was one of those workers that went away for 17 years, but I

came back and forth. I brought every cent back home to Newfoundland and

Labrador. Besides buying a beer and a meal in the airport on the way home, there

wasn't a dollar spent away. All of it was brought here.

What we're going to see with future outcomes is people

moving away. People are doing it now; they have been for the past couple of

weeks now. I know people that have already left. It's going to intensify, it's

going to get worse and worse as we go along here.

Let me tell you something, there's nothing worse than a

nanny or poppy here in Newfoundland and Labrador that has to call their kids and

grandkids once a week up in Alberta, Fort Mac, down around Taber or wherever,

Saskatchewan, Northern Saskatchewan where they're drilling. It's hard to see,

it's hard to watch but that's the direction that we're headed. Make no mistake,

those people out on the steps this morning and those people in the Districts of

Terra Nova, Harbour Main, all these places, where this directly affects the

people, they're going to see a population loss.

Once that starts to happen and the revenues start to

leave this province, b'y we're in for a rude awakening I believe. It's coming,

no matter how much we don't want it to come, it's coming. There's nothing worse

than seeing a person get on a plane every single day and take off; it's hard to

watch.

Over the past years, when it came to people losing

their jobs in the oil and gas sector, I've watched friends lose their houses,

lose their cars, lose their families. It's hard on a marriage. It's hard on

kids. But I've also seen them lose their lives. I've had three friends of mine,

in the past so many years, who have taken their own lives due to job loss. Once

again the snowball effect, everything going out of proportion. It's definitely

eye opening.

We had this PMR last week about mental health. The

mental health of this province is not in the best shape now as it is, nor is it

anywhere across the country. I'm sure everybody is – they have their demons,

they're in hard shape. But those people out on the steps this morning and

throughout the districts that are fighting for their livelihoods, their mental

health is going to take a big hit here. In turn, it's going to be a trickle

effect down through their families, their spouses, their children. That's hard

to come back from.

A lot of the resources we have in this province, but to

get a second or third visit, once again we've talked about it before, it's tough

to do sometimes. We're going to see a bigger mental health crisis once again if

this is the direction that the province is going in. None of us have the

answers. I'm sure the government are trying their best right now, but some

things definitely could have been done before this, beforehand, leading up to

this.

When the Member for Terra Nova talked about the

technical briefing just being offered this morning, that's not a slight on

staff. The staff of the minister were only given the weekend to get it all

together and I'm sure they did one hell of a job. They did a great job trying to

put together the information that they had. But a briefing should have been done

a week ago, two weeks ago. We knew this was leading up to tomorrow's deadline. I

truly believe that some foresight should have been given at that time. There

should have been a briefing Monday of last week, for instance. That's something

that could have been facilitated.

It's not a slight at all on the staff members. It's

probably more of a slight on the direction that they were given or the direction

they were not given in due time and due process.

We talk about the federal government. The west of this

country were into oil and gas long before us. You go to Nisku out in Alberta and

they still have the first oil rig that ever started it all, back 60 or 70 years

ago. They've been through quite a bit. They've been through quite a lot, and my

brothers and sisters out there: my heart is with you as well. We can relate to

them and they can relate to us.

I look towards them, and if you want to talk about how

popular this federal government is when it comes to oil and gas, you take a look

out there and the federal seats they've put in. It's beyond me how anybody can

truly trust this federal government when it comes to oil and gas when there are

so many other countries out there that are just cashing in on the benefits.

We talk about the transition from oil and gas to a

greener energy and, again, it's coming, it's there, I can't wait for it, but

it's not there today and it won't be there tomorrow. So while the rest of the

world cashes in on the oil and gas products that we have now – which is not just

what you put in you planes, it is not just what you put in your vehicles, but

it's what everything is made of. Everything around you is made of oil and gas.

The product is going to be around for a long, long time.

We are an oil and gas province. I believe we are still

a fishing provinces as well, but we are an oil and gas province. While we're not

cashing in on what we can, the rest of the world is. Make no mistake about it,

they see the writing on the wall and they want to make sure that they get the

maximum benefit they possibly can. Whether it be through revenue, business,

jobs, it's all out there.

When we look towards the federal government and the

fact that they gave $200 million to a casino in Ontario. I would love to know

which MP stood on his feet or her feet and screamed and shouted that their

casino needed $200 million and got it. I'd like to shake their hand because we

don't have it here, we really don't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

TIBBS:

talk about our federal MP – the federal Natural Resources minister and – again,

I know that a lot of emotion get into it and it is not rhetoric, but how he is

not screaming and shouting and standing on his feet and saying: No, no, we need

more for this province. Sure, the half a billion dollars, it's a great start.

It's great to put out there. It's great to put on the table.

I know that the Minister of Energy talked about: Well,

do you know what? Some want it to go towards this project or that project, and

it has to be stretched a long way. I don't think that's the point. I think the

point of it is that our major resource right here in Newfoundland and Labrador,

our job creator, is on the line, and Ottawa is nowhere to be seen. The half a

billion dollars is great; it's there, but we need more. We need more.

Who's going to stand on their feet to say we need more?

I know we will and I hope the government does, too, because we need more. We

haven't been a have province in 10 years. We will still watch provinces like

Quebec get a $13-billion equity program through equalization – $13 billion. By

the way, I would argue that in some of those years – I don't know about this

year or last year – in most of those years, Quebec still posted a surplus of

their budget and still got $13 billion.

We have two of the greatest, greenest projects in all

of this country right here in our little province. We came in line with what the

federal government wanted. They asked for green energy; we did it. We did it.

Even the government says we are the green battery. Why? Because of Muskrat

Falls, because of the Upper Churchill. We did it. We did exactly what they asked

us to do and we put everything on the line to do it. What do we get out of it?

Nothing. Two hundred million dollars for a casino and we are getting nothing.

We're telling these people out on the steps: I'm sorry.

Like the Minister of Energy said: give the money away.

It should be from the federal government – sorry, he said: A failure of the

project will not rest on the shoulders of this government. I agree. A failure of

this project will not rest on your shoulders. The failure of this project will

rest on the backs of those people out on the steps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

TIBBS:

Again, we look at the federal government; we look at the MPs that – we can all

agree, everybody across the province: Where are they?

It doesn't have to be a political stripe because, I can

guarantee you, if we were in government and this was Erin O'Toole, I would be

the first person to stand up and say: Are you kidding me? We need more. We need

assistance. We need help. We put our butts on the line. We built our green

energy projects, as the federal government wanted, as the world has been asking

for. The world has been asking for these green projects, and, by God, yes, we

put ourselves in the hole by doing it. We definitely incurred a lot of debt

doing it, but we did it.

Where's the incentive? Can't oil and gas and green

energy make that transition together? We still need it but the incentive is not

there. It's hard to watch.

We talk about retraining the oil and gas workers. Let

me tell you something folks, oil and gas workers for the most part don't want to

be retrained. They love their job. They want to continue doing their job. I

loved my job. I was still part of the old-school drillers that spun chain. You

take a three-quarter-inch chain and you flick it around pipe. You watch out to

make sure your hand and arm aren't sucked into it; throwing tongs. I've watched

injuries, horrific injuries, but still some days I sit here, I think to myself I

miss it. I'd still like to go back to it.

These people don't want to get retrained. Some of them

may. I can't say all of them. I can't speak for all of them, but for the most

part these men and women love their job. They love being covered in oil, grease

and dirt. I loved every minute of it. Even though it was hard, I knew what I was

doing. I knew that all of you were going to go to work in your vehicles the next

day because of me. Maybe not the Member for Lake Melville though. He had the

green energy.

But I knew that I had an important job to do. I loved

my job. When we talk about putting that money back into retraining, retraining,

retraining, you have to stop and ask yourselves – most people here sat at a desk

or they were lawyers, doctors, educators, all great professions, but not

everybody wants to sit at a desk. I do it now and I love my job. I truly love my

job. But the only reason I love my job is that I know I'm speaking on behalf of

every blue-collar worker in Newfoundland and Labrador that doesn't want to be

retrained, that just wants to go back to work, drill for oil and make sure that

this province is taken care of for future generations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

TIBBS:

I'm

actually trying to convince one of my sons to get into oil and gas one day. He's

13 years old. He asks me about it. He says: Well, Dad, how much money can I

make? There's good money in it. The youngest fellow, Xander, sometimes talks

about oil and gas and he'd like to get into it. I don't deter him from that – I

don't. Yeah, he probably won't be there for another seven, eight years; I've

worked with guys on the rigs 16 and 17 years old. He might not be there for a

couple of years yet, but I'm not going to deter him from that. I was a proud oil

and gas worker – a damn proud oil and gas worker.

Those people out on the steps, they're very proud oil

and gas workers as well. We have to stop in here for one minute, just a minute.

Let's forget about the billions. Let's forget about all the numbers. Let's

forget about the agreements. Let's just stop for one moment and put yourselves

in their shoes, what they have to face this weekend: staying up late at night, 3

in the morning; thinking about how they're going to put food on their table, how

they're going to keep their car payments going.

All of us in here, we're thinking about where we're

going to go on a staycation or even a vacation this summer as Canada opens up.

Not these people. These people truly now have to worry about groceries, food. As

hard as they work – and I worked 13-hour days, up to 50 days straight, and some

of these men and women do it as well. Can you imagine working that hard and not

having a future, or not knowing if you're going to get a paycheque?

When we talk about oil and gas, we can talk about the

transition into green energy and how important it is, and it truly is. It is

more important to the future of this planet than anything else. If you think

climate change is a joke, then you're wrong because it's there. We need to

ensure that future. For right now, we need to ensure a future in oil and gas

here in Newfoundland and Labrador and let these people know that we're with

them, because we are with them.

Again, you don't know it unless you do it. You have no

idea what it's like, the camaraderie of these men and women as they work

together; the cold days, the cold nights out on that rig or anywhere else in oil

and gas. It can be a tough job, but, by God, they're some proud to do it.

They're proud to do it and they're more than proud to put revenue back into

Newfoundland and Labrador. I was proud to do it as well.

I'm not going to stand here and point fingers. It's not

going to happen. I am going to stand here instead and lend a hand to the people

outside on the steps and let them know that we will do whatever it takes to help

them out. We have to reinforce that. Again, they're not looking for the

retraining; they're not looking for a layoff slip; they're not looking for a new

job. They want to work where they work. It's a fantastic job. It's a fantastic

industry. It has a future in Newfoundland and Labrador, but unless we facilitate

it, it does not.

Can we do it as a province? Probably not. We probably

can't get there just on our own. But we are in the Confederation of Canada, and

the federation of Canada will reach out and help so many other provinces. We've

been hearing it for years, ever since I was a kid: Newfoundland and Labrador

always gets left behind. I see it more and more and it truly is.

The federal government have debt as well. Of course

they do. Unless they step up, unless they put more equity in, unless they put

more money into this – and I hope the prime minister gets this message as well,

because Newfoundland and Labrador needs the federal government right now. We do.

We need them to come down and say, you know what, what else do we need to

facilitate this?

I understand the big oil companies' guys, yeah, they're

in it for a dollar. Of course they are. Like I said at the start of this,

Newfoundland and Labrador coffers, if we don't make a dollar off it but we keep

these people working out here – I don't want to lose money, of course, and I can

understand the risk. But if we don't make a dollar, if we break-even and we keep

our people out here working and we take care of our people, then that would be

worth it to me.

We need to make sure that we send the rest of the world

and the rest of the industry a message, because we always say Newfoundland and

Labrador is open for business. We have lots of businesses here in Newfoundland

and Labrador; we have our tourism sector and we have our fishery. That's

starting to make a comeback as well, but the oil and gas, that's where our

revenues are going to come from. It might only be for another 20 years, but if

we shave years off that 20, the revenues we're going to lose are substantial.

To the people out on the steps and the people

throughout the districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas

sector, as a driller, I stand with you, the Opposition stands with you and we

will continue to fight and do whatever we can to keep groceries in your fridge.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for acknowledging me in this very important

debate today.

I thank all Members of this House for the opportunity

to have this, what I think is a very important discussion and debate today. Most

importantly, I think this morning I want to thank the men and women who have

contributed to the growth and development of our offshore oil industry. They

have done outstanding work and they are recognized globally for their skill and

their abilities. Mr. Speaker, in this debate this morning we have talked a lot

about our offshore workers but I wanted to acknowledge them.

We have a very robust offshore opportunity. We have an

opportunity to grow, develop and continue to produce, Mr. Speaker, and that has

really modernized and changed Newfoundland and Labrador, in a lot of ways, our

oil and gas industry. The value of our oil industry in this province cannot be

overstated, nor is it easily replaced.

I also want to thank, this morning, the professionals

in the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology, as well as OilCo, for the

work and efforts they have put in since the collapse of the international oil

industry and, of course, the development of COVID; for the amount of hours, the

amount of effort, the amount of encouragement, the amount of support and the

amount of information that they have been able to provide and to continue with

our growth and development of our oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, I was minister, at the time, of Natural

Resources when COVID first struck and when the collapse of the international oil

industry occurred and I can say, Mr. Speaker, the hours and the efforts should

not go unnoticed. I won't allow that to happen this morning: allow me to just

thank them.

Two important things to start off this morning is

thanking our offshore oil and gas workers, the men and women who provide

incredible skills and integrity and effort to grow our offshore and as well to

the department and to OilCo for their efforts as well.

At one point, the industry represented up to 30 per

cent of the gross domestic product of this province, 13 per cent of labour

compensation and 10 per cent of employment. That is a significant contributor, a

significant contributor to our economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will say we have some of the lowest carbon intensity

oil-emitting projects in the world today; some of the lowest carbon intensity

emitting projects and I think that's something that cannot go without saying how

important that is. We want to continue to put the oil from Newfoundland and

Labrador into the world markets because, of course, it helps drive down carbon –

the carbon intensity of oil – and it helps to ensure we have the lowest carbon

per barrel. I know the projects here in Newfoundland and Labrador continue to

work to lower that oil.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently this morning to the

Member for Terra Nova who said that nothing had been done in our offshore. So I

thought it would be important to make sure that when I'm speaking to the people

of the province, when I'm speaking to the global industry that I correct the

record. Allow me to have a few moments to talk about some of the things leading

up to what happened in 2020, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is very, very

important for people, not just in this province but those that are listening

around the world, the oil and gas industry, those that look to this province to

make their investments – and we want to encourage them to continue to make

investments in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can say, Mr. Speaker, we have

tremendous opportunity that is, I would think, one of the biggest opportunities

in the world today.

Allow me to talk a little bit about some of those –

what I'm going to call – important steps that were taken leading up to the

challenges of 2020. First of all, I can say that we worked very hard with the

federal government to accelerate the exploration approvals. We were able to take

it from 36 months down to less than six. That, I can tell you from CNOOC and

from Equinor, from some of the majors in the world today, was incredibly

important. CNOOC is out there hoping to make a discovery as we speak. There's

been hundreds of millions of dollars looking for the next Hibernia offshore. I

do hope they do that. I want to say a shout-out to the men and women from

Newfoundland and Labrador who are working on that rig. Let me say that I hope

that we'll be celebrating a new discovery soon.

We worked with Husky and partners on the West White

Rose extension. That was not only agreed to but it was started, Mr. Speaker,

about some 60 per cent of it is completed in Argentia; a tremendously skilled

and readily available workforce – tremendously skilled.

We also did a framework agreement for Bay du Nord. Bay

du Nord has been in the news, the discovery, the recent discoveries, the new

discoveries that Equinor has made in the last year have increased the prospects

for Bay du Nord, some say to a billion barrels. I do want to encourage Equinor

to move forward with that development.

I can also say the asset life extension of Suncor was

also agreed. I'm going to say this because the people of the province need to

understand that when the asset life extension was agreed by the partners of

Terra Nova, the conditions were the same as they are today; roughly the same

dollar value for the price of oil, roughly the same dollar value. It was around

$70 US Brent crude and today we're roughly in that same realm.

I say to the partners of Suncor, I do hope that you

take that into consideration as you look toward moving forward with the

sanctioning and the asset life extension, especially with Newfoundland and

Labrador, and through some money that the federal government is also

contributing, having put a tremendous $500 million on the table to assist with

the development of the asset life extension.

We also, Mr. Speaker, had the Innovation and Business

Development Fund – $60 million to encourage innovation and business development

for our oil and gas industry offshore –$60 million. That continues today, about

$6 million a year going out to help increase our development.

The Member opposite said disparagingly that we were

involved in encouraging Newfoundland and Labrador companies in Guyana. Well,

Guyana is developing its offshore oil industry and we have tremendous expertise

to lend it. We are there: numbers of Newfoundland and Labrador companies. Many,

many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are engaged in that. That certainly says

that we can export our expertise and develop in other countries. I'm very proud

of the Newfoundland and Labrador companies that are doing just that.

We also had eight, Mr. Speaker, new entrants to our

offshore. Companies like BP and BHP put in major bids to come and develop

offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we had the largest single bid of

$621 million – $621 million – made by, I think it was, BHP in our offshore in

recent years.

We also have new discoveries. ExxonMobil made new

discoveries. Husky made new discoveries. Equinor made new discoveries. So things

are very exciting offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, the department also has an exploration data

room. I can also say that we've spent in excess of $100 million – well in excess

of $100 million – on seismic data. We now have over 200,000 – 200,000 line

kilometres of new 2D multi-client data and 40,000 kilometres of high-quality 3D

data available. Think about that, Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the world that

we are making investments to understand our seismic offshore Newfoundland and

Labrador and what we're seeing is tremendous. In just 10 per cent of our

offshore – and this has been independently verified – there are some 60 billion

barrels of oil. Not discovered, but seen on seismic.

Now, we need to get out there and discover it. That's

why companies like CNOOC, that's why companies like BHP, BP, Equinor and others

are out there doing discovery. Is there enough discovery happening? We would

like to see more, Mr. Speaker. I encourage companies to go out there and do

that. That's why we worked so hard to have that accelerated exploration approval

process in place.

I heard the Member opposite talk about

Advance 2030 . Over 200 oil and gas

stakeholders developed that. We have an oil and gas council made up of some of

the top – the absolute top – oil and gas executives in this province. We also

have a task force to help spur continued growth and development.

Mr. Speaker, I think this government has done an

incredible amount of work to continue to grow our offshore oil and gas industry.

I say to the oil and gas industry itself, I say to the companies around the

world, including the eight new entrants, including ExxonMobil, including Suncor,

Husky and Equinor, partners today in our offshore, there are some 650 leads and

prospects – 650 leads and prospects – more than 20 basins mapped offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador and over 60-billion barrels.

All I can say is our opportunity is outstanding

offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. The people that work in it are compared to

the best in the world. We have robust supply and service capabilities in this

province, and we have world-class education and innovation happening here. We

are probably the world's leader – and I can say that. I'm not trying to brag or

anything. I think it is true that we are recognized as the world leader in

operating expertise in harsh environments.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be cheering our oil and

gas industry. The people of the province may not realize just how big offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador is. We have some 910,000 square kilometres in our

offshore. Now, compare that to, say, Norway. Norway's is 650,000 square

kilometres – so the magnitude of our offshore oil and gas potential.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you've heard a lot this morning about

the Terra Nova Project and that Newfoundland and Labrador has committed some

$500 million to that project, to the asset life extension project and to the

continued delivery of that project. I have to say, I think it is a tremendous

investment in our offshore, in that particular project. It pretty much will

cover the cost of the asset life extension. It's less than 100-million barrels,

but there are around 80-million barrels still left to be developed in that

offshore, plus any other tiebacks or any other discoveries that could be made. I

encourage the investors in that project to take advantage of this opportunity to

utilize the $500 million in investment that Newfoundland and Labrador is

prepared to make.

It may not be the right decision for Newfoundland and

Labrador to take an equity stake at this point in time. Our financial

considerations, there's a big stake to be made. I think the Premier did an

incredibly good job of laying out the reasons why we would not take an equity

stake. But that is not the same for the major oil companies who have already,

Mr. Speaker, reaped the benefits and rewards of that project and will continue

to reap benefits and rewards of that project.

There are close on 100 million barrels of oil in the

environ of that project that I'm sure with new technologies and with new

discoveries that project will be here for many, many years to come. I know that

they're probably listening this morning, Mr. Speaker; I encourage them to make

those considerations, to understand that we want their development here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We want them to continue and we want them to

accelerate their exploration. We want them to accelerate their discoveries. We

want them to accelerate their projects.

We are very supportive of the oil and gas industry. We

want them to continue to grow and prosper because it grows and prospers the

people who work in the industry and it grows and prospers Newfoundland and

Labrador. It helps us to invest in our schools, in our hospitals, in the best

quality of life for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There's nobody in this House that does not stand with

Newfoundland and Labrador, does not stand with the workers, does not stand for

oil and gas. I believe that everyone in here certainly wants to be part of the

future for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's why we've continued

to invest, I think, another $20 million in the budget for continued seismic work

by our oil companies, Mr. Speaker.

There's the accelerated Exploration Initiative that

provides companies with the incentive to drill more wells. We have monies put

aside for the supply and service industry; some $32 million I believe the

minister said a little earlier, coming out of the money that we received from

Ottawa to support the industry. There's $6 million from the Innovation and

Business Development Fund. There's a tremendous investment by the people of this

province to grow our offshore oil and gas industry. We may not be able to take

equity at this moment, Mr. Speaker. This may not be the right project for us to

take a huge portion of equity, but I think the oil and gas companies can see how

serious and how encouraging we are to their growth and development, because it

is growth and development for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'll again remind the industry that the conditions

today at roughly $70 a barrel for Brent crude are roughly the same as when the

asset life extension project was announced; roughly the same dollars per barrel

they're receiving for the oil. Plus the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

with their partners, the federal government and their offshore oil and gas

industry, are prepared to put $500 million on the table as well. I think it

speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to move in this direction.

I've heard a bit this morning opposite about

abandonment. Well, let me remind everyone that abandonment only occurs once the

plans are accepted by C-NLOPB, and we're a long way from that. So I'm

encouraging all partners of Terra Nova to come together to take advantage of

this important offer that Newfoundland and Labrador have on the table to ensure

the continued growth and development of the Terra Nova Project and to ensure the

continued growth and development of our offshore. I encourage that.

I encourage us all to continue to support oil and gas.

I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that we have such strength within this

industry in the province, such an incredibly strong and skilled and readily

available workforce. The fact that we have the offshore oil in Newfoundland and

Labrador, the fact that we have low-carbon intensity in our offshore oil, the

fact that we have produced, up to this point, some 26 per cent of Canada's

conventional light crude oil – 26 per cent. I'd like to see it go higher.

Our conventional crude light is phenomenal. There are

some 6,700 people employed, or there were. Up until COVID, there were 6,700

people who were gainfully employed directly in the oil and gas industry. We'd

like to see more. We think there is a healthy future here. We have not only a

robust industrial and supply servicing capability, the availability and location

is good for our future fields. We've seen good discovery offshore Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So I say stand strong, all of us together, to grow this

industry, to reap its rewards, to continue to grow Newfoundland and Labrador and

to continue – I say, Mr. Speaker – to work together for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to me it's about supporting oil and gas

workers or the workers of this province. In the House on Thursday and today,

we've heard talk about – and I know it's a form of shorthand but – supporting

oil and gas. It's not about me supporting oil and gas, it's about supporting oil

and gas and workers.

What I'm about to say is to look at the whole notion of

transition; not an immediate transition out of oil, but we have to start having

a plan, if we are going to protect workers and if we're going to be fair to

workers, their families and the communities which depend on them.

Just out of curiosity, in 1964, would anyone in

Newfoundland have imagined our province as an oil-producing province with an oil

industry that is surpassing the value of our fishery? Or that we'd have a

gravity-base structure located over 300 kilometres off our coastline? I didn't,

I was five years old. I certainly didn't, but we know that Hibernia was in

production by 1997. That's 24 years ago. Now, we're having this debate; not

about Hibernia, but about another project.

In 1964 – what's significant about it is – a university

professor, Hugh Lilly and fellow diver, John Snow, were part of the first diving

expedition to the bottom of the Grand Banks to collect samples and data about

its terrain, geographical research. As I said, that's 1964. A plaque to honour

the dive was eventually placed down there on the Virgin Rocks. Up until then, no

biologist, geographer or geologist had set foot on the Grand Banks.

A remarkable story, even more remarkable because of how

he obtained the funding to do so. Memorial University thought the expedition was

a waste of time and no one else seemed interested in the idea, certainly not oil

companies, but Premier Smallwood, at the time, did fund it.

Why is it important? Because it probably led to the

discovery of oil. Oil companies weren't interested in the Grand Banks; roughness

and other challenges made it impossible. But when oil was discovered, and they

did discover elements of it there, that we might say, the rest is history.

It's a story about transition because prior to 1964 no

one would have imagined Newfoundland and Labrador as an oil-producing province,

yet here we are, we've transitioned into one. Here we are facing another

transition. I think we've got to be ready for it. We've got to have a planned,

slow, well-financed one that looks after the workers.

Oil will not go away tomorrow. It will not go away in

the next 10 years, but there are clear signs that it is on its way out as an

economic engine for the country.

If indeed there is a tide in the affairs of men, then

we're at such a point right now. If anything, we need a transition plan that is

fair, that is just, that is supportive of workers and communities.

I've heard my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor -

Buchans speak eloquently about the fear for the future, whether the people are

going to be able to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, to have their

children in programs. He's hit the nail on the head. Whatever we do, we do to

protect the workers of this province, the people of this province not the oil

and gas companies.

Do we accept the reality of climate change and the need

to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a green economy? I haven't heard

one person in this House of Assembly say otherwise. I haven't heard one Member

deny the catastrophic consequences if we do not reduce our emissions to net zero

by 2050. It's not a joke. However, I have also heard it said that there is still

a demand for oil, and we have some of the cleanest.

Now, last week, the news clearly demonstrates that

while oil may be with us a while longer, it won't be that much longer or as long

as we might think. The time to transition from oil is here, if we're going to

protect the oil and gas workers and our communities.

In the end, if our oil is in such high demand, really

we would not need to put anything up for it. It would be a commodity sought

after by companies on its own.

In today's briefing, we heard a few of the details, and

I'll apologize if I get some of them incorrect, but here's what I heard: The

royalty offer of $300 million, a significant amount by the province; there is

more downside protection to protect owners but there are upside opportunities

for the province, but notice the first one was protection for the owners; oil

forecasts are all over the place; marginal returns on equity investments; each

company makes decisions based on profitability and risk; and the project was

uneconomical under the current royalty regime.

Now, here's the thing: Do I support the notion that we

need to be putting more money into oil? No. I think we've done our share. Here's

the thing: We are busy attacking the government at this point. And I can tell

you, yes, there will be times when you will deserve every bit of criticism. But

why are we not lambasting multinational oil companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

DINN:

the Premier has noted, they have made some $361 million in the last quarter on

Newfoundland's offshore. They are the ones walking away. Now, I don't know in

the art of the deal, but once you start begging cap in hand, you've lost all

bargaining power.

What are they doing? They're protecting their bottom

line, their future and the interests of their shareholders. The workers are

certainly not top of their mind. That's what they're looking at. They're

obviously seeing that there is a lot more risk in this than they're willing to

take on. They are. They're already seeing the writing on the wall, as it were.

I'll say this, because we've been, as Newfoundland and

Labrador, as a province and as a country, at one time when we were independent,

as such, we've been through transitions. Look at some facts according to certain

statistics that Canada wide 33,000 jobs were lost in the fossil fuel industry

between 2014 and 2019, and 20,000 lost during the pandemic. That's a significant

amount. There's your canary in the coal mine, as you might say.

If you look at some statistics, I guess, one time, 40

per cent of Canada's revenue or GDP was from agriculture. Today, it's 1.5 per

cent. Post war, 1948, 21 per cent of the workforce was made up of women. Today,

it's 48 per cent. We have undergone significant challenges and changes and

transitions in our history. Our economy is prosperous. I'll be making my point

in terms of we need a transition plan.

We watched in Newfoundland here, God knows, I taught on

the Southern Shore and every time a school was closed, it was the death knell of

a community. The Southern Shore, where I spent half of my career as a teacher,

that I loved dearly, you can see the ravages. The cod moratorium is a perfectly

good example of that.

Now, I taught in Trepassey in 1981, that place was

booming. It was booming. As a teacher, I was definitely making the least amount

of money of the lot. It was booming. If you drive up there now – if I remember

correctly, the schools had some 500-plus kids in it. It was a happening place.

You go up there now, it's 25 students from K to 12. That's what's up there; it's

a shadow of itself. It was hard to watch.

I was never in the fish-harvesting business. I had a

lot of respect for the people who were in the business. I was a big fan of

listening to The Fisheries Broadcast .

I don't know how many times I'd listen to fish harvesters talk about problems in

the catch rates, that there was something going on. Then the fishery was closed

and we were thrown into chaos. We were left scrambling.

Now, there were signals that there was something going

on, that we should have had a plan in place. It devastated communities. I'd say

it devastated Trepassey. It devastated people's lives. People were forced to

transition. You could not make a living at fishing. I would say that the fishery

today is certainly not what it was pre-moratorium.

The railway is another one. My dad worked at the

railway. He retired a year before the railway was shutdown. My daughter was a

year old when the announcement came that they were closing the railway for good.

I can tell you that long before the railway was closed, we could see the signs

that its time was coming to an end, that there was going to be no more support

and that people were going to lose their jobs. My dad, fortunately, he would

have kept on working there a lot longer.

I would say that given the chance – I often think of it

– maybe if the railway had gone on, maybe that's where I would have worked. Who

knows? Our parents were very much focused on getting us an education. When I

went teaching up the shore, there were two people there who worked at the

railway. They were teaching. They had transitioned out of it years before

because, I guess, they could see this was not going to be the life; it didn't

have the longevity.

We don't have a railway anymore. We have bits and

pieces there for a museum, but was it a positive? Was it the end of the

province? Was it a drawback? One thing is for certain: There was a plan in place

to transition people out of it. Those who could retire were retired; those who

were young and had young families and needed the work, you find a way to

transition them, but that transition came.

My concern is that if we carry on without a transition

plan, there will come a point when the oil production will not be the economic

driver of Newfoundland and it will be too late. Right now is the time to start

that plan. I'm not talking about shutting down the oil industry. We know it's

going to be here. Right now, more than anything else, if we're going to put

money into something, I'd rather it not be oil companies; I'd rather it be the

workers.

I understand that oil workers love the job they do. I

loved the job I did. My dad loved the railway. There comes that point that those

who maybe are in a position to retire can so that we can start protecting the

livelihoods of those who need this and for those who wish to retrain, but it has

to be that gradual plan. That's all I'm saying here.

The fact is, the world is turning from oil. I would

suspect it's not going to be in a linear fashion; it's going to ramp up as

technologies come on stream: the use of hydrogen fuel, the use of greener forms

of making concrete and so on and so forth. We've seen it already. You just have

to think a couple of weeks ago with Royal Dutch Shell, the court decision in the

Netherlands, the overthrow, I guess, or the upset of the boards of directors for

Chevron and Exxon.

We see it coming. Let's be ready for it. If we're going

to put money up, it's commendable to protect the workers, not commendable to

protect the bottom line of the oil companies, because it has to be about the

people of this province, pure and simple. I think we need to start looking at

this now as a huge opportunity to create millions of new jobs and boost the

economy. That's nationally, of course. The federal government has to be onside

in this. If we're going to transition energies – and it's coming – it must be

fair and inclusive and it must not leave anyone behind because, in the end, the

transition is about people.

If anything, if we're looking at it in broad strokes,

Mr. Speaker, we have to commit to a long-term phase-out of fossil fuels. I'm not

talking, again, that we're looking at shutting down the offshore, but we have to

start planning for it now. The writing is on the wall. What does that mean? Look

at the advances in green technology. Whether it's in electric cars, whether it's

in the use of cladding on buildings to create photoelectric energy, whether it's

the use of hydrogen, it is coming.

I can remember teaching at Holy Heart – I think it was

around 2000 – and looking at a person walking up Bonaventure Avenue with a

cellphone up to his face and how unusual that was. Yet, I'm willing to bet that

everyone in this building here, in this room, has not one, but two cellphones.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

DINN:

Got

one. You are fortunate.

Some may even have three. There's probably more power

on this here than what got the Apollo astronauts to the moon.

We have to look at staging transitions over time

because changes to how we use energy will come. We have to facilitate labour

mobility within the industry. Again, it has to be fair, just; it has to be

worker-based.

Yes, that might, indeed, support skills training. It's

also going to mean protecting the incomes for affected workers. You cannot have

it come to a sudden stop and have people thrown out of work. In that stress,

that anxiety, you have to protect the workers here who have given so much to

this province.

We talked about diversification of the economy. Well,

we have to start looking at it. If we are indeed the green powerhouse of Canada,

then let's have that discussion around it. Whether it's the addition of more

generating power to Churchill Falls, whether it's about how we get the best bang

for the buck out of other hydroelectric developments – yes, even Muskrat Falls –

to make sure we get what we deserve out of it. But whatever it is, we must make

sure that in any transition plan the workers, their families, the people who

depend on them and the communities who depend on them are top of mind. It won't

be overnight but we need to start now.

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to this, if

there's any blame here, if anyone stands to make a profit, it is these

companies. They are not our friends. I don't care how many not-for-profits they

donate to, there is a bottom line to this. Our job here is to look after the

citizens of this province, the workers of this province and to make sure that

when it starts, the energy transition – that our workers, our people, are looked

after.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Warr):

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation and the

Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to weigh in and speak for a few minutes on

this very, very important debate that we're having here this morning as we talk

about Terra Nova and the money on the table from the province and the workers,

Mr. Speaker. So far this morning we've heard from our Premier, who I thought did

a very good job of outlining his genuine concern for the people of the province,

outlining his interest in certainly helping the workers and the families who are

top of mind for all of us, but also outlining the responsibility that we have to

all of the people in this very small province, in this fiscally strapped

environment that we're operating in.

We heard the Minister of Industry, Energy and

Technology, Mr. Speaker, outline the tremendous efforts that have been taken

over a period of time to work with this company to find a solution that would

work for everybody. We heard the Finance Minister – who I believe did a very

stellar job – talking about the things we still have to be hopeful for when it

comes to oil and gas.

Labrador, where I come from, Mr. Speaker, is up for bid

this year. I'll try not to reiterate anything that's been said already here this

morning, but the 60 billion barrels of oil that we already know of through

seismic discovery. So I believe these are things that certainly give us much to

be hopeful about.

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for the families

and the children impacted. No matter what side of the House you sit on,

everybody knows somebody. Everybody has family; everybody has friends that will

be impacted by this. Some of us have been around long enough that we've seen

decisions made that were not informed decisions. We've seen the impacts on all

of our families. I go back to my early days in the House. We can't change the

past. I say it often and I've heard it often: We can't change the past, but we

have to learn from the past.

Muskrat Falls happened in my backyard. I can tell you

that we are still seeing the impacts of Muskrat Falls, at the time a project

that was sanctioned and sold to the people of this province as a bill of goods

for $6.6 billion. We're well over double that and the project is not finished.

I did an interview this morning, Mr. Speaker, on a very

difficult situation happening in Lake Melville: social issues, homeless,

transiently homeless. If you're on the ground up there, many people will tell

you that there have been negative impacts leftover from Muskrat Falls that we're

still seeing today. We saw people with good-paying jobs that had to leave – that

had to leave that community. They couldn't afford to stay there – cost of

living.

We saw the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay that didn't

even get a share of the impact agreement. We saw a decision made where the UARB

in Nova Scotia had the luxury of deciding what would be the best decision for

them, with Emera with that line, while our own PUB here in this province was

kicked out of the decision-making process, Mr. Speaker.

Every day we discuss issues in this House. Just this

past weekend I had folks reaching out. They needed extra resources around for

RCMP support. I was told they're needed all across the province.

Myself and my colleague for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux

Meadows were dealing with heavy health issues all weekend; folks that need more

money, Mr. Speaker. Every day in the House, somebody mentions roads; 10,000

kilometres of roads in this province and we don't have enough money. At the end

of the day, we sit – some of us – around a large round table and we have to make

the best decisions that we can for the people of this province, the place that

we're so proud to call home as well.

Would we like to be able to say yes to every request?

Absolutely, we would, but we take an oath. Even as an individual – I've been in

this House and on this team that I've been on now for almost eight years. Often,

personally, I might make a different decision, but I've taken an oath to make

the decision that is the best for all people in this province. Sometimes they're

very difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker.

I think back to 1992. I spent 23 years as a career and

employment counsellor, overseeing a number of offices along the Coast of

Labrador, up and down, in a number of communities. We went through a very

tumultuous time in 1992. I saw grown men, big, strapping men, sit in my office

and shed tears because their way of life was stripped from them. They couldn't

see tomorrow. They didn't know where the next money was coming from. A group of

people, Mr. Speaker, many of them did not even have a high school education,

just because they grew up, they went in the fishing boat and you earned a good

living.

We worked with those people, Mr. Speaker. Just like

Ottawa has been supporting us through this pandemic, supporting us with the

downturn in oil and gas, Ottawa worked with us then. We're pleased to have those

relationships. Many of those fish harvesters, some went back to school. They

transitioned from an inshore fishery to bigger boats, to 34'11”s to 65-footers.

They went through a very difficult time. That transition was not easy, but many

of them are doing very well today and, certainly, financially probably make more

than most of us that are sitting around in this Legislature.

So I share that, Mr. Speaker, just to say change is

hard, uncertainty is difficult. At a time with a province so fiscally strapped,

at a time when the need is so tremendously great, I believe that led by the

Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology and the Premier, and supported by

the Minister of Finance, the Treasury has gone as far as they can go.

I, too, received a number of emails this weekend and

not one email, Mr. Speaker, asking why haven't you put more. Why haven't you

gone out and taken that additional risk of buying a stake in equity. Instead,

the emails were around 85 per cent of this project is done. Wait until you get

the best deal. The oil is in the ground, it's not going anywhere.

I also sort of got attacked a little bit from some

folks that said: Where did the government get a half a billion dollars to put on

the table for a few families when you're asking us to cut, cut, cut right across

departments? So there are all different views. I'll tell you now as a resident

of this province and as somebody who hasn't been serving this province for a

number of years, my heart goes to the people impacted. I've worked for more than

two decades with people facing uncertain times that became unemployed, that we

needed to help transition to employment; some just connecting them to related

labour force, some that needed to go down the road of retraining.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that make this hard,

make it not so palatable is the fact that we want to help the people of the

province, but we're talking about companies that have turned – I believe it's

$12 billion collectively in royalties. We're talking about some of those senior

people that make multi-million dollars a year in salaries, Mr. Speaker. I think

the question that everybody in this Legislature needs to ask themselves today –

all of us, there are 526,000 people in this province, 40 seats in this House;

that's a collective voice representing those people. We need to ask ourselves:

How much are we prepared to risk? Let's take it down in simple terms to a

family. You have your pay come in for the month and you pay your groceries and

you pay your mortgage and you got a bit of money left over. What are you going

to do with that money? Do you want to plan a trip? Do you want to go out to a

restaurant? You can live a certain way.

If you've got a little bit of disposable cash, you can

make those decisions and they're not going to hurt other decisions, but with a

province that's fiscally in the situation we're in right now – I heard a number

of speakers across the floor this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I respect them all.

I respect the hon. Member who's right across from me when he talks about his

passion is clear for oil and gas. He knows oil and gas. We all bring collective

experiences to this House.

I'm sure that I can speak to experiences that might be

different from other Members in this House. But we all want what's best for the

people of the province. But what I didn't hear was how much is enough to risk.

Nobody said, we've got the $500 million; let's take the 15 per cent equity.

Let's continue to gamble at this end-of-life project.

All of us are looking to Alberta. I have a sister in

Alberta that I haven't seen since 2019, and I hope that changes soon. I hear

from my sister, who's running a business – actually, she's really butting the

tide because she just opened a second business over the weekend during this

pandemic. Tremendously proud of her.

Nobody is very proud right now in Alberta I can tell

you, Mr. Speaker, over what happened with Keystone and the taxpayer's dollars

that were put into that project that is now defunct. We can't change those. We

weren't a part of those decisions, but we have to learn from those decisions.

How much are we prepared to risk and how much are we

prepared to gamble from a province that is already fiscally strapped?

I also think it's important today for families that are

impacted and wondering where to turn; we need to talk about hope. The Minister

of Finance did a great job outlining many things to be hopeful for. I look to

the area where I come from in Labrador. I say it every day. I believe Labrador

is going to play a tremendous role in the economic recovery of this province.

I look down at my colleague who represents Labrador

West, and when we were up and toured that mine back in November. One of the

things that stuck with me was the folks on that bus that day that said the more

we mine, the more we find. Good things happening in your area, Mr. Speaker, with

mining. In Lab West we're about 50 years out. Vale up in the Northern tip of

Labrador going to 1,700 jobs as they move underground, and I think about 950

people there – last count I got – on site right now. There are things, Mr.

Speaker, to be hopeful about and we all want to make the right decision. We have

a responsibility to the people of the province – to all the people of the

province.

I heard somebody mention on the other side this morning

when they were speaking about nanny and poppy and the future of nanny and poppy.

I think when I leave this House, if there's one thing I'm remembered for, I hope

it will be how many times around our tables that I've mentioned Aunt Millie and

Uncle Joe. I get a lot of smiles about that, but I genuinely care about Aunt

Millie and Uncle Joe.

I was raised by my grandparents when they were well

into their senior years. I was number 12 that joined that family. They took me

in at the age of four and I had a very good upbringing. I can tell you right

now, as someone who's been the minister in a large social department for 3½

years, and recognizing that we have the most rapidly aging province in this

country. We have seniors that are struggling every single day. We have Members

opposite that raise issues in this House every single day about the seniors are

struggling, Mr. Speaker. They must be watching today, saying: You want to give a

half a billion dollars to companies that have just turned $12 billion in profits

collectively? They must be shaking their head because they're thinking how much

they could do to improve their own quality of life with that addition of money.

I just share that because no decision that we make is in isolation.

As departments we don't work in isolation. Every one

decision impacts another decision, Mr. Speaker. On Muskrat Falls, they say let's

not talk about it; let's bury it, but we are still feeling the impacts of

Muskrat Falls. We see it every day on the ground. I say it again: We can't

change the past, but we can learn from it. The memories are still very, very

fresh for me. I could talk all day on the impacts of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, the project isn't dead. As the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology has outlined multiple times, the deadline is not

ours. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is still at the table. We want

to support the workers in oil and gas who've given so much and they've

sacrificed much. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans is not wrong when

he talks about the sacrifices they've made.

Many of us who've travelled for years and you're coming

back from flights across the country, when you get to Toronto, you'll see

familiar faces. They are people that have been away. They are people that have

missed years of their children's lives growing up because they've made that

move, that sacrifice and they've come back and, yes, they have contributed to

the economy of our province. We appreciate them. We appreciate the work they've

done. With some of the information that's already been put on the table here in

this Legislature, we hope we are encouraging them to know that there is still

future in oil and gas in this province, even as we move to talk about things

like a greener economy, like the Atlantic Loop and like the future that's still

there in mining.

I'll just close, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to weigh in

and say, as a minister, you make the best, most informed, responsible decisions

that you can on behalf of the people of the province. We have a duty for that.

We went through very, very difficult times with some past major projects where

decisions were not informed. It was a Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, that led

the longest filibuster in this history. I believe it was 84 hours. A filibuster

because we felt so strongly. We were compelled that the road the PC government

of the day was on was wrong. At the end of all of that, Mr. Speaker, at the end

of all of that they invoked closure, shut it down and the project moved ahead.

It was a terrible deal.

When I say we're fiscally strapped in this province,

the Finance Minister – and often when I leave late, her vehicle is still there,

and especially leading up to the budget. Because as a government they, we, are

grappling to fill a $600-million gap. Annually, $600 million has to be found to

keep the lights on in the homes of the seniors in our nooks and coves and

crannies and rural parts of the province. That's what's keeping a lot of people

awake here at night in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It's not the CEO

down the road for some oil and gas that's making $3 million.

We support the oil and gas, but many people like me

don't understand why they could not, collectively, work out some sort of a

commercial deal. Why take a small province of half a million people and a

Treasury that is absolutely fiscally strapped, doing everything we can to

protect the people of the province – why couldn't they come to a deal

commercially?

All that aside, kudos to this government for being

willing because they care about the families connected with Terra Nova; they

care about the hard-working women and men; they care about the future of those

children.

Five hundred million dollars was put on the table, yet

there was a pushback. What about equity? What about the risk? The risk is too

big for us, for our multi-billion-dollar companies, but why doesn't the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take it on? That would not be called

being fiscally prudent, Mr. Speaker. We can't do that. We can't do that. We are

still living under bad decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say we will be there. We

will be there for those people and support them and walk with them through this

very difficult and uncertain time right now. We absolutely will be there. We are

all genuine when we say that. However, we can no longer afford to roll the dice

and gamble with the people's lives, the 526,000 people in this province, because

this is one issue, as a government, we are finding our way through; likely the

most challenging time that Newfoundland and Labrador has ever known. We have

many, many people coming to us and many important and difficult decisions to be

made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first want to start off by simply saying that those

of us in our caucus on this side of the House are not doing this because we want

to support the oil industry and the big companies. We are doing this simply

because we want to support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the end

of the day, if there is no economic benefit for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, then so be it. That's where the crux lies. Is there benefit or isn't

there a benefit? Are there direct benefits? Are there indirect benefits? We

don't know. Because, at the end of the day, unfortunately, we don't have all of

the information.

There's an old saying – some of you have heard it

before, I'm sure – that says in God we trust; everyone else requires data. With

all due respect to my Members opposite, I'm going to keep asking for data. I

recognize that the NDA puts a handcuff on a lot of information that may or could

be provided. But there's been a lot of numbers thrown out, and we did have the

benefit of a presentation this morning for approximately half an hour, and

coming out of that we were able to ask a few questions.

One of the questions that I did ask was: What was the

marginal? He basically said in his answer that they had a marginal rate of

return on equity investment. When I asked him to define marginal, he, again,

looked at the lawyer in the room with him and said: I'm really not allowed to

say anything because of the NDA in terms of defining marginal. When I talked

about it and asked further about the direct benefits of the project, they did

not have any information to give us, but they did refer us to the Noia report,

which I found interesting that he actually would suggest that. I'll quantify

that because he said: Outside of the number on royalty, the rest of the Noia

report is accurate. So I'll get to that particular piece in a minute.

The first number I want to address, I guess, and get

some clear understanding on is the $500 million. Now, I'm reading that the $500

million – and I'll break it down in large numbers – $200 million of that is from

the federal fund and $300 is a royalty regime. Now, Minister, I would like to

know if the $300 million is supposed to come out of this year's budget or is the

royalty related to the royalties that we would receive if the project was to go

ahead. Because the reality of it is, if it's the latter and the project doesn't

go ahead, you ain't getting those royalties anyway, and so you haven't really

lost anything to begin with. When you talk about a $500-million investment, the

$300 million, if it's based on royalties you're going to get if the project goes

ahead, it's not impacting your budget for '21-'22.

Again, I don't know if the multi-year targets that the

Minister of Finance has identified in her Budget Speech include any royalties

from this project. I would expect not. What I do know is there is $462 million

in increased revenue from offshore oil royalties in this year's budget. So oil

is playing a significant factor in allowing us to once again reduce our deficit.

Now, that's a $462-million increase over last year. So we've counted on oil and

we're continuing to count on it.

Another chart in her Budget Speech talks about the oil

price and the exchange rate forecast. Again, when we look at the book, it

basically tells us that their budgeted price for oil in '25-'26 is $61 a barrel.

So that's what we're basing our multi-year targets on. Again, is this project

viable at $61 a barrel? Because if it is, one would think that they'd want to

keep the life of the project going. Again, you know, we talk about a 10-year

period, and there are risks as to whether or not they would shut it down before

the 10 years are up. Again, that is based on our own assumption that $61 a

barrel for oil and whether this project is viable at that number.

If I go back to another number – the $500 million, I'm

struggling to understand what our commitment is or our risk is. If it is $200

millions from the feds and $300 million is from royalties that we won't get if

the project doesn't go ahead, then there is nothing in our '21-'22 budget or in

any of our multi-year target that reflects that cost.

So, again, I think just clarification on that at some

point would be great to understand that a little better. Again, perhaps I'm

wrong and I'll apologize if I am, but without a lot of data it's hard to know.

There is also talk about the billion dollars that it's

going to take, basically, to shut this thing down at the end of the day. That

abandonment cost of the billion dollars, that's for the total project. That's

what we're led to believe, it's the total project. It's not the cost to the

Newfoundland and Labrador government, it's for the total project. Again, without

knowledge of what was actually on the table, if we have a 15 per cent equity

stake, then that would equate to $150 million. So that would be our share of

that abandonment cost if it stays at a billion dollars.

We've also talked about – I think the other number was

$90 million and I think that may have been the cost of actually buying the 15

per cent equity share; again, that's another number.

To go back to the indirect benefits and, as I said, the

officials this morning and the Noia report, they alluded to benefits of “1,700

jobs and $138 million in wages during the asset life extension ... 3,400 jobs

and $139 million in wages annually during its ten years of operation ….”

They went on to say, “provincial and municipal

governments would receive a total of $1.49B over 10 years, including $880M in

royalties, $120M in corporate income taxes, and $485M in other taxes.” Now,

again, the $880 million in royalties, obviously, if we're using $300 million of

that as part of the $500 million, that comes off that number. Then I don't know,

based on negotiations, how much is left or what's left in that particular

number. But we do know that the salaries paid to our workers would be above

average wages. We also know that the skills and expertise they have would be

retained. We'd also know that it would send a strong message to the industry

globally that we're here.

Noia believes there is a business case. Again, that's

where I come back to the whole business case of whether or not there is a

business case or not a business case, because that's what it's seemingly coming

down to: What is the business case for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

And so it should. If, in fact, the business case is not there for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, so be it.

Again, that's some of the information that we're not

really sure where this is actually going. The reason I bring those up is because

we've talked a lot about costs and potential costs of doing the deal, but now

I've just shown you the costs of not doing the deal. If we don't do this deal,

or this deal doesn't get done – sorry, let me rephrase that. If this deal

doesn't get done, 1,700 jobs and $138 million in wages during asset life

extension and 3,400 jobs and $139 million in wages annually during the next

10-year period – that's a lot of money. That's a lot of jobs.

Let's go back to the budget for a second. I just

mentioned earlier that I don't think – and I'll wait to get confirmation from

the Minister of Finance on the multi-year targets that she has in her budget. I

do not believe the revenue numbers that she has in her multi-year targets

includes any revenue from this project. I would expect it doesn't. Because of

that, if Noia is correct – and, again, the officials at the department referred

to me Noia's report – there is a potential for $120 million in corporate tax and

$485 million in other taxes, not counting what may or may not be there in the

royalties. Again, I stand to be corrected on that.

Dame Greene also referred in her report about a future

fund. If none of the revenues from this project are factored into our next

five-year forecast, is there a potential for us to take any of these monies that

we are going to receive if this project were to go ahead and put them into a

future fund so that at the end of the day, when the project is abandoned, we

will have the money put away to cover that cost? If it's not included in our

numbers now and there is a potential for significant dollars to come in in

taxes, then putting them into the future fund, as Moya Greene suggested, might

be a way of deferring that revenue until such time as we need it to pay down the

abandonment costs or pay our share of the abandonment costs.

Again, those are questions that without knowing the

intimate details of the agreements, it's hard for us to say whether that's been

talked about or not talked about. It sure seems like, when you look at it from

the outside in, there is an opportunity here for indirect and direct benefits

associated with this project.

I can't get over the numbers: 1,700 jobs and $138

million in wages during the asset life extension and a potential for 3,400 jobs

and $135 million in wages annually; $120 million in corporate tax, $485 million

in other taxes. Again, if those numbers are not factored into our five-year

multi-year targets, there's an opportunity to use those revenues to pay for any

abandonment costs.

So my plea would be to government that you have said

you're not walking away from the table; you're still at the table, but do not

allow the oil companies to say that our government wasn't there. I know everyone

in this House wants the same benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We

want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be the principal beneficiary of our

assets, whether it's oil and gas, whether it's forestry, mining or the fishery.

At the end of the day, there is time. We've been told

there still is time and we're still at the table, so let's take another look. I

know you said you've reached the end of it, but I'd urge you to go back and take

another look. There's nothing wrong with going back and having another look at

it again. Readjust if necessary. See if there is anything else that may or may

not be able to be done. Don't draw lines in the sand. Let's keep pushing. We've

talked about the 80 million additional barrels of oil and, again, based on the

$61 a barrel, significant revenues.

Without having the privy of the data, I would ask the

government to provide as much information as they can. My colleague talked about

the non-disclosure agreement and I know the chances of them agreeing to it may

be slim, but I think we should ask them anyway. I think we should ask the oil

companies, if you want us, then let's do it. If you've already done it, great,

and even more power to you.

At the end of the day, I think we really need to push

the oil companies as hard as we can. I think the Premier and the minister need

to continue to make that effort and certainly see what needs to be done, because

sometimes when we say we can't afford it, sometimes we can't afford not to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett):

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the previous speaker for his comments as

well.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that every single Member

in this Legislature wants what's best for Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the

reason we ran and that's the reason we devoted ourselves to public service.

There's no monopoly on wanting what's best for the people in this province and

what's best for the future of the province. Every single one of us wants that.

We may at times disagree on the approach or we may disagree on what we believe

will get us there, but I believe every single one of us wants what is best for

the people of this province.

We do need the jobs. I've heard some Members say we

need the jobs. We've seen through the history of this province, Mr. Speaker,

governments putting a lot of money into securing jobs and it hasn't always

worked out for the best in this province. But we do need those jobs and we do

respect the folks that go out.

It's not an easy job to be out on the oil platforms or

the oil rigs. We've seen situations where people put their lives at risk when

they get aboard the chopper and go out, so it's not always easy to be out there.

Every person in this province, Mr. Speaker, will remember the tragedies that

have happened out there. That has an impact on every single one of us. We

recognize that as well.

It is a skill set we want to maintain here. For the

Members who've said that, they're absolutely correct. It's a skill set we want

to maintain.

I believe we have a very bright future in the offshore

oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker. I also agree with those who have said we need

to transition and we