April 7, 2022
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lloyd Parrott, MHA for Terra Nova, substitutes
for Craig Pardy, MHA for Bonavista.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Pam Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave, substitutes for Paul Pike, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Abbott, MHA for
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi,
substitutes for Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.
The
Committee met at 5.30 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Warr):
Good evening, all.
Welcome
to our first set of Estimates for the 2022 budget season. I certainly want to
welcome the minister and his Department of Industry, Energy and Technology here
this evening. As well as I would welcome the Members of the Committee here this
evening.
And
probably before we start, I'll ask the Members of the Committee to introduce
themselves and just wait for your tally light to come and introduce your name
and your district, please.
Starting here.
P. FORSEY:
Pleaman Forsey, Exploits.
L. PARROTT:
Lloyd Parrott, Terra Nova.
M. WINTER:
Megan Winter, Researcher
with the Official Opposition Caucus.
J. BROWN:
Jordan Brown, Member for
Labrador West.
S. KENT:
Steven Kent, Political Sessional Support for the Third Party Caucus.
P. LANE:
Paul Lane, MHA, Mount Pearl
- Southlands.
J. ABBOTT:
John Abbott, St. John's East
- Quidi Vidi
CHAIR:
Thank you, Committee.
If I could have the Members from the department to introduce themselves,
starting to my immediate left?
G. SKINNER:
Gillian Skinner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Industry and Economic Development.
A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo - La Poile, and Minister of IET.
J. COWAN:
John Cowan, Deputy Minister of IET.
C. MARTIN:
Craig Martin, Associate Deputy Minister of Energy, IET.
A. SMITH:
Alex Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Mining and Mineral Development.
S. WILKINS:
Susan Wilkins, Executive Director for Renewable Energy.
P. TOBIN:
Perry Tobin, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy, IET.
M. NESBITT:
Megan Nesbitt, Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate and Strategic Services.
P. IVIMEY:
Phil Ivimey, Departmental Controller.
B. POLLARD:
Benjamin Pollard, Political
Staffer.
N. KIELEY:
Nicole Kieley, Executive
Assistant with Minister Andrew Parsons.
T. MUNDON:
Tansy Mundon, Director of
Communications, IET.
P. CARTER:
Paul Carter, Executive
Director of Mining Innovation.
CHAIR:
We have Kim Hammond at the
Table tonight. My name is Brian Warr. I'm the MHA for Baie - Green Bay, and I'm
happy to be your Chair this evening.
Before
we get into the meat of it, I just want to announce the substitutions tonight.
We have the Member for St. John's East - Quid Vidi substituting for the Member
for Placentia - St. Mary's. We have the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave
substituting for the Member for Burin - Grand Bank. We have the Member for Terra
Nova substituting for the Member for Bonavista.
I
guess, with regard to the minutes, we need to adopt the minutes of our last
meeting. If I could have a mover to those. Moved by MHA Parrott; seconded by MHA
Brown.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Thank
you.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
Okay, tonight we're
considering the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology.
Before we go ahead, I just want to make sure – we have obviously the Official
Opposition and Third Party and we have MHA Lane as an independent tonight. The
Committee have agreed to give MHA Lane some time at the end. He's going to be
offered some time to ask some questions at the end.
We will
move with asking the Clerk to call the first subhead.
CLERK (Hammond):
1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.
A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
I know you have a speech,
and I'm going to give you some time, because I like you.
Could I
have those subheads again, please?
CLERK:
1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.03
inclusive carry?
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for a few comments, please.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To
everybody's delight, I do not have a speech prepared, and I'm probably giggling
because it's a bit delirious; it's been a long day.
What I
will say is happy to be here. I think Estimates is the best part of the budget
process. I've said it a number of times. Really happy to be surrounded by the
executive team of the department who I'm very proud to work with. We're missing
one ADM, Jamie O'Dea of Business and Innovation; she's on vacation. I'm joking;
she's actually ill, but we were giving her a hard time, saying we were going to
say she's on vacation.
A
couple new faces here that weren't on the team, I think, last year when we did
Estimates, but happy to have them here. I will say, having this be my 11th
Estimates on one side or the other, I've always prided myself on the fact that
we've let it be sort of loose, not just line-by-line-driven. We've got to do
line by line, but I like that fact that we can come out of it, hopefully being
able to answer questions. Although I would be remiss if I didn't point out that
last year, in one of those exchanges I made some jokes, said I was going to
throw Siobhan Coady under the bus, and that may or may not have come up in
Question Period the next day in the form of a question from the Opposition.
So what
I will say is that I can be loose and goose and happy and everything else, or I
can be Mr. Bad Cop going line by line. I will point out that the express purpose
of this – there's going to be information that may or may not come out of this
that's good fodder for Question Period. But I would hope that the fact that I
carry on a bit and be silly is meant to show that this is not meant to be an
adversarial process. It's meant to be an information-gathering process.
As a
person who's sat here – and I'm not talking political stripe; I've seen people
of multiple stripes get here and not treat this process the way they should.
When I was in Opposition and since I've been in government, I'm lucky that the
processes I've been involved, every single one on both sides has generally been
a good process.
So I
pride myself on that and hopefully people come out of it with the questions
answered that they want. I'll say in advance now, prior to, that any information
we do not have, we will compile in a list that we provide to people after. There
are some limitations with that, in the sense that we must wait for
Hansard to be done first, prior to
that.
But
again, anything that one person asks for will be provided to everybody,
including Mr. Lane for the independent; everybody that's here would be privy to
that information. I will say that part of the reason that we have staff here is
they really are the subject matter experts to this, so I'm looking forward to
them being able to talk about the work they do and being able to be questioned
on some of the stuff.
So on
that note, let 'er go.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister Parsons.
Just
before we start, I know that the Clerk had spoken to the staff. So if the
minister wants to recognize one of his staff members to take a question,
identify yourself for the Broadcast Centre, wait until your tally light comes on
and go ahead and speak. Again it's a to-and-fro.
Shall
1.1.01 to 1.2.03 carry?
MHA
Parrott.
L. PARROTT:
I'd be remiss if I didn't
say you guys are very fortunate to have Minister Parsons at the head of your
department. You should be very proud of what's happened in the last couple of
days, and while he's the best minister in the House, he's the third-best MHA,
next to the MHAs for Exploits and Terra Nova.
Listen,
hats off to the full department, you guys should be extremely proud of the
announcement yesterday. It means a prosperous future for the province for sure.
I look forward to more announcements in the coming months, hopefully. So thank
you very much for the hard work you've all done on that file. Minister Parsons
has no doubt where my head is on it I'm sure.
A. PARSONS:
Absolutely.
L. PARROTT:
So just to start off with
some general questions. I'm just wondering if we can have a copy of your
briefing binder.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Phil? We have three
here, so we should have one for I guess the three people – Pleaman, are you
asking questions?
P. FORSEY:
No.
A. PARSONS:
Okay, so we do have the
binders here, yeah.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Could
the minister please outline the department's attrition plan and how many
positions have been removed through attrition in the last 12 months?
A. PARSONS:
I'm going to say what I
think the answer is and then Megan's going to jump in because she's going to
make the answers right.
So
we've already hit all of our attrition targets. There is no target right now.
There has been no position lost to attrition this year. We've hit those targets,
I think, in the previous year. In fact, I think you will see we've added a
couple positions this year in terms of executive directors, which will come up
in a certain part of the executive. I think it's maybe in the next slide or the
slide after.
Did I
hit that one right?
M. NESBITT:
That is correct.
L. PARROTT:
How many people currently
employed in the department?
M. NESBITT:
Two hundred and forty-nine active employees as of March 31, 2022.
L. PARROTT:
And how many retirements
over the last 12 months?
M. NESBITT:
Retirements, there were seven in the past fiscal year.
L. PARROTT:
How many vacancies are not
currently filled by the department?
M. NESBITT:
Fifty-four in total.
L. PARROTT:
And have any positions been
eliminated? If so, what are they?
M. NESBITT:
Not aside from eight contractual PCNs that was done through the regular HRS
audit of vacated contractual positions. Those PCNs aren't used for somebody
else. They were the only ones that were eliminated in the last year.
L. PARROTT:
Any layoffs in the last 12
months?
M. NESBITT:
Just the one, which is usual. That is part of the geoscience publications team.
It's a part-time position that's typically employed between around October or
November to the end of March. For the past about 25 or 30 years or so that
position is part-time to support extra publications work that's required from
the geological survey field season.
L. PARROTT:
And how long are they
generally employed throughout the year?
M. NESBITT:
About five or six months every year.
L. PARROTT:
How many new hires took
place in the last year?
M. NESBITT:
Fourteen.
L. PARROTT:
And contractual and
short-term employees, how many are in the department, currently?
M. NESBITT:
Ten contractual and two short term.
L. PARROTT:
How many long-term vacancies
do you currently have or positions that haven't been filled in the last six
months?
M. NESBITT:
I have the numbers for the last 12, it would be 54 and that would include a
number of existing recruitment actions that are under way.
L. PARROTT:
Did the department receive
any money from the contingency fund? If so, what was it for?
A. PARSONS:
None this year.
L. PARROTT:
Perfect. All right.
We'll
go to line items now, if that's okay?
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Sir.
L. PARROTT:
Line item 1.2.01, Executive
Support.
Last
year, Salaries went over budget, there was a total of $1.9 million. This year,
there is a budget increase to $1.85 million. Can you provide some detail on why
the jump and what the overture was?
A. PARSONS:
What that comes down to is
that there was a variance due to the fact that we have an acting ADM of
Corporate Services, which is Ms. Nesbitt. We currently have an ADM of Corporate
Services who is on secondment to the Health Accord NL, Tanya Noseworthy. So the
way that works, we're still carrying that.
We have
some newly appointed executive directors, I believe, that would also fall under
that, which were not, I guess, contemplated. When it comes to the Estimates for
this year, I think there are some salary adjustments that are coming in '22-'23
to support existing executive staff complement.
I don't
know if Phil needs to jump in maybe to just give a little bit more clarity on
the numbers.
P. IVIMEY:
So as the minister noted, the revised for '21-'22 was due to that secondment of
that ADM and carrying the cost of that as well as a newly appointed executive
directors. So those costs carry forward into '22-'23, however it is anticipated
that hopefully the secondment of the ADM would discontinue sometime within this
fiscal year so we wouldn't carry those two costs again for the full year.
L. PARROTT:
I'm sorry I haven't been
saying my name so I'll start, Lloyd Parrott.
CHAIR:
That's okay. And neither do
you, they know who you are.
L. PARROTT:
Under Transportation and
Communications, can you outline how you achieved the savings from last year and
is there an opportunity to find more savings this year?
A. PARSONS:
So the variance is due to
not travelling – cancelations. Plans to travel never happened. That is why
you'll notice that the budget was put back to what it was supposed to be or
anticipated to be, so back in the same range. We are actively planning on
travelling to various conferences, shows, the things that you would normally do
year to year.
Last
year, you still had some virtual stuff that happened but there was no – I'm
trying to think, I don't know if we went anywhere. There may have been some
staff that went but there was no big conferences still.
L. PARROTT:
Line item 1.2.02 under
Corporate and Strategic Services, under Salaries, there's a salary savings of
about $245,000 for '21-'22. Is it a vacant position?
A. PARSONS:
Vacancies. I am not sure who
I would ask about the – Megan can talk about the various vacancies.
M. NESBITT:
There was a number of vacancies throughout the year, some of those have been
filled and we have a number of active recruitments ongoing as well to fill those
vacancies.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
If I could make a general
comment about vacancies, and this is not meant to – you're free to ask more
questions.
One
thing we've talked about is the fact that there is no position that we're not
advertising for or not trying to fill. One thing I've noticed is in this
department the positions that we have are very specialized. When we're talking
about geologist I, geologist II, petroleum engineers, it's a pretty specific
skill set required for a lot of these. So they are hard to fill.
We've
had retirements but none of them are a case of we're delaying this or we're not
trying to hire. We're trying to fill positions but it's difficult. The skill
sets in many cases are either not there or they're gobbled up and it's on
account of a lot of competition.
L. PARROTT:
So would any of these
vacancies be filled by, I guess, the announcement that came out yesterday for
the student recruitment? Is that one of the avenues you'd utilize?
A. PARSONS:
Is that the executive
program?
L. PARROTT:
Yeah.
A. PARSONS:
I'm not opposed to that. I'm
a supporter of that idea. What I would say is it depends on the skill set and,
again, I don't know the full, full on of what the Human Resource Secretariat is
doing there. I'm not opposed to it but we're actively trying to get people to
apply, but, like I say, sometimes it's difficult.
L. PARROTT:
Just for general knowledge:
Do we go outside the province? I mean, obviously, we try here first and –
A. PARSONS:
When they're open, they're open to absolutely anybody. We have, in the past,
hired people from outside. Obviously, we would prefer to have people within,
but, at the same time, I think there's a plus to having people that want to
return home and bring families with them.
So our
biggest thing is fitting the skill set and retention is a big thing, too. You
want to get people in, but, again, the competition with the feds, some of these
specialized positions you've got to compete with them and we all know that
challenge.
L. PARROTT:
Absolutely.
Under
Transportation and Communications, again, in spite of having $71,900 in savings
last year, there's still $85,000 budgeted again this year. I guess it's the same
answer.
A. PARSONS:
Same thing. No travel for
various reasons, whether it's couldn't travel or things got cancelled or
whatever, but the plan is – and, again, this would be a general point that I
think would apply to all these headings throughout but feel free to ask at any
point.
I guess
on a general note, our plan is to attend. After two years off the field, I think
there is a need for us to get out there, to get out in the different areas,
whether it's in the oil and gas sector, whether it's in mining, renewables, to
establish face-to-face contact. There's a big plus to that.
Now,
that doesn't mean to say that we don't take advantage of virtual – especially
when it comes to within-province, I think there's a lot we can do there. My plan
is I think we need to go out and sell in an increasingly competitive market,
when you're talking about critical minerals and everything else.
So we
want to get out there; that's our plan, and hopefully we will be able to do
that, barring unforeseen lockdown circumstances, et cetera.
L. PARROTT:
There's quite a significant variance under Purchased Services; can you explain,
I guess, the variance and what was actually purchased?
A. PARSONS:
Tell me if I'm wrong, Megan.
I think that was mainly registration for trade shows?
M. NESBITT:
Correct.
A. PARSONS:
So these trade shows, some
of them – like, I use OTC – come with pretty hefty price tags to go, and we had
anticipated or budgeted for some. Again, you'll notice that what we budgeted for
last year and what we're budgeting for are different because even last year, it
wasn't up fully and running. This is what we're anticipating. Last year the plan
was to go there, never got there, and the plan is to try to increase hat.
L. PARROTT:
Under Revenue - Federal,
what's the $11,000 anticipated? Where's it coming from?
A. PARSONS:
That is money coming from
the feds; we will be hosting the Energy and Mines Ministers Conference this
summer, so there's a federal contribution. That will be held in St. John's in
July.
L. PARROTT:
Are you going to invite
Opposition?
A. PARSONS:
We can discuss that,
actually.
L. PARROTT:
All right.
Revenue
- Provincial: Last year $86,000 was expected, but only $8,400 was received and
this year it's $166,000 anticipated. Where's the revenue coming from, and what
accounts for the fluctuations?
A. PARSONS:
That's where the OTC,
Offshore Technical Conference, in Houston didn't happen, so we didn't get the
revenue from within the province for people that attend. So that would explain
what we budgeted, what we actually spent, and then why that should be going up
this year.
You'll
also note, though, that that revenue also includes registration for that mines
meeting as well. I think that's pretty much the biggest chunk of that, it's
about $161 – there's $5,000 there for smaller employee expenditures, refunds,
credits, things like that.
L. PARROTT:
I've just got a couple of
general questions now, if you'll allow.
It's
been mentioned to me about the Mineral
Act and the Mining Act and the
requirement for an update. I'm just wondering if that's something that the
department is looking at and, if so, could you comment on what updates you think
are coming.
A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
What
I'm going to do – and again, I'm lucky to have Alex Smith on the team. I think
the best bet here instead of me just yammering on for five minutes, probably
sort of half-cocked, and then he actually comes in with the answers, we'll let
him go with the answers and then I'll do the half-cocked and yammering on after
that.
L. PARROTT:
Sounds good.
A. SMITH:
I'll yammer on.
So the
review is under way. I have a near-final version of the consultation plan. The
idea is to have public consultations through the summer and fall and then bring
it forward with the input, do the analysis and see where the legislation goes.
L. PARROTT:
That's good news.
Last
year in the budget there was an addition $2.5 million for geoscience, and when
we got to the Estimates meeting there was some confusion because it wasn't
(inaudible).
A. PARSONS:
That's the one we talked,
yeah.
L. PARROTT:
Yeah. I'm just wondering, it
seems like it was a late budget decision and then it was done after it was made
for printing. Did the department get the full $2.5 million? Did they use it?
A. PARSONS:
I'll let Alex talk about
that. I will say it wasn't so much a late one, like made after the budget was
printed, per se. I will say that given the fact – one thing I will point out,
you'll remember last year we had a budget in I think the fall and then we had a
budget in the spring, which was an unusual scenario. I think these things
happen. The good news was that we actually made the case to get increased
funding, which was pretty difficult sometimes. But maybe what I can do is Alex
does have some information to put forward on that.
A. SMITH:
Yeah, so that money is shown in the revised for the Geological Survey, 2.1.01. I
don't know if you want to go into the details of it now or deal with it
(inaudible).
L. PARROTT:
Yeah, that's fine.
Geological field surveys for last year, can you just tell us a bit how it all
played out and what's planned for this year?
A. SMITH:
We undertook 15 projects last year with the Geological Survey. Four of them were
desktop studies. There was a study testing out use of aerial photographs to map
bedrock. There was an airborne geophysics survey under way, and I think there
were 11 different areas where geologists got out boots on the ground.
L. PARROTT:
Okay, good.
A. SMITH:
This year we're still in the midst of planning, but it's expected to be a little
bit more activity than there was this past year.
L. PARROTT:
Last year the minister
indicated that he wasn't opposed to purchasing equity in the mining industry. I
guess the question is simple there. Are there any projects now where equity is
being considered and has the province approached or been approached by any
proponents about equity stakes?
A. PARSONS:
I'll jump in – correct me if
I'm wrong – we are not actively in any kind of equity negotiation with anybody.
Nor have we been asked at this point. I think I got that right, Alex?
CHAIR:
I will remind the hon.
Member that his speaking time has expired.
1.1.01
to 1.2.03, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you.
Back to
the Mining Act, I'm sure Alex
(inaudible). Will this review also review the javelin act and the Labrador iron
royalty act?
A. SMITH:
No, those acts are historic acts and they provide rights to certain operators
that we wouldn't want to affect.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect. That is good
to know.
The
Strange Lake deposit and the Javelin iron ore deposit that are currently held by
the government, is there any activity going on there?
A. SMITH:
Yes, there is some active review internally about the path forward on those two
deposits, but there has been no decision made or direction determined.
J. BROWN:
All right.
Can you
provide a list of the current development activity? I know other than the
Marathon Gold one there are also a couple of other projects released from
environmental study. Can you provide any update on those ones?
A. SMITH:
On the Island, Maritime Resources are released from EA and due to have the
feasibility study out. They do have permitting to start clearing their site, but
have yet to submit their development plans for the actual mine. Matador
resources are still in EA and expected to submit an environmental impact
statement this summer or early fall.
Vale
has a project under EA for wind generation. Labrador Iron Mines, the Houston
Project, went through EA several years ago and the release they got for that is
still in effect. They are making noise about raising capital to start operations
with the price of iron ore. The Kami project, Champion are undertaking a
feasibility study to look at rescoping the project and updating the finances on
that. I think that is due out in the next few months.
What
else is out there?
J. BROWN:
Century.
A. SMITH:
Century. Joyce, they're in EA as well and they were required to submit an EIS.
To my knowledge, I think that is at the point where the table of contents needs
to be provided by Environment and Climate Change.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. Thank you so much.
In the
budget, it noted there was about a 20 per cent decrease in mining revenue. With
all the activity, can you elaborate a bit why we're going to see a decrease in
mining revenue this year compared to last year?
A. SMITH:
I'm assuming you're talking
about the revenue table in Estimates?
J. BROWN:
Yes.
A. SMITH:
So I did ask about that.
Last year, 2021, was a record year for value of mineral shipments, $6 billion.
The taxation collected last year was very high. Some of the taxation reflected
for '22-'23 includes cash contributions from last year's production. I'm told by
Finance that the projection for 2022 taxation is actually about $120 million,
which is more in line with a good year as opposed to the phenomenal year we had
last year because of commodity prices.
J. BROWN:
Okay, it's just more of a
conservative estimate, kind of.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I
remind the Member that we're on Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03
for questioning.
J. BROWN:
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I have
a little bit of a passion for mining.
Under
Geological Survey, currently what projects are upcoming with the Geological
Survey this coming year?
A. SMITH:
I certainly can provide more
detail in writing.
J. BROWN:
Yes, if you can provide it
to me that would be great.
A. SMITH:
I do have a brief listing
here, though.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. SMITH:
There's some bedrock mapping
planned for the northern part of the Labrador Trough; a continuation of mapping
in Hopedale, Labrador, that's an ongoing project that's been going on for two or
three years in conjunction with the Geological Survey of Canada; mapping in
southern parts of Western and Northwestern Labrador as well. So that's bedrock
mapping.
The
mineral deposit section is looking at base metals and gold in the Northern
Labrador Trough. The evaluation of rare-earth minerals and other critical
minerals in the Flowers River water zone, that's St. Lewis search minerals area
on a more regional context.
They're
looking at gold and critical minerals in Central and Southwestern Newfoundland.
That's the exploration boom that's going on.
The
Terrain Sciences, geoscience data management section are looking at innovative
surficial exploration methodology development and surficial mapping in Central
and Western Newfoundland and till geochemistry and surficial mapping in
Hopedale, in conjunction with the bedrock mapping section.
J. BROWN:
Perfect, thank you.
Now,
under this what supports are currently going to be – are they any supports going
to be given to junior miners or anything like that's currently coming up with
all this extra exploration and all this extra development? Are there any
supports coming from the department into junior miners?
A. SMITH:
The Mineral Incentive Program was included in the budget again this year, that's
$1.7 million for exploration grants. That's broken down as $1.3 million for
junior exploration assistance; $350,000 for prospector grants; and then another
$50,000 in support of prospectors in marketing their (inaudible).
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect. My next
question was support for prospectors, but perfect there.
I can
go to the line by line there now.
Under
the Geological Survey, I noticed that there was a large increase in the
Purchased Services.
CHAIR:
I've got to stop the Member
again. We're into Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to 1.2.03. You were
actually into 2. –
J. BROWN:
Oh, I (inaudible) sorry, my
apologies there.
Well,
I'm done there with that section then. I'm done with this section here.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is the
Committee ready for the question?
Shall
1.1.01 to 1.2.03 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 to 1.2.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I get the Clerk to call
the next set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
2.1.01 to 2.1.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.1.03
inclusive carry?
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Just a quick general
question. In conversations with Marathon Gold, I know they're having some issues
with Victoria Bridge and I would say there's confusion over who's responsible,
be it Forestry, Environment or – I'm certain it's not you guys, but have they
approached you guys for help and is there help coming, I guess? I'm not asking
about financial help. My understanding is they were willing to (inaudible).
A. PARSONS:
So the background I can give
on that is that in one of my meetings with them – and I apologize because the
passage of time these days does not – I can't remember if this was – I think
this was a before Christmas meeting. In fact, I think they may have even met
with the Official Opposition –
L. PARROTT:
Same day.
A. PARSONS:
– so they had mentioned
Victoria Bridge. Now, that would fall either under Minister Bragg's shop, I
believe, but we did have that discussion and I did reach out to that department.
In the
next, I do think that there's a letter that actually came from the Leader of the
Official Opposition on that.
So I'm
aware. I don't know, Alex might know if there's been something done, but we have
an awareness. I'll leave it to Alex now.
A. SMITH:
So part of the issue with the bridge was the fact that they were under
environmental assessment and the project couldn't commence until they were
released. The bridge and the road construction and upgrade was part of the
project. So now that they're released I would assume that the issue can be dealt
with quickly.
Marathon didn't have any issue with the expense of the bridge; it was just
getting the work done.
L. PARROTT:
Okay. I just know that they
were having some troubles.
Listen,
the end goal is for them to be mining gold and this is you guys, and if there is
anything you can do to help them I –
A. PARSONS:
I don't think they left our office thinking that there was any issue. There was
nothing we could do and we certainly passed it over.
Again,
going back to what Alex said about the environmental assessment may have been
one of the hold ups. That hold up is not present. But, again, we have pretty
regular contact with Jamie or Matt or whoever. So if they were to be in contact
with you and there was still an issue, even if it's not our responsibility, I
think we serve, sometimes, as a facilitator to help connect other departments to
fix the issues.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you very much.
Line
2.1.0, Geological Survey, under Salaries. Last year, Salaries savings was
$260,000. Again, I assume it was a vacant position.
A. PARSONS:
Yes. So, Alex, you – I know
we have some vacancies there. A reduced field season, I think, might have been
one of the issues, but I'll maybe let you give a little more detail.
A. SMITH:
It was simply routine
vacancies. People would leave and then we would attempt to fill the positions as
soon as we could.
L. PARROTT:
And I'll just say you can
answer yes or no or you can ramble on, but under Transportation and
Communications, $389,000 is the reduction. How is that going to be achieved?
A. PARSONS:
Say that again.
L. PARROTT:
Under Transportation and
Communications –
A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
L. PARROTT:
– the budget is being
reduced to $389,900. It was $413,000 the previous year. Can you outline how you
are achieving those savings?
A. SMITH:
Transportation and
Communications includes helicopter time. The government's helicopter contract is
quite complicated in that in the old days you just paid for hours of time. Now
you pay for basing fees plus hours of time and your basing fees are based on the
last three or four years of helicopter use. So our use went down the last two
years. My understanding is that is a big portion of that cost.
L. PARROTT:
Under Supplies, last year's
Supplies went over budget by $70,000. This year the budget is being increased by
$142,000. Can you outline why and what supplies that are being purchased?
A. PARSONS:
That's laboratory
consumables, but I think Alex will get the actual specifics.
A. SMITH:
Laboratory consumables are certainly part of it. Boron gas, for instance, was
extremely expensive this past year because of supply issues related to the
pandemic. The increase part of that is repurposing or reprofiling funds across
different accounts to more appropriately reflect our historic overruns at the
lab on consumables.
L. PARROTT:
Do you guys contract any of
your lab services out?
A. SMITH:
Yes.
L. PARROTT:
No, I ask that as a separate
question.
A. SMITH:
We do basic assay work. We don't do gold assays. There's some geochronology and
other more specialized analysis that we send out.
L. PARROTT:
And is that carried out
in-province or is it sent out of province?
A. SMITH:
It depends on where the speciality is. Some of it is done at MUN, but some have
to go to England, I think.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
A. SMITH:
Yeah.
L. PARROTT:
Under Professional Services,
there's what looks to be an unexpected expenditure of $2.1 million. What was
that for?
A. SMITH:
So that's the special funds last year announced for the geological data.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Purchased Services last year went over budget by $252,800 and this year they're
reducing the budget. How are you going to achieve the reduction? What was the
overture?
A. SMITH:
So some of those Purchased Services were also the additional funds, the $2.5
million that was announced last year. The reduction from budget last year to
budget this year, again, is trying to reprofile some of the division monies to
where it's best utilized.
L. PARROTT:
Yeah. Property, Furnishings
and Equipment went over budget by $89,500. I assume that wasn't for couches. Can
you explain what it was for?
A. SMITH:
Again, there was some equipment that was bought with the $2.5 million – some of
the $2.5 million was used to buy equipment, analysers, some lab prep equipment,
so that would fall in under that cost category.
L. PARROTT:
Under Salaries, there was a
savings of $100,000, I assume that was just a vacant position or – 2.1.02,
sorry, my fault.
A. SMITH:
Yes, again, a series of vacancies that were filled as soon as we could.
L. PARROTT:
And Purchased Services last
year, same line item, went over budget $141,500. Can you explain?
A. SMITH:
Yeah, that's Moneris fees, so our mineral claims-staking system, any quarry
application fees, all that's done with online payment.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
A. SMITH:
So that $225,000 leveraged about $7.5 million of payments.
A. PARSONS:
It's a double-edged sword;
with so much business and so much interest, we had to pay more to the bank.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Quick
question on quarrying. I assume that you guys are responsible for the quarries
for Transportation and Infrastructure?
A. PARSONS:
I think so, yeah. We're
responsible for quarries.
L. PARROTT:
I'm talking about like for
class A and whatever Transportation and Infrastructure uses.
I know
in my previous life, I had six quarries and we used to – the word alludes me
now, but we used to give someone a sub-quarry permit to come in on our quarries
and work.
This
year, I've been reached out to by several companies who've tried to go to
Transportation and Infrastructure and get a sub-permit. In the past, I know
they've always been able to do that, but this year it's been turned down on
every turn. I believe it's Transportation and Infrastructure who's been turning
them down. That permitting process should go through you guys, should it not?
A. SMITH:
Yes, subordinate permit is a
permit where a permit holder can allow – it requires the person who is looking
for the material to apply for subordinate permit, but before we can issue that
permit the company that actually owns the permit has to agree to it. If
Transportation and Infrastructure are not amenable to someone coming into their
quarry, then the subordinate permit can't be issued.
L. PARROTT:
So do Transportation and
Infrastructure pay royalties on their permits?
A. SMITH:
Everybody pays royalties.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Is it
possible to get copies of the royalties that Transportation and Infrastructure
pays on their quarries?
A. SMITH:
We would have to generate a
report. I certainly don't have that.
L. PARROTT:
No, I know you wouldn't have
it here, but is it possible to get it?
A. SMITH:
Yes, and all contracts that
are done for Transportation and Infrastructure include royalty payments as well.
L. PARROTT:
I guess my question is: If a
general business is applying for a quarry permit, they have to renew on an
annual basis and the quarries are all published, obviously, online. You can see
where they are. Transportation and Infrastructure, are they held to the same
standard? If they are, or aren't paying royalties, how do they turn down a
private – as an example, a contractor who is paving roads coming through or if
the quarry is abundant, how do we turn down an opportunity to save money or make
money?
A. SMITH:
The Quarry Materials Act
is binding on the Crown. So they have to get permits.
L. PARROTT:
I'm not saying they don't
get permits. I'm saying Transportation and Infrastructure have turned down, as
an example, paving companies, concrete companies, certainly that I'm aware of.
In the past, that was never a practice but I have seen where it's happened in
the last two years.
A. SMITH:
It's never been brought to
my attention, or anyone in the department that I'm aware of.
L. PARROTT:
So what I'll do is I'll
commit to sending you specific instances where Transportation and Infrastructure
have turned down individual companies and then we can carry on the conversation
after.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. Member
that his speaking time has expired.
2.1.01
to 2.103, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
Under
Mineral Lands, Purchased Services, there was quite a spike in Purchased Services
there. What was the reason for that and why are we budgeting lower than
previously budgeted?
A. SMITH:
That's the Moneris fees for online payments.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. SMITH:
And there's no way to predetermine the exact amount of activity will be.
J. BROWN:
It's going to be always –
okay.
A. SMITH:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
That's fair.
Under
2.1.03, Mineral Development, we had a decrease in Salaries and then, obviously,
an increase. Is that due to a recent vacancy?
A. SMITH:
Mineral Development has one position that's difficult to fill. It's an open
competition, mineral development engineer, mining engineer.
J. BROWN:
Yeah.
A. SMITH:
And then there were a couple of vacancies that we resulted in immediate
competition to fill.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Under
Professional Services, there was an increase and we did budget it lower again
this year. What were the professional services under Mineral Development?
A. SMITH:
So Professional Services and Purchased Services were higher this year than
budgeted. We did some dam repair work in Buchans: $124,000 in Professional
Services, $535,000 in Purchased Services. There was an issue with the dams that
were identified that needed repair.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect. And that also
carried over to Purchased Services, obviously.
A. SMITH:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
All that work and
everything, okay. So that was the dam in Buchans. Okay, perfect.
Under
this there now, we're talking about Mineral Development and stuff like that. I
noticed under a lot of Mineral Development stuff there's not much federal money
available. Is there any reason why the feds don't help compared to other
industries right now, when it comes to Mineral Development?
I know,
it's a tricky one, but I've always noticed that there's never much federal, only
the Geological Survey last year, I think, you got some federal money, that was
it.
A. SMITH:
Yeah, so the Geological Survey does a lot of geoscience in collaboration with
the Geological Survey of Canada. So they both have in-kind contributions to
those projects. And there are – I don't know if I should be here defending the
federal government, but there are supports available to companies with federal
funding. IOC, for instance, is taking advantage of conversion of one of its
boilers using federal funds that flowed through Environment and Climate Change.
J. BROWN:
Yeah, I know. I noticed it
was last year and this year there was not very much federal into the mining and
surveys or anything like that but it is more of an in kind –
A. SMITH:
It is more direct contributions to company.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. SMITH:
There is no money federally that flows through the province at this time for the
mining industry.
J. BROWN:
Another thing I had there
was – I'm not sure, the Victoria bridge was kind of like one thing, but another
questions there is: Do you get a lot of requests from junior miners, exploration
stuff, for infrastructure development to get into certain sites or anything like
that?
A. SMITH:
Not directly. There are times when there may be a resource road that they are
looking to having upgraded, but it is not something that we generally do. I
mean, the resource roads are there; they're maintained by Fisheries, Forestry
and Agriculture as the woodlands work goes through an area.
I think
the mineral industry is happy to use what is there and until they get to a more
advanced exploration stage, then they're not really looking for much of anything
other than easy access.
J. BROWN:
Perfect there.
Another
one I would say is, as we move forward, are you getting a lot more requests from
mining companies to work on putting in direct power instead of diesel
generation? I know Century – I think you and I talked about this last year –
didn't really want to go and build a diesel generator up in Iron Arm, but
Menihek dam couldn't provide the power. I don't know if you're getting any more
requests to have transmission lines or anything like that for these projects to
go forward.
A. PARSONS:
I can say that in my
experience over the last year, I have had companies reach out when it comes to
power issues. Generally, what we have done, though, is that I see that as a
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro issue. We direct them to them and they have to
work that out and then it comes down to the costs. So it is an issue. Again,
come back to the facilitation part where we –
J. BROWN:
Yeah. You're (inaudible).
A. PARSONS:
I specifically had one
company where I set them up with the executive team at Hydro, they got in
contact and they worked out the issue. I'm not aware of an increase, per se, or
if it is a normal thing every year. But, like you say, I have had people bring
it up perhaps more as a general thing, but it is not an issue that is preventing
them from –
J. BROWN:
No.
A. PARSONS:
– moving forward.
It is
the same thing I have seen in every front. I want power and I want it cheap.
J. BROWN:
Yeah, exactly. I was just
curious because I know I had this conversation with Century and they were like:
We'd love to tap into Menihek dam, but they don't have the capacity. Now I have
to buy a diesel generator, that kind of thing.
A. PARSONS:
I can honestly say that I
have never heard from them.
J. BROWN:
Oh, okay. They have
mentioned it to me but that was more of a chat, I guess.
A. PARSONS:
Yeah, they have never
mentioned it to me, so what I would put to you is that I haven't turned down an
email yet from anybody.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
Or a call, because again it
comes back to that it's mutual wins. I mean success for them means success for
the province. So happy to chat with them. It's not something I've been presented
with yet, so it might one of those things where sometimes when we talk to
constituents and companies, they bring up an issue, but probably not as serious
that they felt that they needed to reach out to us, per se.
J. BROWN:
Yeah, exactly. I was just
curious if it's been –
A. PARSONS:
Oh, sorry, Alex.
A. SMITH:
I'd also point out that the
department participates in several federal-provincial working groups. Canadian
Minerals and Metals Plan is one of those. The issue of remote isolated sites and
diesel generation in the day of climate change and greenhouse gas reduction and
the desire for green metals, we're constantly raising that issue with the feds
that it needs more than just a provincial solution.
J. BROWN:
Oh, perfect. I really
appreciate that.
For
this section, I'm good there now.
Thank
you so much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
2.1.01
to 2.1.03, MHA Parrott, do you have anything further?
L. PARROTT:
Just one question, yes, and
based on the last series there.
With
the announcement for wind energy, C61 – Voisey's Bay's desire to put in wind
turbines which is well known but that's for the elimination of diesel obviously
– I think about Wabush Mines, IOC and other major players out there that do draw
from the grid. I just wonder what happens from a cost standpoint for the
province if these larger industry businesses – I mean, listen, I know that you
guys and Hydro are doing their best to supply power to whoever wants it, and
that's what we have to do and we have to get green. But is there a concern that
some of these companies may decide to come off of our electrical grid and go to
wind or other sources? It's a huge loss –
A. PARSONS:
I've got a bit of practice
with this one, because it was literally the same question asked by the media
today in the budget lock-in, and it is an issue. That's one of the policy pieces
that we need to figure out going forward in terms of cannibalizing your system.
Again,
you come back to the sort of the Catch-22, where we want to encourage people to
get off diesel. We want to encourage people to build more capacity. We want to
encourage people to get green. But, at the same time, we have to ensure that we
have a grid that we must sustain and it's costing a lot. So that's one of the
policy pieces. I can get into it now or we can wait until the renewable section.
L. PARROTT:
No, that is good.
A. PARSONS:
Absolutely, it's one of the
things we're trying to figure out, but we're going to be willing – and again,
Susan, has been dealing with this a lot as the executive director for
Renewables, but it's an active policy conversation of where we want to do what's
right, but it's not an easy answer.
L. PARROTT:
Okay. No more questions for
you.
A. PARSONS:
And if I can, just one thing
on the point that the Member made earlier on the quarries. I will say that I
have had multiple Members, both sides – when it comes to quarries, if you have a
constituent who has an issue, tell them to reach out or you reach out on their
behalf to me because we get that a lot. I had no idea, prior to getting in this
department, how big –
L. PARROTT:
It's crazy.
A. PARSONS:
– that issue was, how
pervasive just people dealing with it is. I have had people reach out
independently. I've had MHAs of all over the place reach out. I think we have a
pretty good track record of trying to figure it out and get back to people and
work through it. In some cases, we're able to help them. In some cases people,
once they reach out, we're able to educate them on maybe some of the issues that
they've had. So I am happy to answer questions and, again, we go to Alex and his
team to figure that out.
L. PARROTT:
Sounds good.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is the
Committee ready for the question?
Shall
2.1.01 to 2.1.03 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On motion, subheads
2.1.01 through 2.1.03
carried.
CHAIR:
Can I get the Clerk to call the next set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
3.1.01 to 3.1.09 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.09
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Parrott, you still have time on the board.
L. PARROTT:
Can you give me an update on what's happening in Bull Arm right now and what the
plan is, I guess, going forward? Obviously, it all changed yesterday.
A. PARSONS:
So maybe what I'll do on that one, I'm going to let Mr. Tobin talk about some of
the activity we've seen in the last year and then maybe I can get into the
future and sort of where we see things going.
P. TOBIN:
So at Bull Arm in the past year, of course, we had the Terra Nova FPSO. The
scope of work required on that facility was completed at Bull Arm before it went
to Spain.
At the site, right now, we have two semi-submersibles that are stacked there.
One being the Henry Goodrich that's essentially cold-stacked and unlikely,
perhaps, to come into service again. Now, the other being the West Aquarius,
that is still certified for operation in Newfoundland and Labrador waters and
could, in fact, be brought into service.
We do have Maersk, of course, a major offshore supply vessel operator here that
uses the facility there for wharfage, dockage and those sorts of things.
Right now, the Bull Arm facility is being operated under a short-term lease with
DF Barnes. DF Barnes is undertaking to bring additional work to the facility.
That effort never ceases. Of course, when it comes to opportunity for Bull Arm
we mentioned Equinor
and Bay du Nord there earlier, that is by far the major opportunity on the
horizon. We do know that some of the major potential contractors for the Bay du
Nord Project have certainly been looking at Bull Arm. They visited the site, as
you would contemplate they would. So there's interest there. But, of course,
that is not firmed up yet.
That
essentially summarizes what's gone on out there over the last 12 months or so
and what the major opportunity for the facility is.
A. PARSONS:
So I'll jump in here. A
couple of things, just jumping ahead to 3.1.08 just for a second, that is the
expenditure under OilCo that's related to Bull Arm.
So
there will be money spent this year on various initiatives including – I think
there's some, I don't know if it's safety lifts – there's safety money being
spent there, because I remember we fought pretty hard to make sure that – so
OilCo comes in with their ask for Bull Arm, which is always fun because
everybody wants more and more and more. This was a pretty big ask, but we went
to bat for it because we felt that we wanted to ensure that the money was spent
on it to keep it viable, because we do anticipate that there would be more work.
Perry
can probably give a little more detail.
L. PARROTT:
Overhead crane in the module
hall, is it?
P. TOBIN:
As the minister pointed out,
some of the major capital parts, expenditures coming up in Bull Arm – it's
important to maintain roofs, of course, that's the lifeblood of any building,
you want to make sure there's no water entering those buildings. So there's
still significant roof work left to be done. As well, of course, the fall
protection systems that are required in order for that roof work to be
undertaken safely and for general access to roofs, there's money there as well.
All the sprinkler systems at the facility, they need to be checked and
recertified. That's certainly part of the fire protection piece mentioned by the
minister.
A. PARSONS:
So what I will say, whenever
we're going through a budget process, there's always the pressure, no new ask or
don't ask for too much, that's just how it goes. I will say that this was an ask
that we went to bat for and I was happy to get because we felt it was necessary.
We didn't like the argument of coming in here and saying that we didn't put the
money into that, because, again, hopefully, we're going to see more bodies out
there.
So a
couple things. One: I've had people reach out to me unsolicited and through –
your colleague from – I don't know Mr. Dwyer's district offhand.
L. PARROTT:
Placentia West - Bellevue.
A. PARSONS:
He talks about it all the
time, brings it up, and it's great. So what I would say, some of the interest
we've had, we've listened, we've looked, we've analyzed, OilCo's looked at it. I
mean, they've gone out and done, you know, expressions of interest. Nothing has
come in that has led us to believe that it would be a good investment for us to
get it out of our hands.
It's
one of those things were you have an asset and there's no doubt the asset has
not had the usage that it should have, but does that mean you let the asset go
for less than what it's worth and where do you end up later on?
In the
positive way, we've bet on it. We've bet that we will see something there.
Again, with yesterday, we feel that has increased the possibilities of what goes
on. We'll see where it goes. We can get into more questions when you get there
after or if you have more follow-up.
L. PARROTT:
Yes, I'm curious. For
background, I've done a whole lot of work in Bull Arm, certainly structure big.
We were the largest contractor during Kiewit.
Is
there a tender process for any of this when you're going out to fix the roofs
and do fall protection and do the things that you're doing? Is that going out to
public tender or is it just being given to the proponent that's leasing? I'd
like to understand that process.
P. TOBIN:
That would have gone through
the provincial public tender process, Sir.
L. PARROTT:
Okay, perfect.
Terra
Nova FPSO, the minister indicated in the House that we're expecting it to come
back sometime this year. Do we have a timeline on when it's going to return to
production?
P. TOBIN:
I guess the FPSO is expected
back here later this year, with the understanding that, I guess, the plan that
it would go back in production late this fall.
L. PARROTT:
So when she comes back,
she's ready to go. There's no more work to be done on her? Everything will be
done over there?
C. MARTIN:
Yes, that's our
understanding. The FPSO will be back, I believe it's later on now this summer.
Refit work should be done at that point in time. That is their plan. So it will
have to be restocked, everything made available. The plan is that it will be
back out on station the latter part of September, early October.
L. PARROTT:
Will the subsea work be
completed before she comes back? Any work overs on the wellheads or any stuff
that had to be carried out?
C. MARTIN:
Yes, it's our understanding,
based on their project execution, that work will be starting now, literally,
this spring in order that that work will be complete, basically when it goes out
the latter part of September to hook up at that point in time.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
CHAIR:
I remind the Member that his
speaking time has expired.
3.1.01
to 3.1.09, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3.1.01,
Energy Policy, under Salaries there, you had your budgeted, then you had your
actuals, which was similar, but we have an increase in this current budget. Are
new positions being added to that?
A. PARSONS:
So this is to ensure the new
position as it relates to Renewable Energy. So that would be Susan Wilkins and I
believe we have two other positions under Susan related to Renewable Energy. So
it is new creation due to the fact we're expediting work on that front.
J. BROWN:
Oh, perfect. Thank you.
Under
Professional Services, we didn't use all that was budgeted. Is there anything
that we didn't choose to do but we budgeted again? Is there something coming
down that pipe?
A. PARSONS:
That would have been
Professional Services that were anticipated but that had been delayed.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
So the plan is to still do
them but it didn't happen last year for multiple reasons. I'll say it was a
difficult year at various points for various reason. You think about last year,
between supply chains in some cases, we dealt with an election last year, we
dealt with the lockdown starting later on and then what's going on in other
centres. So the plan is to keep it at the same level.
J. BROWN:
Okay. Perfect.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, we budgeted $2.2 million but we did $2.5 million. What was
the reason for the overage and what were the grants and subsidies?
C. MARTIN:
The increase on the Grants
and Subsidies has to do with the Northern Strategic Plan, the cost associated
with the diesel subsidy were higher that year. They were about $200,000 higher
than what was originally anticipated.
J. BROWN:
Okay. That's part of that.
All right, that's where that's to. All right, prefect. Thank you so much there.
Just to
follow up on MHA Parrott's comments on Bull Arm. Have we ever been approached,
even before we dropped the moratorium on wind power and stuff, by any developer
to use any of our offshore facilities for wind development or construction of
offshore wind?
A. PARSONS:
Not a conversation; we've
had lots of conversations as it relates to wind but none as it relates to Bull
Arm of any substance whatsoever or any of our facilities.
J. BROWN:
Okay. That was just out of
curiosity more than anything else.
3.1.02,
Petroleum Development, Salaries and everything seems to be fine.
I
noticed there under Purchased Services, we didn't use up all of what we budgeted
or anything like that. Is there any reason why there's just –?
A. PARSONS:
There's a variance due to
less than anticipated purchased service expenditures due to training costs for
well-controlled training for staff being covered by the Centre for Learning and
Development. I think that's right, isn't it, Purchased Services? I have to make
sure I have my lines correct here.
The
other one, if you were talking about Professional, that was just less than
anticipated professional service requirements.
J. BROWN:
Just day-to-day stuff?
A. PARSONS:
Yes.
J. BROWN:
3.1.04, Royalties and
Benefits, I notice that the Salaries are significantly down between budgeted and
revised and then we're budgeting for less again. Any reason for that?
A. PARSONS:
The same thing for less;
it's the vacancy issue. Same thing it is with all of them. It's trying to get
these positions filled, difficulties throughout the year, maintaining and
keeping them. The new figure there is just a variance due to the salary
adjustments to reflect what's needed operationally.
I will
point out that sometimes the difference when you have somebody that leaves at a
higher salary bracket and then you get someone new to come in, you need less.
It's not a lesser position, we'll say; it's just different requirements.
J. BROWN:
Okay. It makes sense there.
I
notice under Professional Services and Purchased Services, what was budgeted
wasn't used. Is it the same as the other department or other section?
A. PARSONS:
So we didn't need any
professional service requirements associated with royalty administration during
the year; it would be under Professional. Under the Purchased, less than
anticipated purchased service expenditures for staff who worked from home. Work
from home brought savings on. Like when you look at printing and things like
that, we saw a big difference.
As you
can see, we would anticipate that going back to normal now that, right now,
everybody is essentially back to work, or on the way back, still working through
some of that throughout government. But we anticipate, in a perfect world, that
we'll be back to some semblance of normalcy.
J. BROWN:
Absolutely. This department
is bit more hands-on I guess than a lot of other things.
Question now on (inaudible). I know in the media, and you mentioned it and I
know we've had chats about it before, you did mention upgrades to Bay d'Espoir,
Churchill Falls and I think Bishop's Falls. Are those projects that are
currently talked about on the books or to be some sort of release or anything
on?
A. PARSONS:
So, right now, there's a
pretty significant conversation that is going about power and what do we do in
terms of upgrades, the possibilities. There is Churchill; there is Gull. It's
always a conversation that comes up. In terms of priority, I mean, Bay d'Espoir,
Churchill are the big ones that we hear about, especially when we met with
Jennifer Williams the other night and her team. Those are the main ones that we
talk about. There have been no decisions made.
What I
would say – and again, in a roundabout way here – we know there's demand
especially in Labrador. We know that once you make a decision then you're going
to have two, three, four, like however many years in order to develop that. We
are at the stage now where there are pretty intense conversations on what do we
do, what do we need to do and what does it require. Then, in terms of, okay, if
you have industrial consumers that require upgrades, what's their role in this
in terms of transmission? What's their role in paying for this?
Then
you get into conversations about, you know, the current power rates and what's
the new one going to cost. What do they want to bear? So it's one of those
things I can tell you there's no decision made, but I can tell you we're at a
point where – and you would know this because a lot of them are in your district
– they want more. We've got to figure out that. There is a willingness to pay.
They want the greener product. And they know that there's a premium to be paid
on that, so I think they're willing to make that investment.
We had
to figure out what's the best one for us to take. At the same time, we're
dealing with Muskrat which is so, so close but at the same time, not quite
there.
John
has probably forgotten more about this stuff than I'll ever know, but I don't
know if there is anything you would add for colour or I think I covered it all.
J. BROWN:
So you're saying I'm not
getting my power line this year.
A. PARSONS:
No. Again, a little bit of a
good run-through this morning. Just to give you some information. I don't think
this is – I mentioned it to media today. We constantly – and you know this – get
people coming in saying I want this; I want that. Whether it's data centres,
whether it's mining, whether it's you name it. So Hydro went out and did a
survey and added it up and it was 8,000 megawatts, and right now our grid – just
ballpark – is 2,000. Right? Might be actually (inaudible).
J. BROWN:
(Inaudible.)
A. PARSONS:
Yeah, so we know that is not
real. Then you've got to trim that down. So they went back out again and they
came back and it was more in the range of 2,000 but, again, that's double what
our grid is right now.
So we
have to figure what's real, what's not real. So we are at the point now of going
back again and now letting people know this is what we anticipate – not we, but
Hydro. This is what the anticipated cost is going to be moving into that range.
So it's
moving to that high level, but it's going to require some pretty big policy
conversations among Hydro, among government and amongst stakeholders about what
is the best way forward here. We know we need it. We know there's the desire.
But how do you pay for it? And who bears the cost? Who bears the burden?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, that's right. And then
to go back to the ratepayers, that's a hard thing to go back to.
I will
just segue into that. Any further conversations with the Atlantic Loop? I know
that all of the Atlantic provinces were supposed to release their report and it
still hasn't been publicly released yet. Are there any more conversations on the
Atlantic Loop?
A. PARSONS:
Yeah. So there's always an
ongoing conversation on the Atlantic Loop. Quebec has been a part of that too,
in the sense that obviously they have a role to play here. So they've been
invited to be a part of that on the other end. I've had contact with my
counterparts; I'll point out that the deputy minister has had contact with his
counterparts.
One of
the big things I will say is we love the idea. Why wouldn't we? We have the
battery here, and we know that the feds are really pushing this. But what I
would say to our friends in the feds is, if you want it, you're going to have
pony up.
So
that's one of the things that we keep saying to them; we want to get Nova Scotia
off coal. In my conversations with their Energy minister, like, they're so
interested in what's going on here. But like I say, we know they're going to
have to be off coal by 2030. I think New Brunswick actually tried to extend
that. I don't think that's going to happen. The clock is ticking.
Coming
back to the first part of the conversation we just had about development, that's
one of these things also that when we talk about the future – so it's an ongoing
thing. It's frustrating at times because you know, when you have so many
jurisdictions, sometimes that can be difficult, everybody's dealing with their
own day to day, then when you have the feds involved.
It's an
active topic. I don't know, John, if there's any other colour. There's no
definition here. I do think, given that there's been a federal Emissions
Reduction Plan that has been put out, given the fact that they've put out some
other guidance on other things, I think you'll see more of – and the other thing
too, just think about it though. We had a federal election that chewed up a lot
of time. We've had a provincial election that chewed up time. We've had other
provinces go through elections, which have chewed up time.
So now
that everybody is in that place, like Nova Scotia themselves now have stability
there. They went through their election. So part of it too is these premiers'
meetings that they have, this is probably one of the big topics that's on every
agenda for them. I know it is. It's being discussed at every one of those
meetings. I think you'll see it ramp up, but there's always logistical issues to
that.
But we
like where we are on it, and the fact that we can contribute to the need to help
the two next provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, move from their
non-renewables, there we are.
J. BROWN:
All right, thanks.
CHAIR:
Actually, the minister
mentioned that the clock is ticking, and your clock has ticked to zero, so your
time is expired and I'll pass it to MHA Parrott.
L. PARROTT:
I'm not asking you to
disclose any numbers. I'll start with that.
A. PARSONS:
Okay.
L. PARROTT:
The Greene report,
obviously, recommended to sell off our interest in the offshore and Bull Arm.
And obviously, I'm just making an assumption that the Rothschild report did an
evaluation on both of those assets. I guess my question is, has the Rothschild
report changed government's look at Bull Arm and our equity stake in the
offshore?
A. PARSONS:
So if I were to go back to
my days in law, I would call that a leading question.
L. PARROTT:
But my preamble change to
leading.
A. PARSONS:
Listen, I have respect for
that.
So what
I can say, what I will say, is that – like this is just me sort of talking – the
Greene report comes out and you don't mean to disregard anything of what they've
said. I know they've put a hell of a lot of time in. You look at the
capabilities of these people, same with Rothschild. They came in and did their
work. Obviously, Greene is out. Again, I know Minister Coady has talked about
it. I'll put out there: As much as if I was in the Opposition, I would ask the
same exact question.
I don't
think it's in our best business interest to disclose certain things because it's
going to shag up our bargaining position. Now, when you say that, the next
assumption is well, hang on a second, you're bargaining. But it's a figure of
speech. What I would say is nothing has changed for me. Again, it sounds kind of
blunt when I say this, and not blunt to you but blunt when I get asked about it.
They say, well, Dame Greene said this. I say, yes, it's good, she's not elected,
I am. You're elected; our colleagues are elected. We have to make the decisions
and every one of us, we hear from average Joe, or we hear from really qualified
people with these reports.
All of
it forms, I think, a part of a conversation we have. Again, the reality is me
sitting in this chair. I'm the first one to say – I say it in every meeting I'm
in – I'm usually the least knowledgeable person in most of these meetings I have
when I'm sitting down talking about oil production. This is just how it goes.
But if
I hear all these points of view, if I hear the evidence and the information, the
financials, I'd like to think that, along with the team, I can figure out what's
the best thing to do.
So
coming back to it, I don't have any new direction to add, nor do I have any
direction to say will things be sold or will they not. What I would say, what I
think I'm willing to say is that if you're going to sell anything in your life,
you want to figure out evaluation. Is it better to sell now? Take it or do we
wait? What's the evaluation going to be later on? Is the market right for this
now or not right?
So, I
mean, at any point, government or anybody who owns anything can say, yeah, we're
going to sell or not sell or look into it. I mean, even if you want to put your
house on the market, you might not want to sell it, but you want to know it is
there in case you want to make that decision.
That's
the best I put – sort of a rambling answer. But it's funny, I've chafed a bit at
times because the Greene report or any report as good as they are, it's a
guiding factor in a decision that we have to make as legislators.
L. PARROTT:
Fair.
The
recent delay for the offshore call for land bids. I am just wondering if you can
offer any insight as to what the delay is. Why it was delayed and what the
process is going forward?
A. PARSONS:
So what I can say there is I
cannot offer from the federal point of view why the federal minister felt – as
per his right under the legislation – the need for that. I would assume that it
forms a part of bigger conversations that they're having as it relates to this
industry. I mean, I don't think that is a surprise or secret to anyone what is
going on up in Ottawa.
What I
will say, again, is when, given the opportunity by the C-NLOPB, we went right
away and said we want this. We are not agreeing to a delay. We don't want a
delay. You have your right to do what you have to do. So we have done our part
and then they have taken their prerogative and in the 90 days – and again, some
question, well, why don't you just go and do what you got to do. Well, there is
process, too. The process has to be followed. I think it is all going to be good
because with security of supply, I guess the hammer comes back down to us. We
get to call this shot and I can already tell you where that shot is going to go.
In the
grand scheme of things, I think we end up in the same place, which is where I
know you want and I want. I don't think that is going to be delayed even with
this sort of holding pattern. Can I tell you whether it is going to go the full
90? I don't – I thought there was a possibility Bay du Nord went until
mid-April; they went early. Could this happen? I don't know. But I would assume
there is possibly a review going on up there and who knows what other kind of
philosophical conversations they're having.
L. PARROTT:
Sure.
So when
seismic was suspended, I guess part of the conversation was it was suspended
partially due to the amount of seismic data that had to be analyzed. So can you
give us some idea how much data is left to be analyzed and if there is a
possibility of –
A. PARSONS:
So I'll give it more as a
general and then I don't know if Perry or Craig can jump in maybe with a little
bit more in terms of what's there, 2-D, 3-D, what's left to do.
Generally speaking – and I still stick by this – it is a pause. I will say, full
disclosure, since that time, I have had people come at me and say: Why are you
doing this? You guys ask these questions and that's what you're supposed to do.
I've had people in the industry that disagreed with it. I have had people in the
industry come to me and support it. The biggest thing I have said to everyone
is, look, it is paused. Part of that was fiscal and part of that is based on the
fact that we have, I think, a surplus of data that can be considered right now
going into this bid round.
Maybe
to get a little bit more detail or colour, we'll go to Perry or Craig or whoever
wants to jump in.
P. TOBIN:
Without getting into the
specific metrics in terms of kilometres of 3-D or 2-D or whatever the case may
be, essentially the seismic that was collected in 2021, so in the summer of
2021, is the seismic that needs further interpretation, resource assessment
performed on it to make it valuable, ready for the planned 2022 call for bids.
That is
the main body of work that needs to be carried out. There are three or four
aspects to it. There is resource assessment. There's the actual interpretation
of cells. There's electromagnetics. There are a number of different aspects, but
that is the main part of it.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Are you
ready to continue?
Natural
gas, anyone able to give me some insight as to where we are with developing
natural gas in the province? Has there been any discussion on a royalty regime
if we move forward? What work is left to be done, I guess, from a regulatory
perspective?
A. PARSONS:
So the good news is that, I
think, for the first time, possibly ever, natural gas is an actual live
conversation here in the province. I will say that the reason it's taken so long
is because back in the day the administration made a very clear choice, no,
we're not doing this. That's not where we want to go. They put their eggs in
other baskets. Plus, the operators themselves I don't think really put too much
sort of credence into this, everything else was going well.
So a
couple of things that have changed from my perspective. Number one: the
operators – especially in the last two years with everything going sideways –
are saying that maybe this is a revenue stream we need to consider. Number two:
to take something sadly positive out of tragedy, which is you see what's going
on in Europe, you see what's going on with energy volatility and essentially the
hostage taking of nations to Russia, that's increased that conversation.
So for
the first time we do have – and one of them is well known – Newfoundland LNG or
LNG Newfoundland, have got a project – you're aware of it. I think they've met
with everybody, as they should. They're drumming up support. They've got
Indigenous backing. In fact, to the point where I actually attended a natural
gas summit, myself and the deputy this year, in Toronto. They were there as
presenters, and the fact that the province actually attended a natural gas
summit, which was pretty high-level stuff, hearing from investors, hearing from
– actually BC spoke about their experiences politically from it.
So,
right now, they have to raise capital. There is a lot they have to go through.
There's going to be EA. Whether it's Crown lands, whatever part they're dealing
with. We are actively working on a royalty regime for natural gas. So that is
being worked on, which is also one of the things that they need to know going
forward.
We are
seeing renewed interest on this globally. I will say people are reaching out.
There's other renewed interest in production. Conversations going in with
producers or, I guess, owners of the fields. That's a conversation they have got
to have. We can't really get into this. That's their resource. What we're saying
is we'll develop the royalty regime. We'll work with you on that. So that's the
best I can say.
It's
still some time away, but for the first time it really is like a live
conversation that's going on. Does it succeed? I don't know. So I'll point out
that natural gas summit I was at, Minister Wilkinson spoke virtually at it and
talked about the need for Canada to fill the LNG void that exists there. We have
a product right now that can be used elsewhere. We need to step up on that – the
same way they talked about we need to step up on the oil front.
I know
that Leo and Chief Joe were saying – again, it gives you some support behind,
can this happen or not? So they are still a ways off. They even say that
themselves in their presentation. But I still think there's going to be demand
even in the coming years.
CHAIR:
I'd like to remind the
Member that his speaking time has expired.
Still
on 3.1.01 to 3.1.09, did you have anything further?
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
I guess
going from natural gas – the hydrogen front. I know that that's another big new
market and stuff like that. My question is: Are we having conversations both
about water-based electrolysis hydrogen and petroleum-based hydrogen? Are we
doing both or are we just talking about one or the other?
A. PARSONS:
What I can say is that there
may be petroleum-based conversations on the go. It's not really where our head
is. Our head is very much on green – on water-based or wind-based hydrogen.
Again, coming back to that conversation that we talked about, like the big thing
that the feds are going to want to see is carbon density.
He
almost joked about it. We talk about green and blue and turquoise and pink. We
use these colours. They want to talk about carbon density.
J. BROWN:
Yeah.
A. PARSONS:
So there is an extremely,
extremely active conversation – multiple conversations on multiple fronts going
on on hydrogen to the point, again, the last year that Susan has come on and she
and Christine Boland and other people in the department where they were the
leaders behind getting our renewable policy done, meeting with anyone and we're
pretty open for business. I've had people reach out on LinkedIn and say, hey, we
want to have a chat. And it's like, well, here's our email, get a hold of us and
we'll talk to everybody.
J. BROWN:
Well, that's good.
A. PARSONS:
We will absolutely listen to anybody, and then of course you have to decipher
whether it's some tinfoil-hat stuff, or there's something real there.
J. BROWN:
Yeah. That's right.
A. PARSONS:
What I will say is that we
have some real players, globally known capital to back them, and the desire to
do it, whether it's hydrogen – we're talking wind for grid, we're talking wind
into hydrogen to go to Europe, they're in conversations with – especially the
Germans, the Germans are the lead in Europe, in terms of that conversation.
The
Germans are saying yup, we're going to have that demand; we're expediting our
need to advance what we're doing in the long-haul trucking and everything else.
So it's really interesting and exciting, and again coming back to the point
that, that's why we've got positions created and a team to run it, which is
pretty exciting. Because this is the first time we've ever had it, so we're
taking it serious.
CHAIR:
MHA Brown, if I could just
steal a couple of seconds from you, I just want to remind the Committee and the
department that after MHA Brown is done, we'll break for 10 minutes.
J. BROWN:
Perfect, thank you, Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
J. BROWN:
I know that IOC's parent
company, Rio Tinto, has been exploring the idea of using hydrogen to actually
make iron ingot, and I know that that's a big thing there now, but they're kind
of, do I do it in Quebec, do I do it in this province. I don't know, have you
had that conversation with them about their plans with secondary processing and
the use of hydrogen in their – basically it's going to be a first-in-the-world
kind of mill.
A. PARSONS:
I'm just going to look for
sure; I don't know if that's been a conversation. I haven't had that
conversation; they haven't reached out to us, but we do know that when it comes
to Labrador they are interested in increased power and what can be done to, I
guess, just make the operation more efficient and greener. I've had
conversations recently on the possibilities of hydrogen at Come By Chance, so –
J. BROWN:
Yeah. Okay, that's a lot of
work.
A. PARSONS:
It's going, and I mean
there's a bunch of different parts. A lot of people – it's extremely
capital-intensive, and while there's lots of capital around, people need to
acquire it. The feds themselves have the Infrastructure Bank. They have the
Indigenous Clean Fuels Fund. They've got a bunch of different that people are
applying to, so that will help drive some of this conversation too.
We've
been supportive of people even when they come in. Like we can't pick you, you,
and you or not you, but we're saying to everybody, we're supportive of anybody
getting federal funding to help with these initiatives, because we're going to
see the benefit down here. But we're certainly not picking sides or anything. We
want to see anybody who can get through that scrutiny that will entail when
you're looking for hundreds of millions of dollars.
J. BROWN:
Absolutely.
This is
actually very fascinating, and really interesting that it's from, I guess, when
you took this office that we had a conversation about it and it was very
minuscule, but it's almost like taking off extremely fast in the world right
now.
A. PARSONS:
It's one of those things;
it's the flipside of the oil and gas conversation. It's funny; I've spent a lot
of time – and this is just sort of – you spend some time, when you talk about
that, you almost have a fear that the non-renewable people thought you were
giving up, and you're like no, we have everything. Like we're one of the only
jurisdictions, we have renewable and non-renewable, and I don't think we have to
bet on one or the other. We can bet on all.
But
absolutely, one of the driving factors on the renewable side is obviously not
just the Canadian demand, but the American demand and the global demand for
renewables, which has been expedited for multiple factors including the
geopolitical, just a whole number of things.
So
that's why we've been trying to ramp up to keep up with that, and we're actually
going to be doing our part as a department to get out there and little things,
like going to places. Coming back has been hard because you can have all the
Zooms you want, but we need to get ourselves on site. We're competing with
Quebec who have consulates in (inaudible) Washington. Alberta has their people
on the ground there. Obviously, we can't afford to do that, so we need to make
sure that we are present there, but we've had these meetings. We talk about the
US when it comes to critical minerals, actually.
J. BROWN:
Yes.
A. PARSONS:
I mean, so we're getting out
there. We need to put ourselves in the market. I think as well known as we think
it is, there's still an awareness that we need to create as a province of the
resources that are here. Truly, it sounds cliché, but it's a global market now
that we're playing ball in. The thing that's going to save us is that we have
regulatory stability. We have the ethical standards that you want. I mean, you
know what you're dealing with here in terms of a stable government, as opposed
to other jurisdictions where you don't know what you're getting into.
J. BROWN:
Yes.
A. PARSONS:
Then when you look at the
quality of the resource, it really is second to none.
J. BROWN:
That's right.
Switching gears a touch there, I know there is a current policy in government
about nuclear energy. I know that the feds have been doing a lot of research
and, I guess, shopping around with different provinces about the reactors and
small-scale reactors. Have your department had any conversations about any of
the nuclear reactors or anything like that?
A. PARSONS:
No. I can tell you – it's
funny – my colleague or counterpart in Ontario is every second day on Twitter
talking about nuclear. They bet big on that. That's not where our heads have
been. One of the things you talk about is like you can't also do everything.
J. BROWN:
That's right.
A. PARSONS:
So for us, I mean, I'm sure
we could get in that field if we wanted but I think it would dilute our ability
to do better in the other ones that I think we have more strength in. So nuclear
is not really a conversation we've been having. We've been concentrating on the
other things that we have mentioned here.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect. I just
thought I'd ask.
3.1.05,
Oil and Gas Industry Supports, I noticed that we budgeted $325 million but we
only spent $183 million and then we are planning on spending $168 million. What
is the reasoning for that?
A. PARSONS:
This is the $320-million
fund.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
The general answer is that
some of it had to be carried over because trying to get it out the door.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
One of the issues we had is
getting the funding, dealing with the feds and then we went into the world's
longest election. That delayed everything. The other thing is that the interest
in it was ridiculous. The amount of work that people like Nena Abundo and all
her team did throughout the department to go – and, again, it ranged because
there was not just – I'd say about $35 million we spent on the supply and
service side. Just the amount of interest in the $35 million that went to the
supply and service sector, you had umpteen proposals, but they ranged the
gambit. Every one was different so there was a huge amount of scrutiny.
Long
story short, some of the money is pushed and will have to be spent later on.
Craig
might be able to have a – I don't know if you want me to go further than that.
J. BROWN:
No.
A. PARSONS:
The $320 million is going to
be spent; it's just that we couldn't get it all out in the fiscal.
J. BROWN:
More of an administrative –
A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
– trying to get it out
there.
So it
is all spoken for, entirely, at this point?
A. PARSONS:
Yes. Everything is spoken
for. We used the entire fund.
The
other thing, too, is that some of the contracts we had to extend them, so I
think they have gone further on than we originally anticipated, going back to
the same delays we had.
J. BROWN:
Okay. So at this point in
time, once this is all spent, this section now will be folded, I guess, per se.
A. PARSONS:
I would say maybe there is a
placeholder.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
Right.
J. BROWN:
For future.
A. PARSONS:
Or is it? Phil, Craig, John.
J. BROWN:
Somebody.
A. PARSONS:
Perry.
C. MARTIN:
Right now, the $320-million fund was parked in here, so it is a combination, as
the minister said, of projects coming and then projects take time for people to
complete, cash flows for projects, so it is going on into this fiscal year. The
expectation is the full $320 million will be expended in this fiscal year.
But
also parked in there as well is the $6-million IBDF. That also exists in there
so that will be continuing after this years. Also this year, there is $30
million in there for the Offshore Exploration Initiative.
J. BROWN:
Okay. So it is a multi-use
fund. At this time, this is holding that money. Okay, perfect.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay. I just want to remind
the Member that his time has expired.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR:
And we will break for 10
minutes. So if we could be back around 7:15 p.m. or so.
Thank
you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Okay, if we can have Members
back in the seats, please, of both the Committee and the department, we'll get
under way.
We're
going to continue with 3.1.01 to 3.1.09 inclusive. I'll turn it over back over
to MHA Parrott.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you.
3.1.03,
C-NLOPB: Cost of the C-NLOPB is billed back to industry. Now that C-NLOPB will
regulate offshore energy and wind, who will pay for the regulation of wind?
A. PARSONS:
Good question; yet to be
figured out. Probably don't want it to be us.
I mean
that's one of the things is that there's work left to be done. There were
conversations. I think I can say that when you talk about offshore getting to
that whole jurisdictional thing, we have a desire to have full control of our
offshore renewables.
L. PARROTT:
Happy to hear that.
A. PARSONS:
That's our goal. But, at the
same time, setting up a full, new functioning board and everything else that we
have to do with it may not be a timely way to start. So this a way of going in
starting off with them, and I think there's going to be an opportunity to look
at it after a couple of years.
As for
paying that, that's one of the things we'll have to figure out, but I will say
again it's not coming out of us. That's the big thing, I think.
L. PARROTT:
3.1.06, Oil and Gas
Corporation: Under Grants and Subsidies, this year, OilCo is asking for $19
million. Do they have other revenues coming in, or how do they determine the $19
million?
A. PARSONS:
This is the seismic.
L. PARROTT:
Right, okay.
A. PARSONS:
The biggest part of that –
and again, I will defer to Craig or Perry – you'll see there that encompasses
the decrease in funding required for seismic. Other than that, I don't know what
the other changes are. There is no less requirement for them, except what went
into that.
L. PARROTT:
So I would assume that's a
decrease for seismic, specifically for vessel rental and offshore operations.
A. PARSONS:
I think it's PGS and TGS or
whatever.
L. PARROTT:
So I guess with the amount
of data being that there was so much data that we delayed our seismic, then we
probably needed more money for individuals to analyze that data. Have there been
more people hired?
A. PARSONS:
I don't know. Go ahead,
Perry.
P. TOBIN:
No, there haven't been any
more people hired. This is the existing geotechnical staff at the OilCo.
L. PARROTT:
I guess my question is: Over
the previous years we've managed to analyze that data and never had to suspend
the program again. So do we have the sufficient staff to analyze the data or
were there delays, extra data, what's …?
A. PARSONS:
So part of this decision is
not just the surplus of data. We feel we are in a good spot data and we feel we
are in a good spot analysis. But part of this pause was the fiscal realities
that we are in. So we made a decision based on putting it all together with we
got enough. We've got the ability to analyze. We certainly weren't going to have
OilCo hire more people.
And,
again, there's going to have to be a reassessment done moving forward.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
The
Labrador-Island Link is still experiencing trouble. I believe under the previous
premier was when we first started having trouble with the software and there was
a backup software option being considered at that time. Are you able to provide
any insight on that and was there another backup type option other than what GE
had considered? And are there other options under consideration?
A. PARSONS:
I'm going to throw this one
over to John because he's got more of this on the brain than anybody.
J. COWAN:
Hydro continues to work with
GE. GE is the vendor that they've chosen and they continue to work on it, so
that's really it.
A. PARSONS:
I think they have had
conversations but the cost of going elsewhere and going with another option may
not actually be a good option to go with. The cost, actually, may be more. Then
you have to deal with getting rid of one contractor even if you don't like that
contractor – getting rid of one, bringing in someone new – where does that leave
you?
Look,
it's been a pretty big conversation and it comes down to you have to trust in
the fact that we have this company and it needs to iron this out. Going
elsewhere, you might think that it might fix it, but the reality – if we've
learned anything about the entirety of the project is that nothing goes to plan.
L. PARROTT:
Is Emera using the same
software while putting power across the Gulf?
J. COWAN:
No, they are not using the same software. I mean GE, this is a purpose-built for
the Labrador-Island Link so it wouldn't be the same software used for the
Maritime Link.
L. PARROTT:
We'll continue here to talk
about developing our renewable resources like wind. Can you give some
information on what needs to happen from a legislative and regulatory
perspective before we can start up the industry? Will there be a provincial
royalty collected on wind? Will on-land wind be different than offshore? Will
there be a land sale process? And, last part of that, is there already wind
rights assigned in the province for our offshore?
A. PARSONS:
So I'll start off, but I
will toss it over to – perhaps Susan can jump in after.
So the
first thing in terms of wind rights already assigned – I just want to make sure
– that is not something that I'm aware of. Here's what I would toss out: We've
got onshore, offshore. Onshore, much easier in the sense that it's purely our
jurisdiction; we don't have to worry about it. Offshore, we're getting into the
joint management and all the fun that comes with that. Onshore, we're dealing
with Crown lands, and so that is a policy decision that we have to make.
I don't
think that it's going to require legislative change, but you get into this
conversation where okay, first-come first-served, is that the way you want to
go? Does that give us the best value? The Member for Terra Nova comes in, says
I'm first, hijacks all the land, but you might have a plan that doesn't give us
the best benefit, where you come in second and you're not as fast, but quicker
might not be better. So that's a fundamental conversation we're having. The
policy work got to be done not just here; we have to rely on Minister Bragg's
department to work on that, too. That's one of the ongoing pieces which we
expect done – I'm going to toss out four to six months.
And
going back for a second – I explained this to the media earlier – half of this
was getting out there. It's no different than, I'll give you an example, reading
allNewfoundlandLabrador the other
day, they talked about Pizza Huts opening. Pizza Hut doesn't open and say we're
open today. They've got it out there now; they're going to open in three months.
Word of mouth builds up, the costs aren't there, everything else – they've got
time to get at it.
So we
felt the same way when it came to this industry; even though we've got people
coming in, people talking to us, the reality is that number one, if we wait for
every piece of policy and legislation and everything else to be done perfectly,
we're putting ourselves later in the year. And not only that, we're stopping
ourselves from having parallel or adjacent conversations with companies that
want to come in here and do some of the work. So that's the thing.
And in
fairness, nobody's really questioned that, which is good, because I think it
makes all the sense in the world. That's one of the pieces. Then we get into the
EPCA and does that have to be amended. I don't think it has to be amended; I
mean, when you get into Bill 60, what does that entail?
So
Hydro is still going to be the domestic supplier; we're going to have to work
with them. Again, it comes down to what's your game? Do you want to get into
power purchase agreement? Do you want to get into selling to the grid? Do you
want to go into transporting offshore? Do you want to get into powering
yourself, as you mentioned earlier? And then the policy we already mentioned
there, about how do we deal with the self-production in terms of reducing your
own current. Is it a case of, well okay, you're already at 500 megawatts, you
want an extra 200, we can work with you on that, but you can't use less than
that.
I mean,
that's a consideration – no decisions made at this point. Again, we are doing
the jurisdictional scans to look elsewhere. I will say, looking at an article
over in Scotland, this is sort of an offshore thing. They're making more on
their offshore-wind sales now on the land, than they make on their oil.
That's
another thing, we have to figure out how does the offshore bid process work. To
me the guiding factor is what makes sense? What has been done elsewhere? What
gets us best value?
Royalties is another conversation that is being had. How do you apply that? How
does it work?
So lots
of different moving parts. The good news being we're not the first place to ever
do it. We've got the wind that we've already done here in the province.
Before
I finish, I don't know if Susan wants a crack at it or if I've missed anything.
S. WILKINS:
No, Minister, you definitely
haven't missed anything.
I just
want to mention that one of our focus areas in the Renewable Energy Plan is
regulatory framework. There are a number of actions this year. There are two:
the wind moratorium was the first one. The second one is to look at the EPCA.
Then we actually have multiple actions from years two to five under the
regulatory framework, if you wanted to look at the plan.
L. PARROTT:
Okay, thank you.
Last
year in Estimates, the minister indicated that there were no conversations about
selling off transmission assets. However, we know that the Greene report
suggested that as a method of raising capital. Obviously, I would assume that
the recent Rothschild report took into consideration some of –
A. PARSONS:
There you go with them
leading questions again.
L. PARROTT:
So a couple of questions:
Have you seen the Rothschild report? I know you're not going to tell me. I
guess, is there any commentary, any change in the plan for –?
A. PARSONS:
No, no change in my answers
since last year, no.
L. PARROTT:
Okay, perfect.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. Member
that his speaking time has expired.
3.1.01
to 3.1.09, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you so much.
I know
last year the provincial Renewable Energy Plan was released. So far, where are
we to on that? With our actions and everything like that, where are we to on
that one?
A. PARSONS:
Well, this is a great
opportunity for Susan, who I have to give a shout out. She's a very modest
person so she'll probably going to be extremely embarrassed. But the amount of
work that she and her team put into this to get it out, because we said very
clearly – I think you might have asked the question in the House, when we talked
about the Renewable Energy Plan, I said it's coming out in 2021; 2021 got
delayed for all kinds of reasons, but they still got it out on time, which was
awesome.
J. BROWN:
Yes.
A. PARSONS:
She would be best suited to
perhaps talk about the plan for this year and some of the targets that were
there and targets that have been hit.
S. WILKINS:
Thanks for the question.
We're
making headway with the plan. We are almost finished with our implementation
plan where we've engaged with a lot of our stakeholders. The number one thing
was the wind moratorium, which was announced this week. As the minister
mentioned, there is some follow-up policy that needs to be done over the next
few months. I can't remember how many actions are in the first year but we are
on target. I think there are around 22 but we have also added in three from
years two to three. As the plan moves forward, we are realizing that there are a
few that we need to do sooner rather than later.
J. BROWN:
Good.
S. WILKINS:
As the minister mentioned, we do have a team now in place so they're coming up
to speed.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. Thank you.
I guess
leading off that, congratulations on beating you own targets. Will the plan be
updated yearly or is it going to be more like a live document in the sense that
of your own internal targets?
S. WILKINS:
We committed to providing an update by mid-December. At that point, if we feel
it needs to be updated, we will do so.
J. BROWN:
Perfect.
S. WILKINS:
And every year after that we will provide an update as well.
J. BROWN:
Perfect.
A. PARSONS:
If I could just give it a
little bit of colour. When we did the announcement, which I think was down at
the Emera Innovation Exchange. What did it used to be called?
OFFICIAL:
The Battery Hotel.
A. PARSONS:
The Battery, there you go,
which makes sense. I never even put that together. The Battery, that's awesome.
What I
would say is that when we did the interview the media was: Well, you just got
this plan here, what's with it? We tried to explain to them, it really is a
framework. And they were like: What substance is it? So I would point out that I
am really pleased that four months in we've already moved forward to this
substance.
The
other side though, as Susan mentioned, this industry is changing rapidly. I have
no doubt that when December comes we will be moved forward, but there is no
doubt that we may have to reconsider different things that were not there in
December 2021. The other thing is that we have to adapt, not just to what the
province wants but we need to be ready to change to what the market is going to
want and what the options are in terms of globally and everything else. It is
probably going to continue on in some kind of form, but it is absolutely a
living document.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. That was all my
questions for this.
Thank
you so much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA
Parrott, anything left in 3.1.01 to 3.1.09?
L. PARROTT:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you.
L. PARROTT:
3.1.08, Grants and
Subsidies.
Can you
please outline what the $4.3 million was for and what the $3.9 million was for?
P. TOBIN:
Most of that money, by far, is for capital works at Bull Arm. So I mentioned
earlier that there was roof work and fire suppression. As well as, I guess,
access work for roofs and so on and so forth.
So that
certainly makes up the bulk, but there's also a small portion of that that's
used for hardware and software by OilCo itself.
L. PARROTT:
3.1.09 under Energy
Initiatives.
Loans:
Nalcor was looking for $250 million last years and there was $250 million in
revenue provincial to offset this. But the $250 million was not received. Why
not?
C. MARTIN:
So that $250 million had to do with anticipated revenues once the
Labrador-Island Link is completed. So, obviously, based on what everybody is
aware of is it's been put out through the Liberty reports, that hasn't happened
to date. As a result, that revenue wasn't collected last year.
L. PARROTT:
I've just got one more
question. We're back to 3.1.08. The tendering process for the roofs and all that
good stuff, does that go through Transportation and Infrastructure or is it
going directly through the department?
P. TOBIN:
It goes through public
tender.
L. PARROTT:
Through Transportation and
Infrastructure, though, or through Nalcor?
P. TOBIN:
No, it actually goes through – it went through the public tendering process from
the province. Where OilCo is owned directly by the province instead of Nalcor,
it goes directly through the public tendering process.
L. PARROTT:
Okay. Thank you.
I'm
good. No more questions.
CHAIR:
Okay. Is the Committee ready
for the question?
Shall
3.1.01 to 3.1.09 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads
3.1.01 to 3.1.09
carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the next set of subheads, please.
CLERK:
4.1.01 to 4.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.3.01
inclusive carry?
MHA
Parrott, you still have seven minutes on the clock.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you.
I guess
of note, there's been some recent announcements with the federal government
about increasing the availability of cellular and broadband Internet throughout
the province.
What's
the current coverage rate of cellular in the province? What's the current
availability of broadband in the province? Is there a yearly plan available in
terms of who will receive these services and when?
A. PARSONS:
So I have the stats here,
but I know they're burned into Gillian's brain, so Gillian can talk about what
the current access – because there's a difference between selling broadband. I'm
just thinking now highway cell coverage is like in the 65 per cent range.
Community cellphone coverage is up in high 90 per cent and 50-10 broadband. I
know the goal is to be 99 per cent by 2026. Did I get that right?
G. SKINNER:
Yes.
A. PARSONS:
Okay.
As for
year by year, or the game plan, there is still work that has to be done. I think
the feds are figuring out – am I right? When it comes to that announcement that
was just made, they're still working, I think, on finalizing the numbers with
the providers.
There's
some information we don't have because where they're still engaged in
negotiations to put out anything – if they say we're going to spend X dollars,
then we're going – so the good thing, in our opinion, is last year we put $25
million into it. So we leveraged the $20 million into $136 million from the feds
which was awesome.
I don't
know if I missed anything, Gillian?
G. SKINNER:
You were pretty right on
with your numbers there, Minister.
In
terms of broadband coverage, the 50-10 is what we've often talked about before.
That's about 73.9 per cent from the most recent CRTC data. That's about a year,
a year and half out in terms of numbers, but the coverage rate ultimately from
the federal-provincial collaboration is 100 per cent – that's what the federal
target is – by 2030 and 98 per cent by 2026. That collaboration is trying to
achieve 100 per cent of households in rural areas.
L. PARROTT:
Just one note on that. When
the announcement was made, the minister, I'm pretty sure, used the number 60,000
households in Newfoundland without Internet. That amount seems staggering to me.
If you take two people per household, that's 120,000.
A. PARSONS:
Full disclosure, I wasn't at
the announcement. I don't doubt the number you're saying but Gillian, again,
will probably have a little more insight.
G. SKINNER:
The idea of 50-10 is right
now, if you look at the province, some form of connectivity, it's actually
pretty close to 99 per cent, if it's satellite. Some people still have DSL, that
kind of thing. So when you're looking at 50-10 high-speed access, that figure of
60,000 households is something – we work with the federal government and their
department has technical expertise that does a lot of the mapping and
engineering. So there's a map actually, a public map, that you can go in and see
the different households at the granular level. That's an estimate that they've
put on that.
A. PARSONS:
If you'll indulge me, MHA
Parrott, so one of the things – this is just sort of a general comment. Again,
it's funny, because I sat on that side and I can remember there were multiple
ministers back – I mean, there was ITRD and IBRD; they've always changed over
the years. I did my job of like cell service, Burgeo Road, cell service, all
that stuff, and now that I'm in the shop – and again, I know my colleagues over
there have heard me say this on multiple occasions. The frustrating part is that
I think we did a really good job of making Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
believe that it's a provincial issue.
L. PARROTT:
I agree.
A. PARSONS:
And the fact is that it's a
federal issue, but it's one of those federal issues where we can't sit back and
say no, no, it's yours, not ours. We know that we have a role to play, but when
you talk about the CRTC, when you talk about this issue, it truly is fed
mandated. Plus, the other side is you cannot force these big telecoms – who I
don't really have a lot of love for – can't force them to do certain things.
It's
the age-old frustrating conversation that each one of us got, because you get
the one pocket on one road where somebody's call gets dropped, they say well
when are we going to get that coverage? It's like well, there is no realistic
business case in the world that says do that there. When we look at the sheer
size of our province, the actual cost I think to provide this cell service that
I think our constituents would want, ranges into the hundreds and hundreds of
millions. It's one of those things where I don't blame people for complaining,
because I've done my share of it, and I still do my share of it. But the
frustrating part is that it's completely outside our ability.
The
good news is – and I've said this to Minister Hutchings – I'm glad to see the
broadband, it's necessary and we all know that with COVID, especially we've all
had students who were having a hard time going to MUN, CNA, doing whatever. But
the cell service to me too is probably the one I get more complaints about than
the broadband.
L. PARROTT:
4.1.01 Accelerated Growth:
Last year there was a salary savings of $220,000. I just assume, again, that's a
vacancy that wasn't put over?
A. PARSONS:
Yes, that one is a variance
due to vacancies, and then the change this year, which is actually very similar
to the year before, I think there's a small $200,000 change there for like a
routine salary adjustment.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Purchased Services: Savings of $69,000, how is it achieved?
A. PARSONS:
So right here – and I think
this would apply to both. There's a small drop in Professional. There is a
bigger drop in Purchased. Both of them are budgeted at the same this year. This
was Atlantic Trade and Investment Growth Agreement missions lined up; never got
to do them; never got to do our trade shows; the client-site visit numbers
dropped. So the plan is to resume that.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
4.1.02,
Investment Attraction Fund: Last year it was generally $8 million annually but
only $6.8 million got out the door last year. Is there any particular reason why
money was left on the table?
A. PARSONS:
It's not so much a case of
it left on the table. We can't control sometimes the disbursement of it or the
collection of it or when companies want to move forward. So we've got that $8
million, we'd be happy to put the $8 million out, and in fact I'd love the day
where I've got to come in begging for $9 million. But a lot of this is outside
the control of us, and we have to deal with clients.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Under
Revenue - Provincial, there's $5.4 million. Where did that money come from?
A. PARSONS:
So it says here in my notes,
variance due to loan repayments received during the year, but I don't know if
there's a little more detail or insight. Maybe, I don't know if Phil …
P. IVIMEY:
Yes, so that revenue is related, as the minister alluded to, to various loan
payments that were received during the year, so that would be any repayments
coming back into the department from any other loans that were disbursed under
that program in previous years.
CHAIR:
I remind the Member that his
speaking time is expired.
4.1.01
to 4.3.01, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
Speaking of cell coverage, and I know it's one of those weird places where we're
actually investing into it but it's a federal jurisdiction. Is there any talk of
maybe leaning more towards more homegrown telecom companies than the big
telecos?
A. PARSONS:
So I would take a shot at
this first and then Gillian will probably come in with the right answer. I'm
willing to work with anybody, but I will say that when you're going into
competitive processes, using procurement rules, it's extremely difficult because
sometimes there's just not that competition, which when we talk about fair and
free market, it's hard to compete with the big dogs, even if you don't want to.
But you also do see an actual, significant difference in what the end cost is to
provide the service.
I
empathize with what you're saying. I have a lot of disdain towards the bigger
ones, but that's the nature of it, is that they have the capital to take out the
smaller ones; they have the capital to outbid. That doesn't mean that – again,
we go back to our small cell work that we've done; we've done multiple projects
over the last number of years. I'll point out – I mean, Eddie Joyce got me drove
nuts, because we've done one out in York Harbour and one here and there. He's
like, they're delayed, they're delayed, and it's because the provider is not
getting the work done.
But
then you have the philosophical conversation, well, what do you do? You can't
put a penalty on it. Well, you don't give it to them next time. Well, there are
not a whole lot of people in that space that are doing it.
J. BROWN:
My other reasoning is,
obviously, the cost in this province for cell service is much more expensive
than any other province right now. When you see them put up a tower that has
provincial and federal funding and then you go and look at your bill. It's a
massive amount of bill and you stop and go, we're giving them money to put up
the towers but they're charging us an arm and a leg. It's just got me and my
constituents drove absolutely nuts.
A. PARSONS:
So totally preaching to the
choir. I can give you an analogy. It's like when we put subsidies into oil
companies and then you look at what's going on there, right. It's the same
thing. It's impossible to avoid. It's ultimately maddening, frustrating and it's
one of the things that nobody likes it, but I don't know if there's a really
solid alternative.
I don't
like what Bell charges. Every one of us sees these bills we're getting, they're
crazy, but what do you do? Unless we want to set up a state-run system and then
I don't know, man, that's a –
J. BROWN:
I know it's between a rock
and a hard place, I understand that. It's just that –
A. PARSONS:
We'll see if we can Ed
Martin to run Newfoundland –
J. BROWN:
Out of all of it, it's just
really maddening. We're giving money to these large telecom companies and
they're taking our money, giving us a service that we kind of paid for through
subsidies and then they turn around and take the other half of our money.
It's
just that I wonder if there is any internal talk in your shop to say maybe we
should starting talking to more home grown to see if there is a possibility to
add competition in this market?
A. PARSONS:
So I'll give you a change of
phrase that might make you feel better. So we're not actually giving the money
to them for their bottom line. We are giving them the money to put the hardware
in place so that people can get the service up to that point, or, but for that,
they would not have. Then they bill the hell out of you and that's the part that
none of us like.
Again,
I would come back to, I would love to work with Newfoundland and Labrador
company A, that small, independent group, but there are legislation requirements
that we have to abide by. Then it comes down to what are we getting? Then the
other side, you get into sole sourcing, too. There are a whole bunch of
considerations there that you get dinged on. Then you get into, but what are we
getting out of that?
It's no
different than the one that was just announced and people said, well, what about
Starlink? How come we can't use Starlink? Well, one of the issues there is that
the upfront cost to get the equipment is getting into the $600, $700, $800
range, which people cannot afford.
Again,
it's funny; I had people message me privately on Twitter about it. To the credit
of the department, I'd said: Good question, I don't know the answer. I go to
Gillian and Gillian gets the information and I go back to these people, which is
one of the benefits, if there is any of Twitter, is that sometimes you can get a
question and an answer, even if it has to be done in a direct messages as
opposed to out there with the rest of the bots and trolls.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. I appreciate it.
I think
we had this exact conversation last year, but I have to keep bringing it up. It
is maddening to see and a lot of people do come back and say to me: Why are we
doing this? Why aren't we – everyone is upset with the big three. Everyone is
upset with how much they charge and I guess they just want to know when we give
out funding and applications are we considering alternatives, more or less.
Anyway,
thank you. I appreciate that.
Another
question I do have right now is has anyone come through business and innovation
about wind or any alternative sources looking for grants or subsidies to develop
anything in-house in this province through wind or any other renewable power
sources, like tidal or anything like that?
A. PARSONS:
Again, Gillian would
definitely have some insight on this, but a couple things. We have had people
come to us looking for that. They have to be careful because when you're talking
about multiple competing interests and putting money in a grant or into a
company. Right now, I will say when it comes to wind, there are too many to
name. Right now, we haven't put a whole lot of money into them in terms of an
investment or infrastructure because the reality is that there was no market for
that up until now with the moratorium.
J. BROWN:
Fair.
A. PARSONS:
So you can't really do that.
We have
seen – and especially the feds have played ball here – I look up in, I think it
is Mary's Harbour, the feds invested in renewable energy up there. Small-scale
renewable, I think it was through the Nunatsiavut.
J. BROWN:
Yeah.
A. PARSONS:
I think they did the project
up there. In fact, I think they did high-efficiency wood stove. So they're
willing to do that. I know that is a bit different but still they are willing to
partner there. I don't know what else.
J. BROWN:
Good. All right.
Now –
A. PARSONS:
Oh, sorry. If I could jump
in and say there are local Newfoundland and Labrador companies that have come to
us. We have invested a ridiculous amount of money into MUN and CNA in terms of
science research development, on that side.
J. BROWN:
Yeah. That is my next
question.
A. PARSONS:
So that part we have gone
pretty heavy in. Some of it through that $35 million under the $320 million.
That was for emissions reductions – well, not really emission reductions, more
jobs and it had to fit a certain criteria. Growler Energy is just one example
that got money and that is the field that they want to be in.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. That is my last
question for this section.
Thank
you so much.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank
you.
So
4.1.01 to 4.3.0, MHA Parrott.
L. PARROTT:
4.2.01, Business Analysis,
under Salaries. Last year, $1.5 million was budgeted, a little less than $1.3
spent. Again, I assume it's –
A. PARSONS:
Same as before. Variants due
to vacancies, you'll see the budget amounts in the same ballpark with the
difference being routine salary adjustment.
L. PARROTT:
Under Purchased Services
there was a $313,200 savings. How was that obtained?
A. PARSONS:
Let me see now. There was a
variance there. I think it was Investment Attraction funding that was not spent
due to COVID-19 or COVID-19 issues.
L. PARROTT:
I assume the $200,000 that
was spent was spent on Investment Attraction?
A. PARSONS:
Yes. I don't know if you
have any details on that, Gillian.
What I
will point out here, the ADM responsible for this is the one I mentioned that is
off due to illness. So I'd be more than happy, if there are details required, to
get those and provide a little more, I guess, context to that.
So no
problem getting that.
L. PARROTT:
Yeah. That's good. That's
fine.
4.3.01,
Innovation and Business Investment, Grants and Subsidies. Last year, it was
$44.8 million. Can you give some detail as to where that money was spent?
A. PARSONS:
Yeah. So that was where you
saw all of the COVID funding programs that we did – the Small Business recovery
fund and the Tourism and Hospitality Support Program. So even though that's a
program over in Steve Crocker's department, our department administered and
distributed the money.
So I
think the Small Business Assistance was $13 million and Tourism and Hospitality
Support was $15 million. So that $28 million sort of puts you up in that range.
That's where that money went and then you'll see that we're back down to normal
levels. Right now, I will say, we are doing the finalization. Where year-end
just happened, there's still some work being done on finalizing everything but
it shouldn't be huge numbers or any discrepancies, we'll say.
L. PARROTT:
Okay. I've got no more
questions.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is the
Committee ready for the question?
Shall
4.1.01 to 4.3.01inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads
4.1.01 to 4.3.01
carried.
CHAIR:
Can I have the Clerk call
the final set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
5.1.01 to 5.3.01 inclusive
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 to 5.3.01
inclusive carry?
MHA
Parrott.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you.
5.1.01,
Sector Diversification: Last year, under Transportation and Communications,
there was substantial savings in the line item; how was it achieved and can we
expect savings again this year?
A. PARSONS:
Hopefully we cannot expect
savings. That one would be a travel one as well.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Purchased Services: Last year, Purchased Services spent $1.29 million and it
looks like there was an unexpected expenditure again. Can you please provide
(inaudible)?
A. PARSONS:
It's an annual unexpected
expenditure. That's the Atlantic Cable Facility.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
Every year we don't expect
it.
L. PARROTT:
Got you – no, I got you.
Revenue, under federal, can you please explain where the $46,000 came from?
A. PARSONS:
So this one was a variance
for Canadian Safety and Security Program that was budgeted for 2021, but not
received in '21-'22. Is that right? So it's a small amount there under the CSSP.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
5.2.01,
Salaries: Again, $4.1 million was budgeted and $3.2 million spent; this one
seems to have a little bit more of variance than some of the other ones. Is that
–?
A. PARSONS:
Oh, so the Regional Economic
– the Salaries?
L. PARROTT:
Yeah, under Salaries,
5.2.01.
A. PARSONS:
So it actually is the same
thing, but I will say this one: This is our EDOs, I believe, across the
province.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
A. PARSONS:
And so even though there is
– tell me if I'm wrong – active conversation in Port Saunders, active one going
on in Labrador, active one about to be posted in Placentia, it's turnover.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, same thing, $243,000, only $85,000, but I
assume that's lack of travel.
A. PARSONS:
EDO travel mainly.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Purchased Services, the budget was $140,100 and only $60,000 spent. How was the
savings found and can we anticipate savings again this year?
A. PARSONS:
That's the work-from-home
issue again. That's the supplies that are not being –
L. PARROTT:
So do you anticipate – do
you have anybody working from home now or is it –?
A. PARSONS:
John might be able to answer
you better. I think the policy was everybody had to come back. I believe there
have been some accommodations possibly granted. John might be able to –
J. COWAN:
Just to reiterate what you
said, yes, so we've asked employees to return back to the workplace in our
department. There are a few accommodations, but not very many.
A. PARSONS:
Now I'm sort speaking off
the cuff here. Again, this may have no relevance or standing. If there is
anything COVID taught is that we could do things differently, and some of it was
positive. So I do think that we will see conversations going on, but it's not
just our department, it has to be government wide. There are people that are
more productive home. There are people that need to work home. I think it helps
us in terms – I don't want to use work-life balance, but I do want to say, when
it comes to parenting, every situation is different, so when we talk about
retention, one of the things we should look at is that.
But
that's a conversation perhaps above me. What I would say, I don't know what's
going to happen going forward, but I mean, do we need to have everybody there?
No, personally I don't think so. I think a lot of people have been getting a lot
of good work done from home, whereas we have a number of staff who have small
children, who are not getting anything done –
L. PARROTT:
I agree, yeah.
A. PARSONS:
– which is an ongoing joke
within the department.
And I'm
one of them. I can't do anything at home.
L. PARROTT:
I'm the same, and I mean for
many different reasons, some people need to go to work because of the social
aspect of it, and just from a mental health standpoint they can't be at home.
A. PARSONS:
Absolutely.
L. PARROTT:
There are lots of reasons.
5.3.01,
Comprehensive Economic Development, Grants and Subsidies: Can you please outline
where this grant money goes?
A. PARSONS:
Yeah. So this was money that
we had put forward for broadband initiative, so I think what it is – if I get
this right – so there's a $5 million variance there where we had the money but
it was carried forward. We were going to spend $20 million, pushed forward the
$5 million. When you look forward to the Estimates this year back up to $20
million, so $10 million is part of the $25 million to improve cell and broadband
over the next three years, and there's a $10 million base, which is
comprehensive economic development funding.
So I
guess the long and short of it, if I got it right, is we usually have $10
million, and then we had the $5 million there which was part of the sale, it got
pushed forward, and then you've got the $10 million going to go out the door
this year, above the usual $10 million.
L. PARROTT:
Okay.
Schedule 1 from page v of the budget outlines the net income of government
business enterprises and partnerships. It outlines $574 million in revenue from
Nalcor Energy for '22-'23. Is this oil equity investment revenue, or other
revenue? Can you please provide some insight?
A. PARSONS:
Just trying to make sure I'm
on the right page here. Where's Schedule 1 in my binder?
L. PARROTT:
It's in your Budget Speech;
it came from the Budget Speech Schedule 1 is in.
A. PARSONS:
Is that our department?
L. PARROTT:
Yeah, Nalcor. I would hope.
C. MARTIN:
I don't have the detailed
breakdown with us in terms of the revenue stream, but from a Nalcor perspective,
the primary lines of business, it would have the inclusion from the oil equity,
so that would be revenues there from that perspective. It would also include
potential revenues from Muskrat Falls, from them, from Hydro, from their entire
base of operations would make that up.
Again,
to get the details of the breakdown, that would have to be a takeaway.
L. PARROTT:
Is that information we can
get? It's a lot of money.
A. PARSONS:
What I would say to you is
if it's accessible, I don't see why we wouldn't provide it.
L. PARROTT:
All right.
No more
questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
5.1.01
to 5.3.01, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you.
The
only question I have for this section is when we talk about sector
diversification, how many projects are funded or utilized through this current
program right now in new opportunities for new industries?
G. SKINNER:
This particular division
here, this is largely the staff that are delivering the programming around
business, innovation, R & D. So under our business development, for example, we
would have had probably 150 specific projects last year. Under our Regional
Development Fund, we had about 80 projects. Some of these would vary. Under
Research and Development, we usually come in around anywhere from 30 to 40 to
50, but they're larger projects, commercial and non-commercial. That's where you
see a lot of the private sector and our public institutions or private training
institutions as well.
Together, the whole investment in business development programming is really
where you're seeing the diversity of the investments.
J. BROWN:
Perfect, that's it.
Thank
you so much for everything.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is the
Committee ready for the question?
Shall
5.1.01 to 5.3.01 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
On
motion, subheads 5.1.01 through 5.3.01 carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the totals.
CLERK:
Total.
CHAIR:
Shall the totals carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Industry, Energy and Technology, total heads, carried.
P. LANE:
Mr. Chair, (inaudible)?
CHAIR:
Yes, you do.
P. LANE:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
I certainly want to say
thank you to MHA Paul Lane for being here this evening and for his patience in
standing by. We will give MHA Lane a series of questions, with the time on the
board.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Some of
these questions have been asked so that's good. I have all general questions.
I'm not going to ask anything on the lines. The boys did all that. That's
perfect.
The
first one I'm wondering about is the contract with GE, with Muskrat Falls and so
on. So, obviously, the longer the project has continued to get delayed and delay
over delay over delay and it's not up and operating, it's costing us more money,
I guess, ultimately. So in terms of this contract, is GE just on the hook to get
their part of the work done or are they on the hook in the sense that if I
signed up a contract for you to do something for me and you're supposed to do it
and then you don't get the work done, it gets delayed and delayed, shouldn't you
be on the hook for all the delay costs or are they just simply, okay, well
you've got to keep on working at it until you get it done? But if that takes you
the next five years and we're out all this money, well, that's our problem, not
yours.
A. PARSONS:
So I'm going to toss it to
Mr. Carter, even though he's doing some work in critical minerals and mining
now, he's been heavily involved in Muskrat over the last number of years,
especially, with the Oversight Committee. So maybe you could give Paul a solid
answer to a good question.
P. CARTER:
As the minister alluded to,
while I'm in a new capacity, as well, at the Department of Industry, Energy and
Technology, I am also the chair of the Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee, which
currently, of course, is a function through Cabinet Secretariat in terms of my
duties there.
With
respect to the contract, as you're aware, it's been very challenging. There have
been significant delays in terms of the delivery of the software, but,
certainly, the company, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, is working actively
with GE in terms of keeping them working on the project and to deliver under the
contract.
Certainly, the contract itself has certain requirements and deliverables, but,
ultimately, at the end of the day, if the deliverables are not delivered, there
are certain actions that can be taken by Nalcor. But the plan right now and the
course that they're on is clearly one of working cooperatively with GE to ensure
progress – progress that is measurable. We're seeing improvements in the
software, while it has been delayed, but staying on that particular path at this
point in time.
P. LANE:
I thank you for the answer,
but I sill never got at the root of exactly what I'm trying to get at here. I
guess what I am trying to understand is, I understand what you're saying. You're
going to work with them and get it done, but the point I'm trying to make here
is that if I had a contract and it says that the work has to be done, just
random date, it has to be done January 1, 2022, that is the deal. Now, it takes
them two years to do what they're supposed to do.
It is
fine to say that we're going to hold them to account, you're not getting off the
hook until it is done, but the fact that it took you two years extra to do it
just cost us a pile of money. So my question is: Are they on the hook for that
or are we on the hook for that?
P. CARTER:
Certainly, it's a bit early at this point in time to determine what actual
outcomes might be as a result of this contract. There are certain commercially
sensitive items that we're talking about at this particular time. But,
ultimately, it is well recognized that as there are delays, there are
incremental costs, which are accruing and accruing in terms of carrying costs
associated with the Labrador-Island Transmission Link. So these are all active
items that will have to be evaluated in terms of an actual final contract
closeout in dealing with the software developer.
P. LANE:
The minister is going to add
some. Thank you.
A. PARSONS:
Perhaps what I'll do is I'll
give a general, more political, answer.
It is
extremely frustrating to inherit this issue. It is frustrating for all of us.
I'm probably not going to give you the answer you want now. What I will say is
that fixing it is like trying to change the transmission while the car is moving
forward.
I
think, right now, in order to change direction, as I mentioned earlier in the
question, it brings with it huge potential issue that may put us further back
than even what we are now. What I will say is when this is all said and done
that, yes, me and you are of like mind in that we have been saddled with this
situation. I can guarantee you, we will do everything within our ability and
within the law to ensure that as little of it rests on our shoulders as
possible. That is probably the best that I can say right now.
P. LANE:
Okay. I am kind of reading
between the lines so I am not necessarily – not with you but I am not liking
what the implications seem to be in my mind here.
We
still have issues as well with the synchronous condensers and so on, so the same
question, I suppose, is that something that, again, if you contract somebody
out, I'm assuming it was contracted out to whoever to do it and they do it
wrong, or it's faulty parts, or faulty engineering, or whatever the case might
be, are there safeguards that any costs that are delaying everything and costing
us money is on them, not on us? Or did we fail to have that in the contracts to
protect consumers?
P. CARTER:
So, certainly, there were challenges identified with respect to vibration
associated with the various synchronous condensers. You would have heard lots of
public information about that challenge. The company that was working, of
course, was GE on the synchronous condensers, but a different company than GE
working on software. So the company did propose a solution to deal with the
vibration issues and remediation, and that solution has been deployed in terms
of doing the work with the synchronous condensers.
Certainly, in terms of contracts related to the synchronous condensers, there
are performance guarantees, overhauls and maintenance activities that are
associated with the condensers. So, certainly, there are provisions that, if,
for some reason, the elliptical bearing design does not prove to be a
satisfactory outcome in terms of the performance of the synchronous condensers,
there are avenues in which GE has to deal with ensuring performance under that
arrangement.
P. LANE:
So the solutions that you're
saying that they have for the synchronous condenser, they've had to do extra
work and all that, all that extra work, though, we're not paying them extra
money to do that extra work, are we?
P. CARTER:
No, so the costs associated with issues with respect to synchronous condensers
and remediation are costs that were borne by the contractor.
P. LANE:
Okay. Thank you, I
appreciate that.
Sticking to, I guess, Muskrat Falls implications, backup at Holyrood, or
Holyrood being a backup I suppose, where are we to on that? I mean, one of the
big selling features at the time that we were all told was that we're going to
get rid of Holyrood. Now, that's very questionable, or at least that's my
interpretation, that it's very questionable.
And, of
course, now there's been some points raised, and again you hear stuff on social
media, in the media, so to some degree you don't know what to believe and what
not to believe to be honest with you. But questions about the transmission lines
and were they built to the proper standard to handle the ice load and so on and
everything else. What happens if they fail? Are we all going to be left in
darkness or are we going to need to continue to have Holyrood?
The
question is: Will we need to continue to have Holyrood? If the answer is yes, is
the plan to continue to burn Bunker C, or is that going to have be something
we're going to have to look at doing something different?
A. PARSONS:
So again, when you talk
about the gift that keeps on giving, Holyrood right now is still necessary. I
think it's up to 2024. Although I think in one of the plans that they put
forward, the year “2030” was even in the mix there. I think that's what was
brought up.
So the
reality is, with the LIL not being reliable yet, you need that or else we put
ourselves in a DarkNL situation. It defeats the whole purpose of what me and you
spent a hell of a lot of time in this House debating, which was going to shut
that down, get off Holyrood and everything is great and wonderful. The reality
is that's not happening any time in the next couple of years because of all the
issues you brought up in your first couple of questions, amongst more, and just
the line itself.
Number
one, no, the plan is not to keep it any longer than is absolutely necessary. But
I don't think there's a desire amongst anybody to trade that off and risk
reliability that it brings with it. Having been through DarkNL, I don't think
there's a desire for anybody to risk that again. That's one of the issues, even
when we talk about – this is an issue we're dealing with up in Labrador, when
you talk about the South Coast and the diesel and all that conversation, was
let's do it all renewable. Well, reliability is an issue there, too. That's one
of the things we have to worry about is do we want to – yeah, let's all be green
and renewable, but what's the good of any of it if you can't afford it and it
doesn't stand up to the pressures?
So
coming back to the next part, I don't know if a refurb of Holyrood, changing
from Bunker C is in the cards. I think that would be probably a ridiculous,
ridiculous cost. Perhaps I'm wrong. Right now it has to remain status quo,
defeating the purpose of the original scheme in the first place. Did I miss
anything there?
P. LANE:
Sounds about right to me,
Minister.
So,
Minister, I'm just wondering on that point, what is the backup plan then? I know
you're saying we have to have more confidence in the Labrador-Island Link with
synchronous condensers, and all that stuff, GE, all got to do – assume that all
gets worked out. Is there a concern – because we were told originally don't
worry, the lines are going to hold up and so on, but I've certainly heard things
saying that maybe the lines that were supposed to be built at a certain capacity
and strength may not be top-notch the way it was supposed to be. There were at
different levels, I guess, and they didn't go with the very highest standard;
they went with maybe a bit of a lower standard.
So if
we got all this figured out, shut down Holyrood and, for argument's sake, a
bunch of the poles all crack off and so on with ice and whatever – is that a
reality, or are we confident that's not going to happen. And if it did happen,
what would we do for power? What would be the backup? Or is there any backup?
A. PARSONS:
So as John mentioned, this
is something that's being considered by the resource adequacy study that's
before the PUB. All this is stuff that the PUB as a regulator is tasked with
looking at and determining whether something – can it stand up to the rigours of
it?
I don't
know what else to say there except that's something that's ongoing work right
now.
J. COWAN:
Absolutely. I mean the full system is being reviewed, the PUB, the Consumer
Advocate, all the people who normally intervene. As the minister said, he's spot
on pretty well with everything that he said in terms of Holyrood and reliability
and determining that what's going to come across the LIL, how much power is
going to come across the LIL, how much do we need Holyrood, are there other
sources of power that we need, is it Bay d'Espoir, so all that's going to be –
and if there's less power coming across the line and there's less losses on the
line so there's more power in Labrador. So all this stuff is all in this great
big cake, and I guess the PUB hopefully is going to bake it and we'll get
something good out of it.
P. LANE:
I hope so.
CHAIR:
Minister, if you just want
to finish it off there now, please.
A. PARSONS:
Yeah, just to sort of follow
up on that, if there's something that gives me comfort, it's that we do have an
oversight committee of non-partisan individuals looking at this – regular
reports, scrutiny. You've got someone like Dennis Browne, a known critic of the
project serving as Consumer Advocate. Say what you want about him, but he knows
the stuff and he speaks up about it, and we're listening.
I mean,
we all know that this kind of scrutiny wasn't there when the thing was
concocted. Now it's a situation of we're trying to deal with what was left, but
I'd like to think that there's more openness to all these possible issues as
opposed to before, which was, no, it's all going to be fine – it's all going to
be fine.
I hope
there's not a situation where we've got cracked-off poles and this and that. But
it's not for lack of people that are examining it and trying to come up with the
best system possible, dealing with all these continuing, recurring and
concurrent issues.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
Just
going to turn it back over to MHA Parrott for some closing remarks.
A. PARSONS:
If I could jump in?
CHAIR:
Yes.
A. PARSONS:
Given that you waited 2½
hours, did you have a closing question or anything, Paul? Is there anything
else? I can't believe I'm asking this.
P. LANE:
No, I don't. I can't believe
you are either.
A. PARSONS:
It's just like at the end of
Question Period; are you guys done? Sure.
P. LANE:
I'll give you one more
question. There's a lot, I guess, I could ask. But I'm just wondering in general
sense, I suppose, about the issue of the Atlantic Accord and just some
commentary on that, in the sense that I was of the belief, and I think a lot of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were of the belief that under the Atlantic
Accord we basically had sole rights to be the sole beneficiaries of our
resources, our oil resources and so on, that are out there. We went through an
environmental assessment process, which is required, on the Bay du Nord Project.
Even
when that came back, that it would have no – I can't remember the exact words,
but no major impact on the environment, I'll put it that way, for lack of the
exact terms. Still ended up having to go to Ottawa. There were still all these
delays and everything else. I guess I'm just wondering and a lot of people were
wondering has the Atlantic Accord in any way been compromised with the
negotiation that happened there, I don't know about a year or so ago, when we
got the Hibernia shares, and they were talking about there's a committee making
some tweaks to the Accord – do we still have those same rights?
If we
have another oil discovery tomorrow, can the feds do the same thing and we're
going to be here holding our breath and hoping that, even if it's the best
project in the world, and it meets all the standards like Bay du Nord did, that
we're still going to be at the whim of some federal minister from some other
province, who may be a Sierra Club member, whatever he is, he goes home every
night and he hugs a seal or whatever he does – are we going to be at their whim
forever or does the Atlantic Accord, in your view, should that protect us? If
they so no, could we challenge it and say I don't care what you say we're doing
it anyway?
A. PARSONS:
So again this is –
P. LANE:
A mouthful I know.
A. PARSONS:
– more of a general answer.
What I would say is that I've heard the same thing: compromised, everything
else. My answer is I don't think it has but the only way – when you talk about
the Atlantic Accord, it's like any piece of legislation in that if a party feels
aggrieved by the other party to the contract, you have the ability under
legislation to take action for that. Thankfully, in this situation, because
again if the wrong decision came, there's a speculation or a hypothetical
conversation we might be into right now, but I get your point. The reality is
that we're always going to be in, as we deal with federal partners, regardless
of stripe here and regardless of stripe there, conversations where people have
different interpretations of how things apply and how they should apply.
What I
would say is that for all those that want to go to court and fight it out and
everything else, sometimes there is a time to be practical and pragmatic and
diplomatic. I do think that is what happened here. The conditions that came with
it – and again, this is not a defence of the federal government, this is just my
take on it.
P. LANE:
I understand, yeah.
A. PARSONS:
The conditions are fine, no different than when Marathon got out of the
environmental assessment here. They have conditions that they must abide by,
which is how part of that works.
I think
the bigger thing here is that there is a philosophical conversation going on up
there based on this particular government's views and that's always going to
change. If the federal NDP get in charge, if the federal Bloc get in charge, if
the federal Conservatives get in charge, we may face different issues on
different legislation that affects us negatively or some that will affect us
positively. So it comes down to that working relationship.
In this
case, it worked out well; everything is great. That doesn't mean things are
peachy keen. I mean, I am ticked off that we had to wait four months for this.
P. LANE:
It would be nice to have
certainty, Minister. I guess my point is that it would be nice to have
certainty. We know the rules of the game and as long as the standards are met,
then we move on.
A. PARSONS:
I would say it's hard to
find certainty in an uncertain world. The reality is that there is too much
change here when we talk about humans and personalities and ideology and thought
process. We're never going to get certainty and I don't think that is ever going
to change. If anything, I think it will get more exasperated as we move forward
in an increasingly polarizing world of nobody can be in the middle anymore:
You're this or you're that.
P. LANE:
It's true.
A. PARSONS:
You're left or you're right:
Republican, Democrat.
Now,
we're getting into a conversation where we should have a few beer, but you get
what I'm saying.
P. LANE:
I'm up for that, too.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister, and
thank you, MHA Lane.
I'll
just turn it back over for some closing remarks from MHA Parrott.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd
like to highlight that I learned a couple things here today. One of the first
things is that I would much sooner sit across from the crowd that is here
tonight than the crowd that was here this morning. I say that in a very
complimentary way.
Before
I came in here this morning, I was on
Open Line and I was talking about competencies of a minister. I believe he's
a very competent minister and he's doing a very good job. I said that very
openly to Paddy.
I'll
say this is my third or fourth time in this particular set of Estimates because
I have attended them all in the past and second time with the minister. What I
did learn here tonight is that a lot of his core competencies comes from the
group that is in this room and you are all to be commended for it. You guys did
a spectacular job and your knowledge and your ability to communicate shone
through here tonight. I really appreciate your candor and how you address the
issues. So hats off to all of you.
I'd
also like to thank everyone from the Resource Committee and certainly the staff
and the people that showed up here tonight. This is my passion and while he
didn't think it was his passion a few months ago when he switched portfolios, he
does now. I can guarantee you that.
I look
forward to working with you guys in the future. I thank you again for everything
that you put forth tonight.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Parrott.
MHA
Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
I agree
with my colleague there. I'm very pleased with all of the outcomes and stuff
there. I'm really pleased with everyone that's over there and all of the great
answers and indulging me in a few things. I really appreciate your time and your
dedication to your roles and stuff. You all seem very passionate, each about
your own portfolios. Even a side conversation I had with some of the people
there when we took a break, it was very enlightening. I do thank you all for
that.
I do
thank Minister Parsons for – you know, he seems to really enjoy a lot of stuff
that's going on right now. So I agree with him there and I do thank him. It's
nice to see that a lot of our resources and stuff are moving in the right
direction now. So I do thank you and I appreciate each one of you over there. I
can't wait for next Estimates, next year.
CHAIR:
Minister, would you like to
have a final word?
A. PARSONS:
Yes, please.
Just
thank you to everybody in the room. I've been through enough of these to know
that some of them are extremely dry, boring, really painful, especially for the
people sitting in the back that got to watch. I'd like to think that what you
heard from the team around me tonight was of interest. This Estimates could have
went really sideways if we stuck to line by line because it's not that much meat
there, but it's the public policy conversation that is really interesting.
You
guys get to see it tonight. I get to see it every day. I mean, the depth of
questions you went into. Do you think I'm going to answer some of this stuff on
all of these subjects? It's because I'm surrounded by awesomeness. I'll say, if
I have a strength it's that I fully believe that to know when to sit back and
let them talk about something that I'll never know as much about as they have
put into it.
That
leads to a better outcome for everybody here. It leads to people asking better
questions; people having better ideas of where we stand on things. So it's a
great process. I hate the rest of the budget because it's a lot of foolishness.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
A. PARSONS:
Well, it is, but this is a
good, good thing here for everybody.
So
thanks to my team for sitting here on a Thursday night. Thanks to you guys for
sitting here on a Thursday night. We could all be doing other things, but I
think this is a really good move. Thanks to the Table staff. Thanks to our
sergeant.
On this
note guys, look, after these Estimates, it all goes downhill, sorry John, sorry
Pam.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
Anyway,
I, too, want to just take an opportunity to thank the Resource Committee and
thank the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology, and all the staff here
as well.
My
partner here tonight is Kim Hammond. She's put a lot of time into just the prep
work to get the Estimates under way. I want to thank her. If the rest of them go
as smooth as what this has gone tonight, I'll be quite happy.
So with
that, we'll say that our next meeting of the Resource Committee is on Tuesday,
April 12, at 9 a.m., where we will entertain the Estimates of Tourism, Culture,
Arts and Recreation.
With
that, I would ask for a motion to adjourn.
L. STOYLES:
So moved.
CHAIR:
So moved by Lucy.
Meeting
adjourned.
Thank
you.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.